Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

My hope is that every MP, particularly in areas where this expert research is showing the changes will have the most serious impact, knows what is happening and who will be affected. That is what levelling up means, and it also means addressing these issues. As the Nuffield Trust has summed up, the Government have an opportunity to make real changes to the broken social care system. The cap is not the solution to all the problems but as one component it is important that it is designed to be as fair as possible and protect those with the least. I will move Amendment G1 and test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in very much welcoming my noble friend’s introduction to her amendment, I refer to Motion A, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks and to which he has brought Amendment 11A in lieu. This relates to potential conflicts of interests within membership of committees or sub-committees appointed to exercise commissioning functions on behalf of integrated care boards. This is important because those committees will form the basis for what is widely described in the NHS as place-based decision-making.

The Minister in Committee—which must seem a long time ago to him—referred to his hope

“that the ICB will exercise functions through place-based committees, where a wider group of members can take decisions”.—[Official Report, 20/1/22; col. 1852.]

This was in relation to the series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about primary care and the need for it to be round the table. I see the potential of that, but as they are given increased responsibilities, there are questions about how placed-based committees are to be held to account. It is important that they are transparent, have robust governance arrangements in place and are properly held to account. Equally important is to ensure that potential conflicts of interest are avoided —particularly that members with private sector interests who could undermine the independence of decision-making should not be appointed to such bodies.

I welcome the Minister’s amendment in lieu but there are a couple of points I want to raise with him. First, in Lords Amendment 11, to which the Commons disagreed, there is in proposed new subsection (c) a reference to members of a committee or sub-committee of the integrated care board obtaining

“information that might be perceived to favour the interest or potential interest”

of that member. However, in the noble Lord’s amendment in lieu there is no reference to access to information which could undermine the independence of the health service. Is this point regarding information implicit within his own amendment? Can he assure us that the issue must be covered when each ICB sets up its governance arrangements?

I also want to ask him about the chair of an integrated care board committee or sub-committee. His Amendment 11A follows the approach of the Bill and prohibits the chair of an ICB appointing someone who would undermine the independence of the health service. Can the Minister confirm that no chair would be appointed if they were also someone who would undermine the independence of the health service because of their involvement with the private healthcare sector?

I conclude by reiterating to the Minister that there are clearly more general conflicts of interest within integrated care boards that are going to prove challenging in the future. With NHS healthcare providers playing an increasing role in the commissioning and funding of local services through ICBs, there is a blurring of the line between those procuring a public service and those being paid to deliver it. It is very likely that conflicts of interest issues will emerge, with decisions potentially taken to benefit providers, with limited due process and transparency.

It is vital that, alongside the Bill, there are very strong governance arrangements to ensure that ICBs and their committees and sub-committees make decisions in the best interests of local populations. I hope the Minister agrees.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to express support for the Motion in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench but principally to comment on Motion E. I know that the Minister and his officials listened carefully and took note of the strength of feeling about unpaid carers expressed on all sides of your Lordships’ House in Committee and on Report. I am most grateful for that strength of feeling and the wise advice given by this House, which has resulted in what I would describe as a satisfactory outcome in the form of a new amendment.

The other place has replaced the amendment passed by a large majority in your Lordships’ House and put forward its own, which was accepted there and brought to us today. I am most grateful to the Minister and all his officials for the work that they have put into drafting this amendment, and for the understanding shown for the position of unpaid carers and the importance of involving patients and carers in discharge planning, as soon as is feasible in that process.

I seek the Minister’s further assurance on a couple of other points. The first is that parent carers are not excluded when a disabled child is discharged from hospital. This is referred to in the guidance when their own discharge is happening but not when the child they care for is being discharged. We need to ensure that services across different disciplines are married up. I know that other Lords and colleagues will be seeking assurances about this and about young carers.

My second point is that the guidance contains references to checking that a carer is willing and able to care. I hope that the Minister may be able to enlarge on this a bit. There will be occasions when the carer’s own situation makes caring impossible: they may simply be too ill to take on the responsibility, for example, however willing they may be. We need to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear in such a situation and that no assumptions are made in the discharge process about the carer’s ability. We have all seen too many examples of where this was not acknowledged, inevitably leading to the readmission of the patient.

We all seek to make hospital discharges as safe and efficient as possible, while not exerting undue pressure on the most important components: the patient and their carers. Of course, we shall need to monitor carefully how the guidance is applied, and we have to be sure too that carers are informed about their rights. I hope that the Minister’s department will promote suitable publicity as the reforms are implemented. I assure him that I, Carers UK and, I am sure, other Peers will be constantly on the case to ensure that carers and patients can trust the discharge system to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Motion D1. It is straightforward and I need not detain the House long. We all know the situation in Xinjiang province; it has been set out in graphic detail in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others.

In recent years, the Government have procured billions of pounds’ worth of medical equipment sourced in whole or in part from Xinjiang. Despite widespread reports of forced labour in that region, our supply chain laws have failed to prevent such procurement. The Government have repeatedly condemned China over its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province and has imposed sanctions in response to its human rights abuses. Indeed, my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary said that torture “on an industrial scale” was happening there. Then the new Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Liz Truss, told our ambassador to China that China was committing genocide—at last someone in the FCDO was admitting the truth. Everyone knows that it is genocide. The independent Uyghur Tribunal, the US Government, our own Parliament and five other Parliaments determined it.

However, every time we try amendments, however modest, on trade with companies using slave labour in Xinjiang, the Government throw a wobbly if we use the word “genocide” and give the usual, simply unbelievable answer that only a court can pronounce on that, despite there being no court capable of holding China to account. There have been an awful lot of government pronouncements in the past two days about Putin and Russia committing war crimes and atrocities, and rightly so, but there has been no suggestion of a court needing to pronounce on that. However, let us park all that.

The Government will not accept any amendment which remotely hints at genocide. So my amendment does not seek to go there. Instead, it uses the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which is already on the statute book. We sent a simple, three-section amendment to the Commons: first, to make regulations ensuring that the DHSC did not buy goods and services from a country which may be in contravention of the genocide convention; secondly, a Minister should assess whether there was a serious risk of genocide; and, thirdly, a Minister had to make that assessment if a chair of a Select Committee requested it. That was rejected in the Commons and the Government gave us back the complicated and rather complex Amendment 48A in lieu. As we see from the government amendment, the Secretary of State would have to carry out a review in case there was slavery and human trafficking. He would determine the scope of the review and what parts of the NHS it might apply to. Then he must lay it before Parliament within 18 months and give his own views on how he would mitigate it.

My amendment combines that government review amendment with a simple one-line clause. This one-line amendment was moved in another place by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith MP and was supported by all Opposition Front Benches and Conservatives who included the former Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt MP, and the latterly Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland MP. In the other place this simple amendment was rejected by my honourable friend Ed Argar MP. Now Ed Argar is a good Minister but someone drafting his speech obviously found an old “Yes Minister” script and wrote a classic Sir Humphrey response:

“In developing the modern slavery strategy review, it will continue to be important to engage across Government and civil society, nationally and internationally, to collect the necessary evidence to agree an ambitious set of objectives … We remain of the view that this is not the right legislation for the proposed changes.”


Can your Lordships not just hear Sir Humphrey adding, “A very courageous decision, Minister”?

Well, the right time is right now and the right legislation is this Bill. Of course, the Government always have a better Bill coming along in the future. The government amendment in lieu relies on the Modern Slavery Act, and so does mine, and while I criticise the obfuscating waffle of the government amendment in lieu, I am not attempting to replace it or reject but will support it. I am merely adding a one-line sentence to it. It is simple and does what the Minister in the other place said the Government wanted; that is, to

“further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to exclude suppliers from bidding for contracts where they have a history of misconduct—or extreme misconduct in the case of slavery, forced labour or similar.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/22; cols. 926-27.]

Ignoring the fact that genocide and slavery are a wee bit worse than misconduct, my amendment gives the Department of Health and Social Care the opportunity to desist from buying goods and services from anywhere practising modern slavery.

I do not blame those involved in procurement for the sorry fact that slave-trade goods have entered our supply chains. Those working in the Cabinet Office, NHS procurement and the Department of Health have worked jolly hard in very difficult circumstances over the past few years. The fault is not theirs. We clearly need better tools to keep slavery out of our supply chains and this neat little amendment would allow the Government to do exactly that.

We do not need to engage the whole of government, nor civil society here and abroad. After all, Dominic Raab has just cancelled a contract for solar panels on prisons because parts were made in Xinjiang province, and I am certain that he did not consult civil society here or overseas before doing so. If the Secretary of State for Justice can make that unilateral decision, so can the Department of Health and Social Care. Nor need we worry that we will be deprived of essential PPE from Xinjiang. On 31 March, I found the following announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care:

“Personal protective equipment for sale by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) including visors, gowns, aprons and goggles”,


alongside a link to a site listing:

“Various Locations - Online Auction of Pallets of New PPE Equipment to include Gowns, Visors, Goggles, Sanitizer & Aprons - NO RESERVE!”


