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

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne and myself. I pay tribute to her for raising this issue of vital importance to women, and for being their champion over many years in the face of some bitter attacks from a minority of trans zealots.

I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I resent the implication that somehow we are attacking trans people in these amendments. There is no conspiracy against them; we want equal treatment for everyone in the NHS. If there is any conspiracy it seems to be to demean the status of women. I also say to her that, yes, if these amendments were accepted, NHS policy would have to change to comply with the law of the land—the Equality Act 2010—because it is in breach of the exemptions in that Act at the moment.

As we all know, there is no real privacy in hospitals, however hard they may try. If one ties that funny gown the wrong way, like a dressing gown, one’s front is exposed; if one ties it properly, the rear is exposed. Even when one is recovered and wearing pyjamas or female bed attire, it is impossible in a hospital to carry out the routine of getting into and out of bed, and using the washing and other facilities, without some part of one’s anatomy being exposed. Many patients neglect to close or lock washroom doors. Some with mental health problems may express sexual disinhibition. When doctors come round and pull the screens around the bed, of course, there is still the discussion of one’s condition and the medical profession’s obsession with bowel movements, as we all know about.

I am old enough and ugly enough not to care what parts of my body medical professionals see. They have all poked, prodded and cut out various bits of it over the years so I am reasonably immune to embarrassment with them. However, I would find it highly embarrassing if I found a woman, or a man declaring as a woman, in the next bed and encountered her in the ablutions. Of course, it is highly unlikely that I would meet a woman since an infinitesimally small number of women identify as men, but many more men identify as women.

All my life, there has been an NHS policy of single-sex wards and Governments of all colours have been slammed on those occasions when men and women were sharing hospital accommodation. The policy is that patients should not have to share sleeping accommodation, nor toilet or bathroom facilities, with members of the opposite sex. The operative word is “sex”—biological sex, not gender.

Since we are speaking about women, sex and hospitals, I will put some astonishing medical information on the public record which has resulted in some women being sacked or abused for saying it. I stand to be corrected by medical experts present. I believe that only women can give birth to children, since only women have wombs. No matter what one declares one’s gender to be, only men get prostate and testicular cancer. Only women can breastfeed their children and men who have chests cannot. The sex of babies is not assigned at birth. Babies are born as boys or girls, and that includes those born with those rare congenital disorders of sexual development. No one decides to assign male or female to a baby; they are born that way, so that is why the term “sex assigned at birth” is so offensive.

In the course of daily life, working in most jobs or going to the pub et cetera, sex and gender do not matter and one can call oneself what one likes. But when it comes to medical treatment, two vital factors can determine the diagnosis and that treatment. These factors are age and sex. Sex is the only thing which matters medically, not gender, and that was always the case until the mistaken guidance issued in September 2019. The NHS always recognised that single-sex accommodation was essential not only for a patient’s privacy and dignity but for their treatment and recovery. Doctors recognised that patients in distress for whatever reason cannot recover as easily as those who are comfortable in their surroundings, and who are not fearful of people of the opposite sex seeing their body at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. That is why the NHS guidance stated in absolutely unambiguous terms:

“There are no exemptions from the need to provide high standards of privacy and dignity at all times”.


As my noble friends have pointed out, it all went haywire in annexe B of the guidance, which failed to implement the Equality Act 2010 and said that trans people should be accommodated according to their self-identification, which the guidance says

“may not always accord with the physical sex appearance of the chest or genitalia”.

It goes on to say that

“pre-operative transgender people should not share open shower facilities.”

I am sure that Jewish or Muslim women find it immensely reassuring that they can be in a shower with a man, so long as he has had some operation on his genitalia.

This is the advice I received from a Jewish expert in medical ethics. The religious requirements of Orthodox Judaism mandate single-sex facilities for both men and women where people are likely to be in a state of even partial undress. This includes the requirement for single-sex hospital wards, bathrooms and changing rooms. The distress, both psychological and spiritual, that is likely to be caused to Orthodox Jews if they are forced to share facilities with members of the opposite sex is considerable, as is the impact on the patient’s family. Orthodox Jews are protected under the Equality Act on the basis of their religious belief. It would be wholly unacceptable if an Orthodox Jewish woman were to be counselled by NHS staff into accepting the presence in the bed next to hers of a male patient who identifies as transgender. That is the advice I have received on Orthodox Judaism. I do not know, but I assume that the requirements of Islam are similar.

The needs of these women should apply to all women, whether religious, atheist or pagan, and not just those with particular religious beliefs. What is wrong with NHS guidance Annex B is that the Equality Act 2010 specifically exempts hospitals and the provision of joint services where a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective and in circumstances where a person of one sex might reasonably object to a person of the opposite sex.

I say to the Minister that the law is clear: women have the right to be kept in hospital accommodation with only other women. One of course exempts intensive care units, where patients are unconscious or nearly unconscious; their medical treatment is best served by all being in the same specialist unit together. I call on my noble friend the Minister to withdraw this flawed guidance on transgender patients and instruct the NHS to comply with the law of the land.

I will say a brief word on Amendment 297F. I have read the reports that some NHS trusts have logged women as transphobic, when all they have done is request single-sex accommodation and not to be in a bed next to a man who identifies as a woman. There are a few reports of this. It is nothing to do with anyone on Twitter posting a rant about some hateful person next to them; it is ordinary women saying, “Please can I be in a room where I do not have a man next to me?” It is as simple as that. I am told they are recorded as being transphobic, merely for making that request.

I asked my noble friend, in a Written Question, what evidence he has of this. He said that unfortunately —or fortunately—the NHS does not collect this information centrally; it is left to the trusts. I accept that, but I would like my noble friend to issue an instruction to all NHS trusts that it is perfectly legal for a woman to make this simple request and that she must not be stigmatised as transphobic for asking. That is completely separate and quite different from anyone who makes racist, offensive, threatening or genuinely hateful transphobic remarks.

There must be no discrimination against trans people in hospital or discrimination against anybody. Our amendment makes it clear that trans people must receive equal medical treatment, but that does not mean that their gender identity wish must be accommodated over and above the wishes of people of the opposite sex. If there were a finely balanced conflict of rights here, I would take the view that those demanding it is their right that their gender identify should take precedence over women’s sex are wrong and the rights of women should prevail. But there is no fine balance here. In my opinion, the NHS is breaking the Equality Act 2010, and I request that it obeys it as soon as possible.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a brief question. The contention is that there is a tension between the NHS England guidance on single-sex wards, which is eminently sensible, and Annex B. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on that specifically. In particular, he knows that under Schedule 3 to the Equality Act, on single-sex services, to which the noble Lord referred, it is permissible for the NHS to provide separate accommodation for women who are biological females. But my reading of Annex B is that it excludes that option. Again, I ask the Minister for the Government’s view on this.

My main reason for intervening is to say this. Surely there is a case now for a government review of the guidance. The Minister will know that the Equality and Human Rights Commission will shortly be updating its guidance on single-sex services. Clearly, it would be very sensible to review the NHS guidance in the light of that. An assurance that this will happen would be very appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

308: After Clause 95, insert the following new Clause—
“Pre-appointment scrutiny of HSSIB chair and Chief Investigator
Appointments to the posts of—(a) chair, and(b) Chief Investigatorof the HSSIB must be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the House of Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee.”Member’s explanatory statement
This reflects a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, to provide pre-appointment scrutiny to the appointment of the HSSIB Chair and Chief Investigator.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the intention to make the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch a statutory body. We know that healthcare is very complex and that adverse events unfortunately occur very regularly. Recognising that weak safety systems create the conditions for the inevitability of error is vital to achieving high levels of patient safety. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I chaired the National Patient Safety Agency at different times, and we saw there the problems of having an agency where there was no mechanism for turning its work into appreciable action in the health service. I have great hopes that the HSSIB may well have a major impact on how the NHS improves safety.

In 2019, we had a Bill that was interrupted by the general election, and we now have these clauses in this Bill. Prior to the Bill in 2019, there was pre-legislative scrutiny from a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. This Select Committee argued that the most critical priority is to ensure that the prohibited disclosure of safe space provisions is fully fit for purpose in protecting the identity and statements of individuals who participate in our national safety investigations. The whole concept of safe space is so important. Without people in the service having the confidence to be able to tell the branch what is happening and where things have gone wrong, I do not think the branch is going to be able to work effectively.

It is very significant that the Select Committee concluded that any concession to safe space proposals—to coroners, for example—might significantly harm the branch’s ability to conduct effective safety investigations and would undermine one of the core principles under which the branch is being established. The Government have never once given any explanation of why over 90 coroners should be allowed to override the safe space concept.

I am very disappointed to see that the senior coroners can, under paragraph 6 of Schedule 14,

“require the disclosure of protected material by the HSSIB”.

I am very supportive of the amendment of my noble friend to remove those coroners. In fact, I do not believe this is going to work unless we succeed in doing so. I look forward to some decent, substantive explanation—not just that the MoJ insisted on it, which we think is probably the real reason the Department of Health failed to stop this—as to why coroners should be allowed to impede the success of this endeavour.

The leadership of this organisation is clearly critical, and we have seen in recent weeks just how critical. The Joint Select Committee thought that, to emphasise the wider accountability of the HSSIB to Parliament, both the chair and the chief investigator should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee. The Government agreed at that time to have a look at it, and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell me what the conclusions are. Again, I would say that, in the light of recent very unfortunate experience within the leadership of this organisation, parliamentary scrutiny is very much justified.

There is some debate about whether the Secretary of State should have the power in Clause 97 to direct the branch to carry out an investigation. I do not think that undermines the independence of the branch. I think it is perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to be able to order an intervention; after all, he or she is responsible for the NHS to Parliament. But it is sensible that that power should not be unlimited and that the branch should have sufficient resources to carry out such an investigation and not have all its work diverted because of a request or instruction by the Secretary of State—hence my Amendment 309.