Let us be honest: the DHSC is the Government’s biggest procurer and happens to be the department with the biggest problem. More than any other department, it needs extra help to keep slavery away. I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister has said, but in view of the fact that the Government will not support my amendment, I regret that I shall have no option but to test the opinion of the House in due course.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said. I find it extraordinary that the Government are taking such a slow pace in relation to the important issue he raises. Of course, I relate it to my own amendments on forced organ harvesting, which is yet another example of the deplorable behaviour of the Chinese authorities. I refer the House to the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice in 2019, which stated:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”


Current human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants. My amendment, which the House accepted, went to the other place. It was not accepted there but, as the Minister has kindly said, the Government put in their own amendment in lieu which we see here this afternoon. I am very grateful to the Minister for this. The impact of the Government’s amendment is to ensure that offences under Section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, which currently prohibits people in this country from commercial dealings in human material for transplantation, will now be extended to acts outside the United Kingdom. The amendment covers people who give or receive a reward for the supply or for an offer to supply an organ or any controlled material. That is very welcome indeed. It is welcome because it deals with a gap in UK legislation, but it is especially welcome because it sends a powerful message internationally that the UK will not be complicit in this appalling crime. I am very grateful to the Minister and very much support the amendment he brings.

I now turn to my Amendment 57B, set out in Motion F1, which relates, as the Minister said, to issues to do with patient data and the proper protection of it. Laid out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the concept of a safe haven for patient data across health and social care. Because of the sensitive nature of that data, I sought, and the House agreed, to keep those statutory protections in place and not allow NHS England to take on that responsibility because of a potential conflict of interest in that role.

The issue arises because, last November, the Secretary of State announced that NHS Digital and NHSX would merge with NHS England to accelerate the digital transformation of the NHS. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to do this by the transfer of a function from one relevant body to another. NHS Digital is currently the statutory safe haven for patient data and my concern is whether it is appropriate to place that responsibility in NHS England, in view of the inherent conflict of interest that might occur in its wider role. As a matter of principle, I and a number of other noble Lords consider that the collection, analysis and publication of public data should be independent of any operational body. In effect, NHS England will be able to decide that its legitimate interests override those of the citizen and the patient, with little or no external constraint or scrutiny.

The noble Lord and I are at one in wanting to speed up digital transformation. I will set out what I am trying to do here, with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We are trying to be helpful. We want to make sure that the integrity of the safe havens is retained within this digital transformation. As the noble Lord said, we have had an extremely useful discussion with officials who are leading this programme in the department. I hope the Minister will be able to offer assurances that the integrity of the safe haven concept will be retained; that no transfer will take place until those safeguards are fully set out in the regulations necessary to bring the transfer into force; and, in particular, that strict governance arrangements will be put in place, subject to external independent scrutiny and oversight established on a statutory basis.

Can the Minister also confirm that the merged entity will at the least maintain the status quo of transparency and, indeed, go further for the patients whose data it is and whose trust and confidence are so necessary? Can he further confirm that a data usage register will be published which covers all projects accessing patient-level data and shows which data was accessed? Will the National Data Guardian be consulted on all this before the Government progress the regulations? Finally, will the Minister ensure that the regulations will avoid the need for NHS England—this was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—to be in the difficult position of sending legal directions to itself, and can he say how in practice this would work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment J1, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I also join him in thanking my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Kamall, the two Ministers involved, for their engagement with movers of the amendment on Report and for the genuine attempt they made to seek agreement to narrow the small gap between the Government’s position and ours—an attempt which, I fear, was blocked by HM Treasury.

On this subject, on Report, my noble friend Lord Howe said:

“Our strong preference is to continue with high tobacco taxation and excise as the best means and the most efficient process through which to generate revenue that can be put back into public services.”


I wish I shared his optimism, given the current pressure on the public purse and the recent experience with the levelling-up White Paper, published in February. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that

“the White Paper contains no new funding; instead, departments will be expected to deliver on these missions from within the cash budgets set out in last autumn’s Spending Review. Departments and public service leaders might reasonably ask whether those plans match up to the scale of the government’s newfound ambition—particularly in the face of higher inflation.”

The same is true for tobacco control. Even before the rise in inflation, budgets for tobacco control and smoking cessation had been cut by a third since 2015. Already by 2019, it was clear that the Treasury’s claim that the tax system would provide funding for tobacco control was misplaced. That is why, when the Government announced the smoke-free 2030 ambition in 2019, they also promised to consider a polluter pays approach to funding tobacco control and smoking cessation, which is the substance of the amendment before your Lordships this evening.

On Report, my noble friend Lord Howe said:

“The proposal may look simple on the surface but it is complex to implement. It may also take several years to materialise.”


Our proposals build on the pharmaceutical pricing scheme operated by the Department of Health, which is a far more complex industry with far more complex products. If the Department of Health can successfully run a scheme for pharmaceutical products—an industry and set of products that are complex and evolving—I fail to see why it cannot operate such a scheme for cigarettes. These are simple, commodity products produced by an oligopolistic industry, with four main manufacturers responsible for more than 95% of sales.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who I am pleased to see in his place, said on Report that

“if it is deemed appropriate to have a form of price and profit regulation for the medicines industry, which delivers products that are essential and life-saving, it does not seem too far a stretch to think that an equivalent mechanism might be used for an industry whose products are discretionary and life-destroying.”—[Official Report, 16/3/22; cols. 294-98.]

I agree. However, I also accept that further investigation of our proposals would be needed, which is precisely why a consultation without commitment is the appropriate way forward, as the all-party parliamentary group’s amendment proposes.

I hope that, even at this late stage, my noble friend might demonstrate some flexibility in order to try to bridge the narrow gap between the Government’s position and that in the amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his amendment. My noble friend Lord Faulkner would of course have been in his place to speak in favour, but he is unable to be here, so perhaps I may make a few remarks which I think he might have made.

Going back to Report, the Minister suggested that the tobacco industry is already required to make a significant contribution to public finances through tobacco duty, VAT and corporation tax. But I do not think that states the case as accurately as possible, because we know that tobacco manufacturers are skilled at minimising the amount they pay. For example, between 2009 and 2016, Imperial Brands, the British company that is market leader in the UK, received £35 million more in corporation tax refund credits than it paid in tax. The largest amount of tax collected by the Government comes from excise tax and VAT. This, of course, is not paid by the manufacturer; it is passed on to the consumer. That was a point HM Treasury made in 2015, when the Government consulted but, alas, decided not to put an additional tax on tobacco products to pay for tobacco control.

My understanding is that, in total, smokers spend nearly £11 billion on tax-paid tobacco products, more than three-quarters of which goes to the Government in taxes. We know that the majority of smokers are not well off; they often suffer multiple disadvantages. We must compare that huge tax take with the pitiful amount that is actually spent by the Government encouraging people to stop smoking. It is certainly not enough to make England smoke-free by 2030.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s introductory remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, objected to the terms of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because, he said, the independent review had not yet reported and therefore we were seeking to pre-empt what the review will say. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, responded to that incredibly well. I do not think he is seeking to pre-empt the review; his amendment asks the Government to consult on recommendations in the review if the Secretary of State thinks that it is required. It is left entirely in the Secretary of State’s hands to act according to whether he or she considers that the recommendations should be consulted on.

This is a sensible amendment, it points us in the right direction, and I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers may be sympathetic.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly in his introductory remarks, he was saying that the Government’s case against the amendment is that they do not want to consult on something to which they are not already committed. So what is the point of consultations if they are only on things to which the Government are already committed? Should the Government not consult on what they might do, and take into account the opinions of experts and others?

Amendment 85B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has the support of these Benches. It is in accordance with my party’s policy but, more importantly, it is essential to the Government’s stated objective of reducing the prevalence of smoking to below 5% by 2030. The amendment does not require the Government to do anything that they do not want to do; it just asks them to consult on something which they have said that they would consider—namely, to make tobacco companies pay more towards helping save and prolong the lives of their customers.

Last year, I found myself outside the HQ of British American Tobacco. It is an enormous headquarters: it looked like a palace of which any Russian oligarch would be proud. This company makes huge profits that could be diverted towards ameliorating the damage done by its products. The amendment would mean taking action to help people live longer and more healthily, with fewer families living in poverty because of smoking.

I expect we will have more warm words from the Minister and from the Department of Health and Social Care, but I believe that Parliament wants to adopt the polluter pays principle in relation to tobacco. So I end with a quote from a great parliamentarian, John Pym, who, in 1628—I am sorry that I do not have the Hansard reference—said: “Actions are more precious than words”.

Care Homes: Evicted Residents

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the annual numbers of care home residents (1) evicted, (2) threatened with eviction, or (3) facing a visiting ban, following complaints against the care home.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

It is unacceptable for a care home to punish a resident for raising concerns. This would be a breach of existing regulations, and the CQC will investigate any such cases. Although the Government do not collect figures on this, the CQC collects data on care home evictions and seeks assurances that visits are allowed by care homes on an ongoing basis. We are exploring ways to improve the complaints system and the quality of care.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, may I urge the Minister to do even more than he suggested today? We know that some care homes are still being very highly restrictive on visits. The Alzheimer’s Society, the Relatives and Residents Association and other organisations report that many relatives are frightened to go through the homes complaints system for fear of reprisals such as visit bans, or even evictions in the most extreme cases. The CQC will not investigate specific complaints. Will he change that policy and give support to relatives who wish to make legitimate complaints?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. I am sure he will recognise, from when we have worked together on a problem, that the first question I ask officials is: what is the problem and what are we doing about it? When I asked this question, I found that my colleague Gillian Keegan, Minister for Care and Mental Health, has met relatives and residents’ associations to hear directly about their experiences and focus on how we could strengthen the CQC role. In addition, in the Living with Covid-19 strategy, we are reviewing a range of measures in place for homes, including visitor restrictions. The updated position will be set out in guidance by 1 April. We are encouraging representatives, patients and patients’ groups to come forward and feed into that.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

116: Clause 92, page 86, line 30, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section may not transfer a function as defined in Part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.”Member’s explanatory statement
Part 9, Chapter 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 lays out the safe haven for patient data across health and social care, required for national statistics, for commissioning, regulatory and research purposes, and for patient care. The amendment seeks to keep these statutory protections in place and ensure that NHS England do not take on this responsibility because of a potential conflict of interest in their role.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we debated this amendment on patient security of data last week. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

The amendments in this group that are in my name would remove Part 4 in Schedules 13 to 15 of the Bill, all relating to HSSIB. I am very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for their engagement with me and other Members of the House on these amendments. An alternative, narrower amendment—Amendment 124 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—would simply remove the permission of HSSIB to disclose protected material to coroners.