It is also important that, where an investigation is carried out under such a direction, a copy of the final report should be laid before Parliament, setting out what action the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the report. That is the subject of my Amendment 310.

In Clause 115, the oversight functions of the Secretary of State are laid out, including a power of direction in the event of HSSIB failure. That is quite normal. Such direction may not direct the outcome of a particular investigation. That seems sensible to me, but it should happen only in exceptional circumstances, and in the interest of transparency and accountability, the clause surely needs strengthening through my Amendments 312AA and 312AB.

I think the Government will find there is a great deal of support for the establishment of the branch as a statutory agency, but unless they can resolve the safe spaces concept and strengthen the governance, this branch may have some difficult challenges in the future. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for this debate and reassure them not only that I have listened carefully to it but that the Government will of course again look carefully at the arguments made. As the Committee has heard, HSSIB is no ordinary investigatory body. It will look at systemic risks and focus on learning lessons. It is not about blame; it is about improving patient safety incidents across the system and making a real difference to patient safety.

The Government agree that the integrity of the safe space is paramount. Safe space conditions will encourage patients, families, NHS staff and other investigation participants to speak freely and candidly. Without guarantees that this information will not be shared, except in very limited circumstances, we risk eroding the confidence of all those participating in an investigation, potentially leading to information being withheld and reducing the effectiveness of the investigation.

I turn to Amendments 311, 311A and 312A. We have sought to strike a fine balance between protecting safe space and acknowledging the need for very limited exceptions. We have allowed senior coroners to have access to information from the HSSIB, but only when it is appropriate and necessary for them to fulfil their judicial functions, and not to disclose onwards without further protections in place. Where the HSSIB has information about a death which the coroner is investigating, we need to ensure that the coroner’s judicial role is not undermined and that they have accurate and clear information. It does not mean that the coroner will have complete access to safe space information—far from it—nor that they will be able to automatically share this information. We have drafted provisions so that this does not happen. It is an intentionally limited and contained exemption.

Regarding Amendment 311, the Bill’s provisions are likely to have a very limited impact on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s ability to fulfil its important independent role of investigating complaints, given that it will still be able to use its existing powers to obtain material directly from the same primary sources. It will often not be investigating the same incidents as the HSSIB, as we have heard in Committee. If the PHSO felt it needed to access protected material held by the HSSIB, it could apply to the High Court. We do not envisage this being a common occurrence, as the HSSIB’s purpose will be very different from that of the PHSO. However, it means that the PHSO does have a way to gain access to protected information in certain circumstances.

We are committed to monitoring the impact that the safe space provisions may have on the PHSO’s ability to carry out its functions. We shall report to the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on this issue within 12 months of the HSSIB being fully operational, which we expect to be 12 months after the Bill gains Royal Assent.

A number of amendments relate to the role of the Secretary of State in relation to the HSSIB. We believe it is appropriate that the Secretary of State can direct the HSSIB to investigate particular qualifying incidents. This is an important tool available to the Secretary of State, which enables him and the HSSIB to respond to emerging or ongoing patient safety issues, which may arise at any time. It would therefore not be appropriate or prudent to limit the Secretary of State’s ability to direct the HSSIB to the first 18 months of its operation.

More importantly, the Secretary of State would not be able to direct the HSSIB on how to conduct a particular investigation. Clause 115 rightly allows the Secretary of State to intervene if

“the HSSIB is failing or has failed to exercise any of its functions, and … the failure is significant.”

The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the HSSIB’s performance, and it is in the public’s best interests that the HSSIB functions effectively.

I turn to Amendments 310A and 310B. Given the broad scope of the HSSIB’s investigation function, some flexibility is needed so that the Secretary of State can set out additional circumstances when the prohibition on disclosure—safe space—does not apply. It is vital that the HSSIB can adapt as clinical and record-keeping practices change on the front line and practice evolves. This power is about future-proofing and continuous improvement, not eroding safe space.

On Amendments 308A and 309, I understand the importance of the HSSIB having predictable budgets for planning, but requiring a three-year budget would cut across the established processes of spending reviews and put it out of step with the confirmation and allocation of budgets across government and other arm’s- length bodies.

Turning to Amendment 310, I reassure noble Lords that the HSSIB’s reports will be published. Organisations will generally be required to respond to the HSSIB’s recommendations and it may publish these responses. In some cases—for example, an investigation into a private provider—it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to publish an additional report.

I turn to Amendment 308. In line with the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments, the chair of the HSSIB will undergo pre-appointment scrutiny by the Health and Social Care Committee. However, the appointment of the chief investigator, which is not a public appointment, will be undertaken directly by the non-executive members of the HSSIB, including the chair, with the consent of the Secretary of State. We believe that this strikes the right balance between scrutiny, accountability and operational independence, without compromising the effectiveness of the board.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 309A. Whistleblowing is a distinct legal concept, with an existing legislative framework to ensure that whistleblowers are protected. The purpose of the HSSIB’s investigations is to identify risks to the safety of patients and address them by facilitating the improvement of systems and practices in the provision of healthcare services in England. A disclosure to the HSSIB concerning patient safety is complementary to but distinct from whistleblowing, so it is right that it should sit outside that legal framework.

However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that information shared with the HSSIB to alert it to a patient safety issue will be protected by the safe space provisions if it fulfils the definition of protected material. If, as mentioned in the amendment, a concern is raised that conduct is illegal, we would expect it to be raised with an appropriate person. Similarly, concerns relating to unethical conduct would not be best dealt with solely by the HSSIB. This amendment would risk blurring the lines with other organisations which may be better placed to deal with such matters.

I suspect that I have not given noble Lords as much reassurance as they would like in order not to return to this issue, but I hope I have given them enough that they feel able withdraw or not move their amendments at this time.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister—she was succinct but we certainly got the drift of the Government’s arguments. We have had just over an hour’s debate. Ideally, we would have taken this as a separate Bill, as we did in 2019, because these are clearly very complex issues. The heart of it is the tension between the purity of the safe space concept and the statutory duties of a number of officeholders, including senior coroners and the ombudsman. We will not resolve that tonight. The pity of it is that we will move to Report and probably vote on this; I cannot help thinking that there is a need for a proper round-table discussion before that to see whether we can collectively tease out a way forward. Having said that, it has been an excellent debate and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 308 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

298: Clause 81, page 71, leave out lines 34 to 37
Member’s explanatory statement
The intention of the amendment is to retain the existing obligations on NHS England to have regard to standards published under this section. Clause 81 (d)(6B) appears to remove the explicit obligation that previously existed under Section 250(6)(b) of Health and Social Care Act 2012 that NHS England (“the Board”) “must have regard to an information standard published under this section” and replaces it with a power for such obligations to be waived by Regulations.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we come to a debate on confidentiality of patient data. We debated some of this last week in considering my Amendment 145, on the power to disclose information relating to patients. I think there was general agreement then that public confidence in the handling of patient data by the NHS depends on the safeguards that are put in place. Without that public confidence, the huge potential we can see in the digital transformation of healthcare will not be realised, and that is behind the concerns I have raised in this series of amendments. They are linked together and are designed to probe just how secure patient data is.

Amendment 298 relates to information standards as set out in Clause 81, page 71, line 34, and would leave out proposed new section (6B). I am hoping the Minister will briefly set out the reasons for this proposed new section, how the power is intended to be used and what guarantees are in place in relation to patient confidentiality.

Amendment 299 concerns the importance of maintaining an accredited data access environment. I propose restricting

“existing dissemination of information via access in an accredited data access environment”.

The Bill is drafted on the basis of a departmental

“commitment that GP data will be used exclusively in a Trusted Research Environment”.

I do not think that is sufficient. It is important that the

“new clause amends the dissemination powers of NHS Digital to reflect stated policy and the promises made both to patients and the profession”.

The term “accredited data access environment” is used in my amendment, rather than “Trusted Research Environment” because while research information must be protected, so should information used for planning and managerial purposes.

Amendment 300 relates to shared care records and is aimed at probing

“what progress has been made in relation to the introduction of shared care records”,

the process by which patients can opt out of the record, and the rigour of that process. The potential of shared care records is, of course, a key part of the digital revolution. They allow staff involved in a patient’s care to access health and care records and to provide better joined-up care across different parts of the health and social care system. The problem is that consent for shared care records is basically a postcode lottery. In some places, the patient has not been told what has been created for them and if they do happen to find out, the way they can opt out varies. Some places have interpreted NHSX’s vague information governance guidance to mean a one-stop shop for opting out, whereas other places require patients to go to each different care provider, which is a very difficult and challenging thing to do.

Most people have no idea that the shared care records programme is happening. The application of the national data opt-out, introduced in 2018, is inconsistent in practice and does not prevent many other uses of patients’ data, in respect of which patients already have legal rights to consent. The debacle, twice now, of the Care.data saga shows the importance of getting this right, and of informing the public.

Amendment 304 concerns the soon-to-be-abolished duties of the Health and Social Care Information Centre, to be taken on by NHS England. The clause in question relates to data and the general duties of the information centre. My amendment would

“require NHS England to balance out the needs of research and planning with patient”

opt-out from data use “for purposes beyond direct care”.

My final amendment, 305, is in many ways the most important in this group. Very simply, I believe that patients should be able to see how the NHS uses data about them. My amendment aims to

“allow any patient with a verified NHS login to see a personalised data usage report containing detail of every use of data about them for purposes beyond direct care, and showing how the duties”

of the information centre have been implemented. The only way forward for wider use of NHS patients’ data involves the NHS providing more factual information to patients about those uses. I do not believe that the NHS understands this yet, but I am convinced that we need to make some move down this route if we are really to command the confidence we need to see in the future.