The basis for these amendments can be stated in four words: it will not work. The safe space within which HSSIB is intended to operate cannot work because, under the provisions of the Bill, HSSIB responds to specific incidents which have, or may have, implications for the safety of patients. Those same incidents may be the subject of an inquest, and senior coroners are entitled under Schedule 14 to require the disclosure by HSSIB of protected material if it is relevant to the investigation being undertaken by the coroner. Once the coroner has that material, he or she is in practice bound to disclose it at the inquest, and the High Court will inevitably order such disclosure if it is relevant to one or more of the questions that the inquest is required by statute to resolve—in particular, in the present context, if it is relevant to deciding how the deceased died. That is because, in the words of a leading Court of Appeal case, the duty of the coroner is

“to ensure that the relevant facts are fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated”

and

“are exposed to public scrutiny”.

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human rights does not add materially to the intensity of that investigatory duty of coroners which already exists under our domestic law. The materiality of Article 2 is only that it imposes the obligation not merely to decide by what means the deceased came to his or her death but in what circumstances.

I am very sceptical that coroners need protected material from HSSIB since they have managed perfectly well without any such right of access to similar material held by the PHSO since the PHSO was established under its founding statutes of 1967 and 1993. Be that as it may, my focus today is on what the senior coroner must do when in receipt of protected material from HSSIB. In short, the material must be disclosed by the coroner.

Although an inquest is in legal terms an inquisitorial process, the ascertainment of the relevant facts is often, as many members of the House will know, highly contentious. Those who have been designated interested persons by the coroner, who include a wide range of family members, may cross-examine witnesses either in person or by representatives. It is inconceivable that a coroner could keep secret from interested persons protected material obtained by the coroner from HSSIB which is relevant to the matters that have to be decided by the inquest. This may have very serious implications for those who have given evidence to HSSIB which is deployed in the inquest, including the possibility of a conclusion of unlawful killing by gross negligence manslaughter.

No medical practitioner could possibly feel confident that, in giving evidence to HSSIB, it is being given in a safe space in view of the need for public disclosure of such evidence by coroners if it comes into their hands and is relevant to the inquest. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord and have tabled amendments of my own. As the noble and learned Lord said, his amendments simply take out the HSSIB provisions from the Bill, whereas mine take out the reference to senior coroners.

I think we are all united in supporting the concept of HSSIB improving safety in the health service. A stand-alone Bill in 2019 had a Second Reading in which we were beginning to get to grips with some of the issues around the construct of HSSIB and, particularly, the safe spaces concept. This is very important in the health service because of the traditional reluctance of staff to come forward with information about where things have gone wrong because experience has shown that whistleblowers have often been treated very poorly indeed.

I fully support the concept of HSSIB and safe spaces and believe that if it is implemented properly it will lead to improved safety. However, as the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently pointed out, the problem is that the inclusion in the Bill of the coroner’s ability to access this information would render the whole safe space concept unworkable. Staff will simply not trust it if these provisions are left in the Bill.

We are faced with two options. One is to take out the whole of the HSSIB provisions. Ideally, I would support that because it would benefit from a stand-alone Bill, where we could give it the scrutiny it clearly deserves. On the other hand, our job here is to be constructive as a revising Chamber. On that basis, we would be much safer removing the coroner elements and giving the Government a little more time to discuss this further before the Bill goes on to Third Reading and back to the other place.

I think there are ways through. I have been attracted, for instance, to one solution put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in relation to a memorandum of understanding between the noble Earl’s department and the MoJ. We need to discuss that; in order to do so now, I believe we should remove the coroner provisions from the Bill.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for rising because I know we need to move on but before I speak to this amendment perhaps I may take the opportunity, as I was not here on the first day of Report, to thank the Ministers for listening—and taking action after doing so on many aspects. I thank them all for that. I also thank all those who sent me good wishes. It helped, and I did not realise I had so many friends.

I shall not speak at length on this group. I have my name on both sets of amendments. The reason I supported removing the whole clause was that there are a lot of issues arising, not just the invasion of the safe space. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that it gives the Government another chance if it is confined to removing the coroner provisions. I agree with what has been said: the medical profession particularly, but even other health professionals, will find it difficult if the safe space of what they say confidentially can be invaded, so I support that proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

124: Schedule 14, page 237, line 41, leave out paragraph 6
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the provision allowing coroners to require the disclosure of protected material.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

125: Clause 114, page 101, line 34, leave out subsection (7)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another amendment to Schedule 14, would remove the provision allowing coroners to require the disclosure of protected material.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

144B: After Clause 155, insert the following new Clause—
“Complaints about care services
(1) The Care Quality Commission (CQC) must establish procedures for investigating complaints of conduct which breaches, or potentially breaches, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (“the regulations”).(2) In establishing the procedures, CQC must take into account, by regular surveys, the views of—(a) appropriate representative bodies,(b) those representing users and their families, and(c) such other persons or groups of persons as it considers appropriate.(3) Nothing in this section affects the requirement for registered persons to comply with regulation 16 of the regulations.(4) Complaints under this section include those made to CQC about regulated care services by users, their relatives or advocates, staff, or other relevant persons. (5) A user of a service, their relative or advocate may make a complaint directly to CQC.(6) CQC may, after due consideration, redirect a complaint to the registered person where it is satisfied that the conduct complained of does not constitute a breach of the regulations.(7) CQC must—(a) regularly publish a written report which includes examples of breaches of the regulations, and(b) provide guidance to registered persons and others to illustrate how such complaints can be resolved to the satisfaction of service users, their relatives or advocates, staff or another relevant person.(8) CQC must regularly review the procedures that it has established under this section.(9) Procedures established under this section must be made available by the registered person to any person who receives services, or to their relative or advocate.(10) CQC must publish information about procedures established under this section and take appropriate steps to make the procedures available to any person or group who may require such information.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment requires the Care Quality Commission to establish procedures for investigating complaints of conduct which breaches, or potentially breaches, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a series of amendments in this group. My amendment does not really relate to the others in the group, but it is about an important issue.

In Committee, I raised the problem that a number of members of the public and the Relatives & Residents Association have brought to my attention: in a minority of care homes, if residents or relatives complain, the homes take retaliatory action in the form of making visits even more restrictive than they currently are and, in some cases, even evict, or threaten to evict, the person on whose behalf the complaint has been made. As I said, this is in a minority of homes— over the past few years I have been impressed by how many homes have continued to provide high-quality care in very difficult circumstances. None the less, this is an important issue.

In 2019, the Relatives & Residents Association was coming across at least one case a week of such intimidatory behaviour. We discussed this in Committee. The Minister said that she did not really think that the department had received much evidence of this, that in any case residents and their relatives and friends should complain to the home in the first instance, and that the Care Quality Commission would also pick up concerns.

This is a very confusing picture. If you go to the CQC’s website, you will see that it states:

“we do not settle individual complaints ourselves, but we still want you to tell us about your experiences of care.”

To most people, that is pretty confusing. If you are worried that a home is going to be intimidatory in its response to legitimate complaints raised, you are hardly likely to have confidence in its complaints system.

Up until about 2008, the CQC did take individual complaints but, due to a funding cut, it stopped doing so, even though, in Scotland, the equivalent body investigates specific complaints, and the predecessors of CQC investigated complaints. We know that there is huge pressure in care homes. We also know that some care homes are continuing extremely restrictive practices around relatives and friends being able to visit. This has become quite a serious problem in which, while they may not be in total lockdown, they come near to it, clearly more for the convenience of the home than for a public health reason. My amendment simply asks the CQC to go back to receiving and dealing with individual complaints in these cases. I hope that the Minister will perhaps be sympathetic to this. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely; I invite her to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

With all that, I hope I have given noble Lords sufficient reassurance that they feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments and I commend the amendments in my name.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who summarised a variety of amendments, none of which seemed to have much connection at all to each other. I should have declared my interest as a member of the GMC board but, of course, under the rules of the House, I am not allowed to comment on anything to do with the GMC.

On my Amendment 144B, all I would say is that the Minister is absolutely right that the CQC is not there to investigate complaints. The fact is that, if you are a relative of a resident and you are concerned about quality so you complain, you are then threatened that you will not be able to visit if you carry on doing it. You cannot go to the CQC, effectively, the ombudsman is far too remote and long-distance, and the provider does not have a satisfactory complaints system. That is the problem. We still have to find a solution. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 144B withdrawn.

Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Ribeiro, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Northover, for their support. I also thank Victoria Ledwidge of the End Transplant Abuse campaign and the Public Bill Office for their fantastic work in helping to knock this Bill into shape.