My other amendments, Amendments 302 and 303, really should have been grouped under the Healthwatch debate we had what seems like a very long time ago. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I are concerned to see that Healthwatch gets access to all relevant data in order to carry its responsibilities effectively. I hope the Minister will be able to agree to this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, first for his earlier confidence in my abilities and now for questioning my abilities, as it were, and rightly so. I am very interested in this, and noble Lords will remember that, in the meeting, I discussed what I saw as technical solutions to this. If there are different primary keys, it does not take a complicated bit of code to give equivalence or, in fact, restricted views, as it were, as appropriate. However, once again, those views would have to be agreed across government: while it might seem appropriate for the Department of Health number or the NHS number to be used, that could give access that is not considered appropriate, and we have to get the right balance. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to revert back to his earlier confidence in my abilities to do something —assuming I am here for some time.

In the coming months, the Department for Education will be providing an update to the existing information-sharing guidance. We believe that provides a real opportunity. One thing I have been quite clear about—for example, in the life sciences vision—is that I want to work with my counterparts and have been working with my counterparts in other departments; in BEIS, in DIT but also with the adviser in No. 10. I fully recognise the Committee’s interest in promoting data protection, ensuring that patients’ data is used appropriately. We have all been on a learning curve over the years as people share their data on such things as Facebook and now realise what happens to that data, how it is used and sold. I alhso refer to the ownership of data: at the end of the day, the data has to be the patient’s data. They have to be quite clear about that ownership and what happens to it.

All processing and sharing of information under Clauses 81 to 87 will meet the requirements of data protection law, including the UK GDPR. An individual’s personal information will be shared only in specific circumstances: where the individual consents to the use of the data, where there is a legal requirement to share or where sharing such data is necessary. I recognise as well that noble Lords, if we get through this, will be having a meeting tomorrow on confidential data and I hope that we can have some more, deeper conversations, not only tomorrow but in future. I have committed previously to meetings: there is a particular issue with one of the meetings and I will explain that to the noble Lords I spoke to previously about it, but I hope that for now, noble Lords will have some reassurance, although perhaps not complete reassurance, and will feel able to withdraw their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I am conscious of what my noble friend Lord Davies said about the time we have to debate these complex and important matters. Clearly, we would like to reflect on the Minister’s reply, which was constructive and helpful, although I cannot help recalling meetings that I held as a DoH Minister with the Department for Education Ministers in about 2002, where we were discussing this very issue. My noble friend Lady Hughes—Beverley Hughes—was the Education Minister and, alas, nearly 20 years later, here we are still talking about these issues, which is why we are a little pessimistic about the dive that the noble Lord is about to make.

In the end, this is all about public confidence and the balance between the needs of our health and care system and the benefit that accrues from the exchange of, and access to, information. I am alarmed by the figure for opt-outs—a million—and it puts at risk the integrity of having the shared information system. That is a reflection of the challenge that the NHS in particular faces and I still doubt whether it really recognises just what it needs to do. Making opt-out easier is one way in which we build confidence in the system, and it might mean that fewer people opt out in the future. The current system of making it as hard as possible for people to opt out is not the way to grow confidence. That is probably the most important point that I want to make.

Having said that, I thank the Minister for his constructive response, and we look forward to these further meetings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 298 withdrawn.

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.”

Elective Care Recovery

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, will the plan contain workforce assumptions? In particular, what will it say about the retention of current staff, the recruitment of more staff and more training places?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord rightly raises the issue of our brilliant workforce, who are at the heart of our plans for recovering services. The NHS’s delivery plans are focused on how we can transform these services and do things differently, not just asking staff to do more of the same. The monthly workforce statistics for November 2021 show that a record number of staff are working in the NHS, with over 1.2 million full-time-equivalent staff, which is over 1.3 million in headcount. This includes record numbers of doctors and nurses. In addition, we are recruiting new staff and focusing on different recruitment programmes and on retention, which many noble Lords have raised. We want to make sure that the excellent staff in our health system are happy and kept happy.

NHS Dentistry

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to Healthwatch England’s report What people have told us about NHS dentistry, published on 20 December 2021, what steps they are taking to address the issues faced by those attempting to access NHS dental care.

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

Practices are currently prioritising patients based on clinical need, and a new activity threshold has been set at 85% to safely increase access. A one-off additional £50 million, recently secured for NHS dental services this financial year, will urgently give more people, including children and others who are vulnerable, access to vital dental care. We are working with the NHS, Health Education England and the British Dental Association to improve access through dental system reform.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the £50 million one-off payment for 350,000 appointments is a drop in the ocean compared to the 38 million appointments that have been lost during Covid. The Healthwatch report shows that parents are having great difficulty accessing NHS dentistry for their children, who may be suffering pain and unable to eat, and we know about adults who are indulging in self-care because they cannot find an NHS dentist. When will the Government get to grips with this problem and develop a proper strategy for dealing with it?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As the noble Lord will know, anyone can have access to an NHS dentist—they do not have to be registered with the practice in question—and when they are unable to find a practice, they can ring 111 to get information. In addition, over 700 urgent dental care centres remain open across the country.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Noble Lords have already heard the well-versed and evidenced arguments put forward and, while the amendment does not specifically refer to China, there can be no doubt that the well-documented example of the horrific treatment of the Uighur people in Xinjiang province would fall under its scope.