We had a very good debate in the genocide discussion last night on these issues of the appalling, dreadful exploitation of people’s body parts, combined with, essentially, mass killing by an authoritarian state. In 2019, the China tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, stated:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain – unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt – that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”


The Bill is a small element in dealing with this obnoxious practice. I beg to move.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on this very welcome Bill. It is a pleasure to see the issue debated so well and regularly in this House. As my noble friend knows, he has the full support of these Benches in his endeavours. UK citizens must not be permitted to support the international organ tourism industry, where those organs are sourced illegally. I hope to see an end to the display of human cadavers in cases where the displayers have not obtained the consent of the deceased to do so. On so many levels, the issues with which this Bill deals are totally unacceptable, and I am glad that this Bill gives your Lordships’ House the opportunity, as we also had last night, to consider how to take action. This is a moral imperative, and my noble friend can count on continued support from these Benches.

As we approach the end of this Third Reading, I thank the Minister and your Lordships’ House for the time spent on and engagement with this issue. I wish the Bill every success.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this Bill to the House and for enabling further debate on the best approach to tackling transplant tourism and how to ensure that consent is always provided for the public display of bodies of the deceased.

While all noble Lords will agree with the sentiment behind this Bill and have been horrified by the way in which the Uighurs are treated by the Chinese Government, we feel that that the new provisions it would introduce could create unnecessary burdens while doing little more than the existing legislation to address their concerns about human rights abuses. Looking at the data, the Government have not seen evidence of any large-scale travel of British citizens to other regions seeking a transplant for payment or without consent. Indeed, despite our having a growing and ageing population with increasing healthcare needs, the figures from NHS Blood and Transplant demonstrate a steady and consistent decline in patients receiving follow-up treatment on organs received overseas: from 72 patients in 2006 to just seven in 2019.

In addition, existing provisions in the Modern Slavery Act and the Human Tissue Act already make transplant tourism an offence in many circumstances. Because of this, we believe that the most effective action we can now take is to work towards removing any incentive for UK residents to seek to purchase an organ by continuing our efforts in improving the rates and outcomes of legitimate organ donations, while maintaining the highest standards of care for those in need of an organ.

I turn now to the issue of the public display of bodies, on which there has been some debate, especially in terms of people who have given consent before their death for their bodies to be displayed. We believe that existing rules make it clear that any establishment which seeks to display bodies must provide proof of consent. If it cannot, it will not receive a public display licence from the Human Tissue Authority, and any exhibition of bodies without a licence, when one is required, will be breaking the law. I am informed that the Human Tissue Authority does receive requests from people in Britain who seek permission for their bodies to be displayed after their death.

That said, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which allowed for an important and wide-ranging debate on this topic. It also served as an opportunity to highlight the broader human rights concerns which I know all noble Lords share. I particularly acknowledge the persistence of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Alton, in bringing these issues forward for debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on being successful in the ballot with this Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Merron for her kind remarks, and to the Minister, who has given up quite a lot of time to allow us to discuss this. As he knows, I do not agree with the Government’s conclusion. He is very busy at the moment with Report stage of the Health and Social Care Bill, and he has much to contemplate over the weekend. I just hope that he may undertake a conversion when it comes to my Amendment 162, and that next week, he will be sympathetic.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

With the leave of the House, I thought it might be useful if I used my slot to speak right now on leaving out Clause 40. First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for putting their names to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Patel—with whom I spoke this morning, and who is definitely on the mend, so I hope we will see him next week—said how strongly he supports the amendment. I will speak very briefly because we have already said much of what needs to be said about saving the Secretary of State from himself—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, I think. This is what this amendment is about.

Clearly, this is not what the NHS asked for in the Bill. It did not ask for this power. It has been added to the Bill—by a previous Secretary of State, I suspect—and I hear rumours that even the current Secretary of State is not a great fan. Why would any Secretary of State want to have this power—to be lobbied and drawn into any minor local dispute, particularly as we head towards a general election?

I have a small anecdote. A small coastal town had a small hospital with an accident and emergency department. It could not be properly staffed, it regularly closed for random periods, and far too often patients arrived there only to be moved to the larger A&E 20 miles down the road. Proposals were made to close it—and of course, outrage ensued. “Save our A&E”, people said, even though it was unsafe. Local politics were poisonous, and the blame for the closure was thrown on opponents, whichever side they were on.

However, over time, good communications, clinical leadership and, eventually, bringing local people into the team, got the proposal moving. People understood what was needed and why, and the reconfiguration process went through its stages, with external reviews and analysis by the national clinical advisory team, which all gave reassurance. The clincher came when a distinguished clinician leading the review told a meeting that he would personally go and paint over the road signs for the A&E, because it was so unsuitable. It shut, which probably means that lives were saved.

The process of rational argument and proper analysis works, and on this occasion we should not just leave it to local politics to decide what reconfiguration means. The Secretary of State has enough powers to direct the whole NHS in its fullness, but should not be involved in what may be very small reconfigurations indeed. We agree, and many people in the NHS and its organisations agree, that this clause should be removed from the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no doubt that when the Minister responds he will say that the Secretary of State is likely to use this power very rarely. The point is that the moment the health service knows the Secretary of State has such a power, that will immediately influence its behaviour in relation to any improvements or major changes of services likely to lead to opposition from the local Member of Parliament. I think that the Minister is responsible for innovation in the health service, and this will put the kibosh on innovation and service changes.

Written on my heart is Kidderminster General Hospital. The Minister may not recall this, because it is a long time ago now, but Worcestershire Health Authority made proposals to reconfigure A&E services and close Kidderminster General Hospital. The then Member of Parliament, David Lock, who was a loyal member of the Government, bravely defended that decision. He lost his seat in 2001, and it has been written on the hearts of many MPs since then that they do not defend that type of change, because they might lose their seats.

I cannot believe that the Government wish to give the Secretary of State the nightmare of that kind of lobbying—I am trying to tempt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, to intervene here, because he knows what MPs do. What we have at the moment is a very good system, at arm’s length, and it beats me why on earth the Government want to do this. We need to do the business and get rid of the clause. I suspect that we shall not see it back again.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 84 is intended to remove the powers of the Secretary of State, in Clause 40, to intervene in decisions on reconfigurations of health services. I said in Committee, and I say again, that those powers are very dangerous. We have recently seen how the Government’s powers to provide or withdraw funding for a proposal to, say, build a new school or improve infrastructure in a particular constituency have got them into trouble. Political considerations have trumped public interest. In the media they call that pork barrel politics—not a very complimentary phrase, I am afraid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying that. Of course, we completely understand the concerns that have been raised. The Secretary of State must use regulation-making powers where they exist, rather than using the power of direction to achieve what could be achieved under regulations.

Turning to the allocation of resources to the ICBs, the Government have no ambition to use this power to interfere with individual allocations of money to the system. It will not be used to interfere with the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. NHS England will continue to make funding allocations to ICBs to support them to deliver functions via the target formula, in order to reduce inequalities between patients. We have attached safeguards to this power to make sure it is not misused. Any exercise of this power must be done transparently: it must be made in writing, be published and be made in the public interest. This will enable Parliament to challenge Ministers and hold them to account.

Turning to Amendment 84, Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will allow the Secretary of State to better support effective change and respond to stakeholder concerns, including views from the public, health oversight and scrutiny committees and parliamentarians, in a more timely way. The clause and schedule will ensure that key decisions made about how services are delivered are subject to democratic oversight.

It is a misapprehension that the Secretary of State currently has no role in the decision-making process for reconfigurations. He does and without these provisions that role will continue. However, currently, referrals usually come at a very late stage in the process, which represents neither good value for the taxpayer nor good outcomes for patients.

I understand the concerns from noble Lords, including former Ministers, about how these powers might be used. But I have been asked to make clear that we expect the vast majority of reconfiguration decisions to continue to be managed by the local system—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister not take my point that it is not that Ministers will have to use those powers; it is that they have powers that will change behaviour immediately in the health service? That is the issue.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Before the Minister answers that question, I wonder if he would be kind enough to answer two from me. He just gave a list of what the powers will not be used for, but could he tell us what sort of thing the powers will be used for and under what circumstances? Can he also say why previous Secretaries of State—some of whom are not very far from where I am standing now—did not feel the need for those powers and still felt themselves accountable for the health service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great honour for my two amendments to be grouped with that in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra. As the noble Lord has discussed the supply chain, I should declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, although I am not speaking on its behalf when it comes to my strongly supporting his amendment, which sets the context for my own two amendments.

We debated this issue very fully in Committee. I think that the House believes strongly that the commercial exploitation of body parts in all forms is unethical and unsavoury. When it is combined with mass killing by an authoritarian state, we cannot stand by and do nothing. In 2019, the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, stated:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”


In June this year, 12 UN special procedure experts raised the issue of forced organ harvesting with the Chinese Government in response to credible information that Falun Gong practitioners, Uighurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians had been killed for their organs in China.

Currently, human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, where we have a very ethical approach, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants, and British taxpayers’ money will pay for anti-rejection medication regardless of where the organ was sourced or whether it was forcibly harvested from prisoners of conscience.

I shall not repeat all that I said in Committee, but I have had a helpful meeting with Ministers for which I thank them. In that meeting and in subsequent meetings, the Minister was concerned that my amendment in relation to organ tourism would penalise vulnerable people seeking to pay for a transplant. I have thought about that carefully, but, in the end—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, expressed so well why this Bill is highly appropriate for these kind of amendments—we have to draw a line in the sand. That is particularly so today, in the horrific circumstances that we meet. We have to draw a line in the sand and send out a powerful message globally that we will not support these abhorrent practices in any way.

My Amendment 162 comes later, but I shall seek the opinion of the House at that time.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has very effectively introduced the amendments to which I have put my name, Amendments 162 and 173, and I wish briefly to express the support of these Benches for those. We also support Amendment 108, to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has put her name.

As noble Lords know, we have been inching forward on these matters with Ministers, and I welcome that forward movement. I note, however, recent warnings from Ministers that, for example, there are “opportunity costs” in implementing these measures, as ensuring that proper standards are enforced requires effort and potential cost. I understand that. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to become complicit in any way in organ tourism where the source of those organs is forced or where selling the organ is to address appalling poverty.

Some say that this trade may be declining in and from China. If so, that is welcome and might reflect international pressure, not least on the Chinese medical profession. It is not clear that those involved in the China Tribunal and the Uyghur Tribunal would agree that it is declining.

Even if we were to accept that, and Ministers seemed to indicate that they thought that might be the case, we are also hearing now of an increase in the selling of organs in Afghanistan because of the dire situation there. There have been recent reports of journalists seeing the scars of those who have sold their kidneys. That is a terrible indictment of our walking away from Afghanistan and failing to address the appalling conditions that we have left there. How can we regard such potential “donors” as being anything other than the most extremely vulnerable? How can you put that up against the vulnerable who may need to have donations?

As for the bodies exhibitions, we have discussed before how distasteful they are—but then we realise with horror exactly where these bodies seem to have been sourced: among other things, from Chinese prisons. We should never have condoned that, turning a blind eye. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who argued in Committee that they should simply be banned. There is no reason whatever to agree to their continuation.

I now hear that the Government may argue—and this is incredibly familiar—that these amendments are flawed. As the noble Earl knows, often Ministers are given briefs that say, “This is a flawed amendment, so turn it back.” I am very familiar with them. In those circumstances, the best thing is for your Lordships to pass these amendments, because Ministers know, or should know, that the essence is extremely clear, and with government lawyers we can work out how best to sort out any unintended consequences. I hope that I do not hear anything about these amendments being flawed—and I say that to the Box. I therefore commend them to your Lordships.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)[V]]

My Lords, I thank Ministers, officials and other Peers, including my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the discussions that we have had since Committee. I am particularly grateful for the letter from the Minister late yesterday and the meeting this morning.

I have laid Amendment 60, and I support Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which try to protect only the lawful disclosure of personal patient data. For the purposes of the debate on this group, can we accept that this is shorthand for the confidential personal and medical data currently mainly held by GPs and hospital doctors in England? Amendment 60 would provide that protection in legislation and was laid only because we have not yet had a clear response from Ministers on what is permitted and what the existing rules will be relation to ICBs taking over responsibilities from CCGs because ICBs are new bodies. This is in the light of new Section 14Z61. At Second Reading and in Committee, noble Lords expressed concerns that this new section, which outlines ICBs’ permitted disclosures of information, looks very wide ranging and could, for example, enable a police officer, or another person from a public body, to demand the disclosure of a patient’s personal data.

The new section uses the phrase that ICBs can disclose data where

“disclosure is necessary or expedient”

for the person making the request, but nowhere does it explain how the decision is made by the ICB or what the decision-making process is to release the data and, importantly, where the protection of that personal data sits in the hierarchy of the request of necessary and expedient demands. I have asked repeatedly how this process would work, and in responses at the Despatch Box, in meetings and in letters I have not really had a response that has laid out simply and clearly how this process would work. I shall therefore ask the Minister the following questions in an attempt to clarify how a patient’s confidential personal data will be protected and what the process would be for it to be released to a person making a request. What rules and guidance are available for staff, including those in ICBs, to manage a request from a non-NHS person requesting information other than through a court order? How would it be processed and reviewed? ICBs would not normally be the holder of such data, and new Section 14Z61 does not set out the balance between the rights of the patient and those of the requestor who believes they have a necessary or expedient reason for being sent this data.

We wish to be confident that the structures are in place for when shared care records come into force. Let me be clear: from these Benches, we welcome the principle of shared care records, but the processes need to be in place to ensure that personal data is protected when every part of NHS England would have access to that data. I raise this particularly because just this week Health Service Journal stated that the Secretary of State is speeding up the shared care records project to be complete and implemented by December 2023.

Can the Minister therefore commit that the powers in Section 14Z61(1) will be constrained such that for requests of disclosure that come from outside the health and care system, the ICB will only ever disclose the direct care providers the requester could ask instead? Can he confirm that if an ICB is to become data controller for shared care records, he will return to this clause with primary legislation on such implementation?

I am very grateful for the discussion with Ministers and officials and hope that the Minister will be able to provide your Lordships’ House with a response that demonstrates that patient, personal and confidential data remains secure. I look forward to his response, and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the brevity of her remarks, which is a model for Report stage. I think she put this across very well indeed and I very much support her.

My Amendment 116 relates to the containment in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 of the concept of a safe haven for patient data across health and social care, which is required for national statistics for commissioning, regulatory research purposes and patient care. My Amendment 116 simply seeks to keep those statutory protections in place and ensure that NHS England does not take on this responsibility as a result of the merging of NHS Digital and NHSX within the structure of NHS England, which was a recommendation of the review led by Laura Wade-Gery. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is going to speak in some detail—but with brevity as well, I hasten to add.

Kingsley Manning, the former distinguished chair of NHS Digital, has spelled out the implications of doing this. He believes the action of NHS England in taking over NHS Digital

“is a significant retrograde step in defending the rights of citizens with respect to the collection and use of their health data.”

In a letter to me, which I received yesterday, the Minister asked me why NHS England would be regarded as less independent, transparent or objective in the exercise of these functions, given its already significant responsibility for some data and the fact that it is a very similar organisation to NHS Digital, as a statutory arm’s-length body. In answer to him, NHS England has many different responsibilities and priorities, so, first, it will clearly not be able to give the same focus to the issue of protecting the safe haven and, secondly, it has many interests which could be deemed to at least be in tension with the concept of the safe haven. That is why I and other noble Lords believe it is important to have the statutory protection already contained in the current legislative arrangements.

I conclude by saying that I am at one with Ministers in wanting to speed up digital transformation in the NHS; after all, we have been dabbling with this over many years. But it has to be done right, and the way to do it right is to be very transparent and rigorous about the protection of patient information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am an honorary fellow of the two Edinburgh colleges and I strongly support this. It seems extraordinary that these very distinguished colleges which, as has been said, have an excellent record over many years in teaching people not only in this country but in many other countries should be excluded from playing a part in these appointments.

I also support Amendment 80 but would like to elaborate on it a little. I think Health Education England was set up, by the Act that we had before, with some degree of contention. It is a system that is supposed to help determine the future for the health service, with fairly elaborate provisions to that effect, as I remember from that Bill.

It is not at all clear to me how this assessment is going to be done. I see it has to be verified independently, in other words somebody independent of the whole system has to assess it for its accuracy. However, if you need Health Education England to do this for the medical professions particularly, why do you not need something similar to deal with the very complicated system of social care? Therefore, I think the whole system requires to be extended to cover something like Health Education England in relation to the whole area that this amendment covers. The Secretary of State sets up some kind of mechanism for report; it has to be a pretty elaborate mechanism if it is going to work. Therefore, I humbly suggest that something like Health Education England is needed to be the basis on which this assessment arises. Then, of course, you have to provide for the independent assessment of whether it was a good assessment originally. I support this amendment, but I think something more elaborate is ultimately required.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just speak to my Amendments 111 and 168. On Amendment 111, when the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, have already put forward the arguments, there is very little for me to say, but the exclusion of the Scottish colleges from the appointment process needs to be rectified. It is an irritant, a hold-up.

In Committee, the noble Lord said that we needed to go through consultation. That was a dreary and negative response. The Scottish colleges have done that. They have consulted and got the support of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, NHS Employers and the NHS Confederation. Surely the Minister can just accept this amendment. To simply say that there is no need for it and lots of consultation has to take place is just a ludicrous waste of time and money. This is the time to do it. He should bring an amendment back on Third Reading and be done with it. The noble Lord says that he wants to improve efficiency in the health service. I am afraid I take that with a pinch of salt, because he is just letting officials run riot around him in relation to petty, bureaucratic objections to this change.

Obviously, my other amendment is not major compared to Amendment 80, which is substantial and very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has really put it forward with great force. Again, I think the noble Lord needs to take a more vigorous approach with the Treasury, because clearly that is where the objection to this is coming from.

My other amendment is about the terrible problem of GP distribution, or the wide variations. I am not going to tempt the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to come in on the GP issue—but the latest figures, for 31 December 2021, show, for primary care networks in England, the huge variation in the number of GPs. In 24 of the networks, the average list of registered patients for fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs is more than twice the national average. There are five primary care networks where the average is more than three times the national average; these are often in the most deprived areas. No wonder there is an issue of burnout, early retirements and a move to part-time working.

The Government’s response so far is the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme—an incentive for GPs to go into these areas. It is not enough; a much more substantive piece of work is required, and I hope again that the Minister will come forward with a positive response.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I shall speak to Amendment 82 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I attended Second Reading and made my views felt then, but I have not been able to join the deliberations on the Bill since then because of the pressure of other Bills in your Lordships’ House.