We have all heard today about the hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of healthcare goods that have flooded into this country since the start of the pandemic, much of it sourced from China. We would expect our Government to make every effort to disentangle our supply chains from implication in these atrocities, so was any due diligence carried out throughout our procurement process? This amendment would correct that oversight if it was not.

I do not want to repeat everything that has already been said by others, but I want to highlight the importance of the risk-assessment aspect in proposed new subsection (3). I anticipate that the Minister will highlight the work already being done by government departments to weed out companies with slave labour in their supply chains. Perhaps sometimes they are being asked to perform an impossible task, because I understand that supply chains in the Uighur region of China are almost entirely opaque. It is suggested that the area is rife with systematic forced labour, that audits there are worthless and that workers live in fear and terror of telling the truth. Indeed, as we have already heard, the US Government have just passed legislation presuming that all imports from the region are tainted unless proven otherwise.

Surely, it is our responsibility, as a signatory to the genocide convention, to do all that we can to prevent genocide when there is a serious risk of it taking place. This amendment builds on the work that we have already done in this regard. We cannot continue business as usual with China or any other state that condones or supports genocide. I ask the Government to act urgently to ensure that our supply chains are not tainted by goods made with Uyghur forced labour. I ask Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House to join us and reassert our commitment to global human rights and to provide the protection against genocide, wherever it is needed, by supporting this amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As we are really talking about procurement in the NHS, I should declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association.

It is entirely reasonable to use NHS procurement rules in this way. The noble Earl knows that Clause 70 is intended to give wide discretion to Ministers to bring in a new procurement regime. I see no reason why this cannot be part of that regime.

I sometimes think the NHS operates in isolation from what is happening in the world, but it cannot operate in isolation from the terrible things that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords have spoken about. I hope the noble Earl will be sympathetic.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

224: After Clause 80, insert the following new Clause—
“Access to NHS dentistry
The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, publish a statement setting out what measures the Government is taking to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of what measures the Government is taking to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that I do not slow us down again after the provocative words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, but I am going to talk about access to dental treatment and fluoridation. Although the House is somewhat empty, I expect that as the debate goes on it might fill up a little.

We had an Oral Question this afternoon about dentistry, and I do not want to repeat everything that was said then. I have enjoyed debating dental issues with the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for many years. He will know that there is widespread concern about the lack of access to dentistry. At Oral Questions the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to the £50 million that had been provided, but I am afraid that the 350,000 treatments that it will pay for are a drop in the ocean compared with the 38 million patient treatments that have been lost as a result of the pandemic.

Many people are finding accessing dentistry almost impossible at the moment. The Minister referred earlier today to people being able to use the access centres, and to the 111 service, but I am afraid that it has broken down in many parts of the country. One is led to the conclusion that dentistry issues are not a priority. Many adults and children are suffering in pain because of their lack of access. The Government must focus on this and develop a proper strategy. I pay tribute to Healthwatch for its work in this area—it has had a lot of interest from members of the public—and to the BDA for its briefings.

Treatment is one thing, prevention is another. Here, I must remind the Committee of my presidency of the British Fluoridation Society. This brings me to effective preventive measures. I welcome Clauses 147 and 148. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is not here to hear me say this, but essentially, giving this responsibility to local authorities has proved to be a failure. Not one local fluoridation scheme has gone through under the auspices of local authority leadership, and we must conclude that leaving it to local authorities is likely to mean that we will not see fluoridation developed in any part of the country.

So this is a national issue and it is right that the Secretary State should take over responsibility; it is also right to acknowledge that, in September last year, the four Chief Medical Officers stated:

“As with all things in medicine and public health there is a balance of risk and benefit.”


We have certainly learned that in the last two years. As they said:

“There is unquestionably an issue with tooth decay in the UK and an entrenched inequality which needs to be addressed. Fluoridation of water can reduce this common problem … On balance, there is strong scientific evidence that water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for reducing the prevalence of tooth decay and improving dental health equality across the UK. It should be seen as a complementary strategy, not a substitute for other effective methods of increasing fluoride use.”


I think that is a very wise assessment of the situation. The effectiveness of fluoridation of water supplies to improve oral health has been evident for many decades. Some communities such as my own—Birmingham—have taken advantage and, as a result, we generally enjoy good overall oral health, but progress in spreading these benefits has been very slow. The transfer to local government, I am afraid, did not work.

So I strongly support the thrust of these clauses; in fact, they are the two most welcome clauses in the whole Bill. The question, however, is whether they will bite, and this is what lies behind my amendments. Amendment 260 concerns the consultation process. I do not think I have got the wording in quite the right place—frankly, trying to find my way through the Water Act and changes to it over the last 20 years or so proved beyond me—but the intent is to ask: if there is to be consultation about schemes, please can we move away from the local consultations that have to be gone through at the moment? They are an absolute nightmare. They bring out opposition from national bodies that causes mayhem in the locality.