Even I, as someone who does not know very much about medicine, know that the most urgent challenge currently facing our health service is a shortage of nurses. I have been lobbied very heavily by the Royal College of Nursing, because Amendment 82 is its number one priority. It feels that, without a co-ordinated work plan, a coherent forward view and knowledge of exactly how the situation is at the moment, it cannot possibly achieve the sorts of numbers that are needed. There were almost 50,000 vacancies before Covid, and you can imagine the pressure that Covid has put on to the NHS—extreme pressure at completely unsustainable levels, and with staff numbers that are actually unsafe. We all know this, yet Boris Johnson and the Conservatives made big promises at the last election—their manifesto made a promise of 50,000 more nurses—and instantly that number began to unravel, as it included existing nurses who do not quit. That is unclever and unsophisticated number crunching.

I do not understand why this Government will not live up to their manifesto commitments. One reason why I have not been able to speak on this Bill since Second Reading is because of all the other Bills coming through, on which the Conservatives have said that they are aiming to achieve their manifesto commitments. They are actually going rather beyond their manifesto commitments in lots of areas—but the fact is that they are picking and choosing as if from a box of sweets the ones that they prefer.

The Royal College of Nursing represents over 480,000 nurses in health and social care. These are people whose pay requests are constantly ignored—and who constantly have their pay cut; in real terms, it has reduced. Just at the point when MPs are getting very welcome extra pay, nurses hang on by their fingertips. We know that vacancies are also a huge problem, with retirement age approaching for a lot of nurses. Nurses need the certainty of planning, and I do not hear those plans coming from the Government, although this is really their job—to manage the economy and manage society in a way that benefits everybody. Clearly, if the NHS fails in any area, that does not benefit anybody at all.

I argue very strongly for Amendment 82, and I just hope that the Government wake up in time to see how necessary it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, would the noble Lord be surprised to hear the rumours that the Treasury has prevented the Minister from responding in a positive way to this amendment?

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

We await insight from the Minister himself on that point; it is indeed, of course, what the chairman of the cross-party Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt, suggested in the House of Commons. We have an immediate litmus test before us, which should help us answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As your Lordships will remember, we noted in Committee the fact that, just 10 weeks before the start of the financial year, when it should have been planning 10 years out, Health Education England still did not have its operating budget for the year ahead. My understanding—I hope to be corrected by the Minister—is that, certainly, as of 10 am, Health Education England still does not have its workforce operating budget for just 29 days’ time. That is precisely because of a set of behind-the-scenes discussions—no doubt courteous, but nevertheless fervent—between the Department of Health and Social Care on the one hand and the Treasury on the other.

Health Ministers are more sinned against than sinning on this, frankly, and in that sense this amendment will strengthen their hand. I suspect that, privately, they will welcome the mobilisation of your Lordships to support their negotiating case. The very fact that Her Majesty’s Government oppose this amendment is proof positive that it is needed. We need it because we need to look beyond the end of our noses. To vote against this amendment would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

We are at a milestone moment, and I sincerely hope that this amendment really will be game-changing. It is the start of a new journey, and this is the first step for the Department of Health and the NHS to guide integrated care boards as they look to develop over time the services that their local population need. Now delivery plans need to be communicated to integrated care boards and providers as they work together on the journey to integration and ensure fair access for all to the palliative care that people desperately need, often at the most vulnerable time in their life.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her outstanding work in this area. I was very moved by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Howarth in tribute to the care given to Baroness Hollis, who was such a tremendous force for good in your Lordships’ Chamber over many years.

Can the noble Earl clarify the point that has already been raised? In the letter from Ministers of 26 February it was said that the amendment would add palliative care services to the list of services that an ICB must commission. On the face of it, the amendment seems rather more permissive. Proposed new subsection 3(1) in Clause 16 states:

“An integrated care board must arrange for the provision of the following to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it has responsibility”.


There is then a list, which starts with “hospital accommodation”, which the ICB must arrange for—then on page 17 are a couple of provisions that seem rather more permissive.

The nub of the issue is this: we have fantastic palliative care in the mainly voluntary sector as well as in the National Health Service itself, but it is very patchy. The health service has been very reluctant to give long-term certainty to hospices and other providers of palliative care services, insisting on short-term contracts. The real question to the noble Earl is this: will this change as a result of this amendment? Where is the beef that will actually get the message across that we expect the health service to do a lot better than it has been doing in support of palliative care services?

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I join in thanking the Government for having listened in Committee. I hope that this will make a difference not just to the lives of those whose lives are shorter but also their families, so it is very welcome. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but also to my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who put his name to Amendment 17.

As I say, I welcome this amendment. As the chair of the UK Commission on Bereavement, I have been reminded recently of the inconsistency of palliative care, which other noble Lords have spoken of this evening. It affects not only those who require palliative care but also their family and friends, and it leaves a legacy into bereavement, which we should not underestimate. I too was reassured to hear the Minister say that palliative care must be commissioned, but I share again the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. In Amendment 16, the word “appropriate” is used, and it is not quite the same thing. Could the Minister reassure the House about the Government’s expectations regarding the nature of palliative care services that the ICBs will commission? How will they ensure that that is delivered in a way that creates consistency? It is care that is rightly deserved by people in our communities, which also reflects the skill and hard work of our palliative care practitioners

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to which I have added my name. I think the noble Lord had to table these amendments because the Minister said when we discussed this in Committee that his challenge was to ensure that

“primary care is better represented and not dominated by acute trusts.”—[Official Report, 20/1/22; col. 1854.]

We expected something to come back that did exactly that, because the very fact the Minister said that suggested that the Government had accepted that there was a potential imbalance with the role of primary care.

I come back to the purpose of the Bill, which I did a number of times in Committee. The purpose of the Bill is to bring about effective integration, improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities. That is underpinned by making primary care central to healthcare planning and ideas about healthcare, following through on those plans and having primary care as an equal partner in the ICB. So we moved away from who we want on the board to asking very simply for primary care to be treated as an equal in the planning, implementation and monitoring of what will happen in health and social care in the area. It is disappointing that, despite the Minister’s suggestion that he would go away and look at this, nothing new has come back since Committee to deal with that.

What new has come back on Report which makes sure that primary care can be better represented and not dominated by acute trusts in this new system? My worry is that the Bill giving this to NHS acute trusts and foundation trusts signals which are most important within the system. If primary care does not have that equity, there will be unrealistic expectations and uninformed decisions made in planning for final decisions and tactical, not transformational, systems and services, which will not represent the full view of primary care. It is for those reasons that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and look forward to the Minister bringing to the House’s attention what new proposals are in here on Report to do with the challenge that he set himself: to ensure that primary care has a bigger voice and is not dominated by the acute sector.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on the Minister’s offer in Committee to go back to see how the potential dominance of acute trusts could be mitigated by ensuring that the voice of primary care was heard loud and clear in the various decision-making bodies.

It is a pity that it is a very late hour, because primary care warrants a much wider debate, given the challenges it undoubtedly faces. We are all aware of the workforce issues, such as the reluctance of many GPs to take on partnerships and that so many GPs will do only part-time work, partly because of the pressures. It is because of those challenges and because primary care is so valued in this country that we need some assurances that the people running the new system being introduced through this legislation will be concerned with and listen to primary care.

It is somewhat ironic. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is not here any more, but in a sense, we are seeing a transformation from what he hoped would be a GP-led system through clinical commissioning groups to one which looks very strongly acute care-led in the integrated care boards. As someone who was spent quite a lot of my time in the health service around acute trusts, I do not particularly worry about acute trusts being listened to, because we depend on them so much. We really need assurance that integrated care boards will take primary care seriously.

Finally, whatever concerns and reservations we on this side of the House had about clinical commissioning groups, some GPs undoubtedly rose to the challenge of leadership within them. I should be very concerned if they were lost from the new arrangements. It would be good to know that the Government recognise that and will ensure that a place is found for them in the new system.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 30 and 34. On Amendment 30, I echo the widespread concern of the professional bodies and expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that rehabilitation should be a core service in the NHS. It is inseparable from healing, and healing is often impaired if rehabilitation is not there.

On Amendment 34, it will be important to know whether the proposed integrated health boards will be in contact with services outside the NHS where health can be a critical factor, such as education and criminal justice. As we said in Committee, many speech and language professionals are not NHS employees. How will they be brought into the integrated system?

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

I end with a plea to my noble friend that the Government, MHRA, NICE and NHSE all work closely together, not just among themselves but with the industry and with all patient organisations and clinicians, to make swifter regulatory approval a reality, in keeping with the ambitious government life sciences vision, which I support.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution on Report, I declare my interests as a member of the GMC board and president of GS1, the British Fluoridation Society, the HCA and HCSA.

I welcome what the Minister said about research and its importance, and some of the tensions between practical work as a clinician and the crucial importance of clinicians engaged in research. The amendments that he introduced are very welcome, but like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I am disappointed that he has not brought similar amendments forward in relation to NICE. One suspects that it is something to do with money; he thinks that giving away amendments on research is cost-free, whereas there might be a resource implication when it comes to NICE. That is a pity.

The noble Baroness has talked about a postcode lottery in this country on the outcome of NICE judgments, but we also have a European postcode lottery. The fact is that NHS patients have much less access to modern new medicines and devices than those in many other countries. Stats that I have seen on medicines suggest that, for every hundred European patients who can access new medicines in the first year they are available, just 15 UK patients have the same access. We know that even when NICE has given its blessing to new medicines and treatments, take-up in the NHS still lags behind that in other countries.

I think that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I were somewhat puzzled by the ministerial response in Committee in this area. We know that the NHS uses all sorts of rationing devices to prevent those new medicines and devices being allocated generally throughout the NHS, notwithstanding what NICE has to say—that is why I support the noble Baroness’s amendments. Essentially, my two amendments seek to build on the principles that she has referred to.

Amendment 171 relates to three issues which I think remain from Committee. The first relates to the links between licensing and reimbursement processes. Happily, the MHRA has established two new licensing pathways, ILAP— the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway—and Project Orbis, for cancer medicines. This is very welcome; it is designed to speed up access.

However, the challenge with faster licensing decisions is that NHS reimbursement decisions need to speed up too, otherwise medicines can be placed on the market but cannot be made available to patients on the NHS. To its credit, the MHRA has designed this into ILAP, because NICE is directly involved in ILAP, and licensing and reimbursement decisions can be joined up. However, in respect of Project Orbis, there has been no such effort. Late last year, breast cancer patients faced the worrying situation where a drug, Trodelvy, which offered them hope, was licensed through Orbis but was not then available on the NHS. My amendment would therefore ensure that NICE acted to issue guidance on Project Orbis medicines as close to licensing as possible, as it does for ILAP.

Secondly, the amendment would clarify that NICE alone is responsible for determining its methods, as an independent body should be. In its recent methods and processes review, it concluded that

“there is an evidence-based case for changing the reference-case discount rate to 1.5% for costs and health effects. However, because of the wider policy and fiscal implications and interdependencies that are beyond the reach of this review, no change to the reference-case discount rate”

could be made. It further stated:

“Reducing the discount rate will make most technologies appear to be more cost effective.”


We are therefore in a situation where NICE wants to make a change to its methods, which would result in more medicines being made available to patients but is being stopped from doing so. That is not acceptable. NICE should be free to determine its methods, including the discount rate.

The final effect of the amendment would be to clarify the role that the current voluntary scheme, VPAS, and the statutory scheme play in reimbursement decisions. These schemes essentially cap the NHS’s expenditure on drugs, meaning the exposure of the taxpayer to spending on drugs is limited. The problem is that the health service then adds a whole host of other mechanisms to restrict access to medicines as well. My own view is that once we have VPAS and the statutory scheme in place, we do not need those other mechanisms.

Amendment 178 builds on this. I have already referred to the Project Orbis scheme. It has great potential, but unfortunately, as Gilead has pointed out, there is a lack of alignment across the system between government, the MHRA, NICE and NHS England, which has an impact on timelines for approval. This is particularly concerning in light of moves by other countries such as France to legislate to enable early access to innovative therapies prior to a cost-effectiveness assessment, with any difference in the final agreed price rebated by the company. We need an integrated access and funding pathway for medicines licensed by Orbis, prior to NICE approval, modelled on the French system, whereby companies rebate any difference in price following the decision by NICE.

The final point I will make is that we also need to deal with NICE capacity issues. In January 2022, NICE highlighted in its board papers that approximately 20 evaluations were paused in 2021-22 due to capacity constraints because of vacancies. This is despite increased industry fees paid for health technology assessments. While NICE’s vacancy rate has reduced, the same board papers note that:

“Organisational capacity continues to be the key risk for NICE ... strategy, and gaps in hard to fill specialist roles in a competitive global market.”


I would like the Minister to respond to this.

More generally, I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that he and other Ministers recognise that all these initiatives to speed up access, excellent though they are, will come to very little unless they can sort out the NHS side of things and get rid of some of these rationing mechanisms which have been put in place.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, I have added my name to the government amendments in this group. These amendments directly address the criticisms which we made in Committee that, as things stood, a duty to promote research lacked any real force. Since we made these criticisms, we have met with the Minister and his officials to try to strengthen this research duty and make it more meaningful and concrete. These amendments, and the others in the next group, are the result of our discussions.

The Minister has explained, and given some examples, how they would help. The importance lies on what new things the amendments put in place. They require the NHS to explain, in its business plans and annual report, how it proposes to discharge, or has discharged, its research obligations. They also require a performance assessment of ICBs, which includes how well they have discharged their research duty and their duty to facilitate and promote the use of evidence in research. I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement on the question of research in the NHS. I am pleased that we have strengthened the research duties of the Secretary of State and the ICBs. I am particularly pleased that progress will now be formally reported and assessed.

I should also mention that, in his letter of yesterday, the Minister listed a number of non-legislative measures either being taken or developed for facilitating or fostering a culture of research within the NHS, and for holding to account the people responsible for delivering this.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has asked me to say how sorry he is that he cannot be here today. He wanted the House to know that he supports the Government’s research amendments and is grateful for their co-operation in generating more research in the NHS. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has said, he is at home recovering from Covid, and I am sure that the House wishes him a speedy recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as supporting Amendments 9 and 12 and the rest of the group, I would like briefly to add my support for Amendment 31 in my capacity as patron of the British Stammering Association. This amendment is very much welcomed by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, for all the reasons that we set out in Committee. It would do much to improve the expertise available for these damaging difficulties with the basic human need to communicate and the capacity to swallow, so I hope the Government adopt it—I am sure they will, because it is a government amendment. I am very grateful.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, speaks, I congratulate her and the Minister on Amendment 31. I also want to ask a question. It very much looks as if the integrated care board is marking its own homework, because the duty to keep the experience of members under review is placed on an integrated care board. It is then for the integrated care board itself to make a judgment as to whether it

“lacks the necessary skills, knowledge and experience”.

Quite clearly, any board that has already appointed a group of members is almost certain, in undertaking its review, to come to the conclusion that it was altogether wise in appointing the members with the balance it did. Who is going to monitor this? Who is going to check?

What if you are a local nursing body concerned that nursing issues are not being debated and reflected enough within an integrated care board? What do you do? Who do you go to? As far as I can see, apart from judicial review proceedings there is absolutely no way you can get any change. That is why—and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her work on this—you need amendments like my noble friend Lord Bradley’s to make some specification in relation to those critical areas where it is essential that the board has members with the relevant experience.

My second point for the Minister is this. In introducing her Amendment 9, my noble friend Lady Thornton essentially said that the Bill already lays out constraints on integrated care boards in relation to potential conflicts of interest. All she seeks to do is to extend that to sub-committees of the integrated care board, including place-based committees, which will commission a huge amount of health service provision in future. For the life of me, I cannot see how those sub-committees can be constituted under any different principle from that of the integrated care board itself. Unless the Minister really comes up with a convincing answer on this, I think the House should make its views clear.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, as this is my first contribution on Report, I begin by declaring my interest as the recently stepped-down chair of NHS Improvement and NHS Test and Trace.

I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend the Minister and support Amendment 31. In Committee, we debated in considerable detail the constituent elements of the ICBs. I think it hugely important that integrated care boards have a loud, strong, forceful voice for mental health, public health and prevention in all its forms, but I also think it really important that we enable a board to be a proper board.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, questions whether a board would ever assess its own competence and members. Any really good, functioning board in the public and private sector views that as one of its primary obligations. The first line of defence to ensure that a board is performing well is whether it is actually doing an assessment every year of whether it has the appropriate skills. Yes, you should have second and third-line assessments through the CQC and NHS England, but it is the role of a board, and we should let them do that. I believe that Amendment 31 holds these boards to account to do that.

The amendments we have already debated today, enshrining the obligations around public health, health inequalities and mental health, ensure that that is the clear objective of those integrated care boards. I encourage my noble friend the Minister to hold firm and support his amendments and not the others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said at the beginning about this perhaps being the end of the harmonious start to our debates so far, I feel that this has been a helpful and constructive debate. I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing these issues before the House.

Let me start with Amendment 9, as I understand the wide interest in the membership of the committees of the board and potential conflicts of interest. We firmly agree that conflicts of interest must be handled carefully, and have included multiple references to that in the Bill. We also recognise the concern that ICBs should not allow private providers to control commissioning decisions, which is why we added the amendment relating to private providers in the other place, in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2.

Furthermore, in the helpful discussions we have had with noble Lords since then, there has been mutual recognition that we need to balance the importance of protecting the core values and public nature of the NHS while not overly restricting the membership of ICBs. I am pleased that the amendment to Schedule 2 balances on that tightrope and gives appropriate reassurance. We think that it is reasonable to allow private providers and social enterprises to sit on some committees and sub-committees of the ICB, as barring them risks blocking sensible integration and joint working.

I am also aware of the mixed reactions to this amendment from stakeholders. Many noble Lords will have seen the NHS Providers Report stage briefing, which states that

“there could be circumstances where a local private or voluntary sector provider would be well placed to join a joint committee with a focus on integrated service delivery whereby the usual arrangements to identify and manage conflicts of interest would, and should, apply.”

It goes on to say:

“It does not seem reasonable … therefore to further restrict the membership of those committees in a way which is prescriptive in law.”


Further, the NHS Confederation stated in its Report stage briefing that this amendment

“risks critically undermining integration by reinforcing a rigid, out-dated purchaser-provider split and derailing the fundamental purpose of these reforms.”

As it so eloquently put it:

“The current reforms aim to facilitate collaborative working by bringing all partners in local areas around the table to plan the most effective and the most efficient way to deliver care. This, by its nature, involves bringing providers of services, alongside commissioners, into committees and sub-committees of the ICB to plan how care is delivered”.


Potential conflicts of interest are inevitable in commissioning, especially when we are looking to increase integration and bring multiple bodies together. The ICBs will be required to manage conflicts of interest as part of their day-to-day activities. That is set out in the Bill and will be part of their constitution as well.