The issue is not the practicalities of the scheme but about going back over the principle. The very fact that the Government have brought these clauses has decided the principle of the benefit of fluoridation. If there is to be a consultation, for goodness’ sake, let us have just one instead of the myriad local consultations that have obviously got in the way of progress in the past.

My Amendment 261 is part probing. Currently, the Bill gives the Secretary State power to make regulations to require a public body to meet the costs to the Secretary of State in relation to fluoridation schemes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the reasons and circumstances under which they would be used. My concern would be that asking too hard a subvention of local bodies might inhibit the progress of fluoridation schemes. Amendment 262 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that a programme for implementing water fluoridation schemes is established within 12 months of the Bill being passed. I would like to see a report every three years, laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, on the progress made in implementing new water fluoridation schemes. The basic purpose would be to ensure that the Government get on with this, establishing more schemes and spreading the benefits across the entire community as soon as possible. I beg to move, and hope that I have met the noble Baroness’s test.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 260, 261 and 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on water fluoridation.

The NHS rightly prides itself on being evidence-based. Nevertheless, when Ara Darzi became health Minister, he was concerned that, in a number of areas such as the treatment of diabetes, there was not a full assessment of regular outcomes, as opposed to the fantastic clinical trials on new treatments for specific diseases. Hence, he introduced his atlas of outcomes. It showed, for example, absolutely unacceptable different outcomes for diabetes if you lived in Cornwall—where you were more likely to lose a leg—compared with Essex. There were serious lessons to be drawn from that, which needed to be applied in other areas, too.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness, because she was making a significant point. I am not sure that I share her perception that those who buy bottled water in supermarkets necessarily do so as a reflection of their lack of trust in tap water; a lot of it has to do with some myths around the benefits of bottled water. However, be that as it may, I will take advice and write to the noble Baroness. I am not sufficiently sighted on the issue she raised and the evidence behind it, so it is probably appropriate if I look into it and write to her.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. On dental access, a number of noble Lords—my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, among others—commented on the great difficulty that many people have at the moment in getting access to an NHS dentist. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, focused in particular on children, which is my particular concern. More energy needs to be put into developing a dental strategy. On thoughts of contracts, anyone who has been a dental Minister will know that the problem with contracts is that dentists always overperform, and the Treasury then claws back in future years, leading to unhappiness and misery in the profession. The fact that the pilot schemes, on which I think work is being based for a future contract, have now stopped, or are going to be stopped, is a great pity, and it does not show positive intent.

On fluoridation, I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Young, intervened. A couple of debates ago I was watching on the screen, and he chided me for what I thought was a perfectly formed piece of legislation at the time, many years ago. He talked about his experience as a Minister 42 years ago. I think it was because of his work that I, 37 years ago, as secretary of the Edgware/Hendon Community Health Council, organised public meetings in part of the Borough of Barnet on fluoridation, prior, we hoped, to the then area health authority implementing a fluoridation scheme. Although the public meetings came out strongly in favour of fluoridation, of course nothing happened. I am afraid that the experience in Barnet and Edgware and Hendon was repeated up and down the country, which is why I applaud the Government for doing what they are doing now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke very eloquently about the evidence from deprived areas. Sandwell, next door to Birmingham, is high up in most indicators of poor health, except in dentistry. That is because, unlike Liverpool, Birmingham City Council took the decision in the 1960s to fluoridate the water supply and Sandwell got the benefit. The result is that, in general, oral health in the West Midlands is very good indeed.

I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Reay. He mentioned the Jauncey judgment, which unfortunately I remember. I remind him that, although Lord Jauncey ruled that Strathclyde Regional Council was exceeding its powers in seeking to fluoridate the water system, he accepted that the amount of fluoride it wanted to put into the system would have no significant adverse effect on health, that fluoridation had been shown to be harmless and that it would be effective. When we quote Lord Jauncey, we need to quote the whole judgment, rather than just whether Strathclyde was found to have the power to put fluoride in the water.

I will not repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said. In only September, the Chief Medical Officers spoke in their judgment about the effectiveness and safety of fluoride. I was very glad to hear the point the noble Earl made about expansion; I am very glad that it is on the Government’s mind. I look forward to the consultation, which I take will be a national one, if there is going to be an expansion; that is very good news indeed.