For all committees, the board of the ICB will have to determine what functions they exercise, their membership, and the level of oversight of their decisions. The board of the ICB cannot delegate a function and claim to be no longer responsible for how it is discharged, and will be held to account for this by NHS England.

Also, ICBs will be clear and transparent about interests, and how they are being managed. We think that transparency will prevent poor decision-making. New Section 14Z30 makes it clear that an ICB must maintain and give public access to a register of interests for members of its committees or sub-committees. There must be arrangements in place to ensure that conflicts are managed not just for ICB members but within committees. The constitution of the ICB must also include the arrangements to be made to discharge the functions under new Section 14Z30 and a statement of principles to be followed by the board in this regard. This will all be supported by guidance from NHS England. We are quite determined to tackle conflicts head on and not shy away from this issue.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, if NHS England is determined to tackle conflicts of interest head on, why is it building them into the whole structure of integrated care boards? Let us think about an integrated care board discussing future strategy: it would inevitably discuss where the priorities will be. That inevitably means that money will follow the priorities. At what point in those discussions do the major providers, who will be sitting round the table, have to withdraw from because of a conflict of interest? At heart, this ambiguity is built in, so it is not surprising that my noble friend wants to see consistency right through the system, including the sub-committees.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention because I was just about to come to it. I should add that new Section 14Z30 very clearly requires ICBs to manage conflicts of interest at sub-committee level.

We think that the approach we have outlined will be more appropriate and possibly more effective than simply barring individuals with a conflict of interest—which, I encourage noble Lords to note, would also include NHS Providers and local authorities— from all committees with a commissioning function. First, this approach is broader than what the noble Baronesses might have intended. Secondly, many committees will have a range of functions, and commissioning may be only a small part of their activity. This approach risks creating a series of duplicated committees with similar interests to enable commissioning decisions to be taken in line with the amendment. This risks undermining one of the very purposes of this reform: to reduce bureaucracy and increase integration.

On Amendment 10A, we are clear that chief executive pay should be value for money. The pay framework is based on our ability to attract the highest-quality candidates. ICB roles, such as the chief executive, are some of the more complex in the health system. Experienced chief executives of trusts already exceed the suggested £150,000 per annum remuneration. Therefore, we do not believe it would be realistic to expect them to take a pay cut to take up a role with such a portfolio.

I remind noble Lords that putting the salary of an ICB chief executive into the Bill would be inappropriate. Such a lack of flexibility would be extremely unusual for a senior position and risks salaries declining in value over time, precisely as ICBs take on more responsibility as they become more established. This would fundamentally weaken ICBs’ ability to recruit and retain senior management. I also warn that directly tying pay to performance is likely to make it significantly harder to recruit chief executives to more challenging ICBs—precisely the organisations that we would want to recruit the very best leaders.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the recruitment process will ensure that only the most qualified people can take up these roles. All ICB chief executive appointees across England need to demonstrate how they meet—

Covid-19: Lateral Flow Tests

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I must say to my noble friend that I was not aware of that, and therefore I will have to go back to the department. If he could write to me about that, I will be happy to respond.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister say how many British companies are caught in this and waiting for approval? Can he also say how many billions of pounds we have spent importing these tests from China?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I will try my best to answer the questions, but if I do not, I hope the noble Lord will accept a written response. Some 25% of approved devices are from UK manufacturers, but it is important, as a fair and neutral regulator of market access that all applicants are treated equally. The Government are working to review applications for devices submitted by the process. At the same time, while we want to make sure that the British tests are of the highest standard, we are determined to harness the power of the UK’s leading diagnostic industry. We will continue to be enormously engaged with UK manufacturers and trade bodies to support a thriving domestic diagnostic industry.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Smith of Newnham, for supporting this amendment, and I hope the Minister will consider it favourably. If not, I reserve the right to bring it back. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 297D, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Brinton, for their support. However, I also express my general support to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for their amendments. The common theme of this collection of amendments is the question of how we support vulnerable people.

My amendment is about the experience of many of us who have seen the harm caused to our loved ones in care homes during Covid when visits were not allowed for so long. Even now, it can be difficult to visit in some homes because of the Covid restrictions that continue or where a member of staff or visitor has Covid and then 14-day long impositions are imposed. It is a bit rich when one hears in the media that all restrictions are being lifted, because for many of us, in practice those restrictions have not been lifted at all.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on care home blanket bans and other excessive restrictions recommended that regulations for care and treatment should include a requirement to ensure face-to-face contact wherever possible between residents and the people most significant to them. I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by care homes in the past two years. They have faced huge challenges. My personal experience is that many of them have risen to the challenge and provide high-quality care. But even before the pandemic, serious concerns were growing about the use of care home visitor bans to punish relatives for complaining about standards of care. Indeed, as far back as 2016, the “Victoria Derbyshire” programme reported that hundreds of care homes were guilty of this method of what it described as institutional abuse. In 2019, the Relatives & Residents Association was coming across at least one case per week and warned the problem was increasing.

One woman found her mother dressed in other people’s clothes, left in her own urine and with her hair unwashed for weeks. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upheld the daughter’s complaint, reporting that after raising her concerns with the care home, she and a doctor were prevented from seeing her mother when they tried to visit. The care home later told the ombudsman the ban was because of a previous incident reported to the police of the daughter and her partner’s behaviour, but could not provide any evidence that an incident had occurred or was reported to the police.

As visiting restrictions are, hopefully, going to be relaxed in the weeks ahead, I am afraid we have the prospect of seeing more residents’ families being victimised in this way. Helen Wildbore, director of the Relatives & Residents Association, has found from its helpline calls that relatives and friends play a vital role in spotting potential human rights violations, particularly around abuse and neglect. When they are locked out by bans, people in care lose crucial support: their advocate and confidante—they might be the only person they tell about their concerns. Sometimes residents are even threatened with eviction or actually evicted in reprisal for complaints about their care. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was told about a family whose mother was threatened with eviction after they merely asked to discuss concerns with the head office of a care home.

These are the kinds of abuses my amendment seeks to tackle and get over the problem that regulations are not sufficient. These regulations may specify the standards of care against which care providers are regulated by the CQC through its inspection process, but the CQC is not going to pick up individual complaints, so there is a gap. There is a strong case for a statutory duty of care sitting alongside CQC regulations to require care providers to facilitate such contact with families as is reasonably practical and to prohibit evictions where non-vexatious and non-repetitive complaints are in progress. In my amendment, I am not proposing that. All I am asking for is a review; an independent review charged with examining these options. I hope that the Government will agree that there needs to be some reflection on what has happened and how we can prevent this kind of abuse in the future.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to speak to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Hodgson.

From the age of five, I was a child of general practice; it was my world. I accompanied my father on home visits, patients came to our house and the telephone rang constantly—my mother was the secretary and took all calls. My father loved his patients and they loved him. He knew them inside and out, and their families as well. He attended road traffic accidents, of which I have to say there were plenty, and he delivered babies at home—he never lost one. I remember him telling me one day when he came back from a birth that it had been a very difficult birth, but the mother praised my father for having helped her to produce a very healthy little boy. “Doctor”, she said, “we will call the baby after you. What is your name?” My father replied, “Lambert”. “Right”, said the father, “we will call our son Tom.” I mention this only because maternity has been the love of my life, and in this area relationships are critical to a safe and good experience. In my youth, maternity was part of general practice.

After being appointed much more recently to chair the maternity review for England by Simon Stevens—as he was then; now, of course. the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham—I was determined to introduce relationship care, sometimes called “continuity of carer”, where the final “R” stands for relationship. We have much respected and credible research from the Cochrane Collaboration in Oxford which shows that women who receive relationship care are less likely to have a preterm birth, less likely to lose their baby before 24 weeks and less likely to lose their baby overall.

We now have in the NHS 371 relationship teams with 2,355 midwives in place where the midwife provides all three elements of midwifery care: prenatal, birth and postnatal care, which is sometimes called follow-up care. In the James Paget Hospital, 90% of maternity care is provided through continuity and it has a waiting list for midwives to join the hospital. Through this initiative, we are transforming maternity care. The women and their families value hugely the relationship with their known midwife, and the midwives who are providing this care absolutely know that what they are doing is the right way to work. They would leave their hospital and go to one that provided such care if their hospital gave it up.

Listening to my noble friend Lady Hodgson, is not this what she seeks for general medical practice? Her amendment is well drafted and reflects an interesting report produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners, entitled The Power of Relationships: What is Relationship-based Care and Why is it Important? and published in June last year. In his foreword, Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the college, writes:

“COVID-19 has radically changed the face of general practice. We have moved from a predominantly face-to-face service to one in which most consultations are delivered remotely, either by telephone or video call … Remote consultations are certainly here to stay. For many patients, they enable quicker and more convenient access to a GP appointment, which of course is hugely important.”


But then he asks the following questions:

“But should speed and ease of access be our primary measures of effectiveness? They are certainly easier to quantify. But what about the quality of care? What about the relationship between doctor and patients which, to me, is the essence of general practice?”


He goes on to say that

“The evidence for the benefits of a trusting relationship is compelling—better patient experience; better adherence to medical advice, fewer prescriptions, better health outcomes, better job satisfaction for doctors and even fewer deaths.”


Indeed, he says that the relationship between the patient and their GP is as important as the scalpel is to a surgeon:

“If relationships were a drug, NICE would mandate their use.”