On cost sharing, I register that this Bill is full of little clauses which give Ministers powers to do something in the future, when they know what they want to do. I mention procurement regulations in Clause 70 at the same time; I think that is going a bit too far. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 224 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope this House gives serious consideration to this amendment. The stories in the Times about considering further NHS reforms are disturbing and have serious implications for this Bill on Report. They should give the House pause for thought in giving the Secretary of State the powers of direction being sought. If another NHS reform is being cooked up in Victoria Street, it raises the question of why Parliament is labouring so long on this Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I shall say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner; I put my name to his original Amendment 285 and, obviously, I very much endorse what he said. Reading the Select Committee report again, I find it as fresh as ever and its analysis of the issues faced in the NHS are exactly the pressures we see at the moment. Let us be clear: it was a hard analysis. We are all proud of the NHS, but the report rightly pointed out that it performs poorly in comparison with many countries on many indicators. In acute care, we have worse outcomes for survival for stroke and heart attacks, we lag behind comparable European countries for cancer survival, and we have fewer beds, fewer doctors and fewer nurses per head than OECD averages. As capacity is so tight, it is no wonder, given the current pressures post pandemic, that the NHS is struggling to meet the challenges it faces. We have talked about dental access, but we could talk about the horrendous waiting times for treatment or the dreadful ambulance waiting times which are frightening for people with very serious illnesses.

The Government’s approach is one initiative at a time on the whim of the Secretary of State at the time. We have already got the Messenger review which is bringing in a general to tell the NHS how to manage its services. How many times have we introduced people before? I think Secretary of State Hunt established the report by the noble Lord, Lord Rose. He clearly wanted Rose to say that NHS managers were useless. Of course, the noble Lord did not say that. He said that Ministers are useless at creating circumstances in which managers can thrive. Messenger will come out with the same response and his report will also be rejected because what these reports all say is that the way Ministers lead from the centre is non-conducive to the sensible management of the NHS at local level. Bringing some long-term planning to the NHS with the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggests seems to be eminently sensible. I hope this is one of the issues that we will take to Report because it is fundamental to the future.

I was a bit nonplussed because I was rising to support my noble friend Lady Thornton on her Amendment 281, but she is yet to speak to it. It is always good to see the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in his place. When we debated the future of Public Health England in the 2011 Bill that led to the 2012 Act, we warned that placing PHE firmly within the department would lead to a complete misunderstanding among all of us about who was responsible for its performance. Lo and behold, we had the Covid crisis and that is what happened. Noble Lords will remember that at the beginning Ministers were briefing that PHE was hopeless and that they had lost confidence in it, and that led to the rushed announcement by the previous Secretary of State about the setting up of the UK Health Security Agency. No one knew, because Ministers kept quiet, that they were accountable for PHE and that PHE staff are officials. They are civil servants directly responsible to Ministers for their performance. The Joint Committee inquiry into Covid identified this. Yes, there were issues with Public Health England’s performance, but Ministers should take responsibility.

We risk repeating the problem with the UK security agency, because, again, it is being set up as an agency part of the department, under the control of Ministers. Once again, when trouble arises, we will see the same pattern of Ministers trying to escape their responsibilities for what is performed by this particular agency. The reason I support my noble friend is that I think she is absolutely right in seeking to place this agency on a more independent basis, so that it can be seen to account for what it does and we can avoid the ambiguity being built into the current situation.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I also want to rise to support Amendment 285 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I was very happy to put my name to that. As the noble Lord said, I was also a member of your Lordships’ Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care.

Noble Lords who have been following this set of Committee days will realise that this amendment goes to the heart of a lot of what we have been talking about, which is the conflict between short-termism and long-term planning. The Bill is about the integration of health and social care, improving health outcomes and reducing health inequalities. They are not short-term fixes; it is a long-term journey, which will mean long-term plans.

As an independent body, this body does not stop Ministers being able to control health policy. It sets out a framework of what is required in terms of staffing; what the issues will be in terms of disease profile; what will happen in terms of demand; and for seeing how successful the Government have been, not just in being able to give a press release about certain amounts of money going to a certain area but in whether the long-term benefits of that money are achieving better health outcomes, reducing health inequalities and getting the right staffing to the right places to get a better health and social care system for the people of England. That is what this body is about. I think that, of all the amendments we have discussed—I probably would say this, because my name is to it—this is one of the most important, because it deals with the conflict between the priorities of short-termism and long-term planning.

I also want to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did, that I was astounded, as a former health service manager, that no one in the Department for Health planned for long-term care in the healthcare system. We expected the answer that at least there was somebody in a darkened room doing it. But there was absolutely nobody doing it; it was all about the whim of the Minister. In reality, that was what came out.

I think this amendment actually helps with the central purpose of this Bill, of integrating healthcare, reducing health inequalities and improving health outcomes, because it is long-term. I think it is absolutely right that this House and the public understand how the Government are doing against independent reviews at five, 10 and 15 years. We will be able to see whether the right staff, the right money and the right focus on prevention versus dealing with the acute sector are actually happening, and whether Governments, of one or two or three colours, over a period of time, are improving the healthcare system the population and leading to better health outcomes.

I also support Amendment 281, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has talked about. For me, public health has been kicked for too many years between different parts of the care and health system. In particular, when you have an executive agency whose primary responsibility is to plan and then co-ordinate public health—not just at government level, but within local government and across government—if it is not independent and is not a statutory body, yet again it just plays to the whim of Ministers. I will give an example of why it is not working in its present form, based on something that has just happened in the last few weeks.