Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 219 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The covid-19 pandemic has tested our country like never before, and nowhere more has this been seen than in our health and care system. Everyone delivering health and social care in this country has risen to meet these tests in remarkable new ways. We have seen bold new ways of working, of overcoming bureaucracy and of people working seamlessly across traditional boundaries. New teams were forged, new technologies adopted and new approaches found.
There is no greater example of this than the extraordinary success of our vaccine roll-out, where health and care colleagues have been able to draw on the collective scale and strengths of our Union to deliver one vaccination programme for the whole of the United Kingdom. Today, I can confirm to the House that two thirds of adults have received both jabs against covid-19 one week earlier than planned. It is a remarkable achievement. Everyone working in the NHS and social care can be proud of what they have achieved, and we are all in this House very proud of them.
As we look to the post-pandemic world, we know there is still no shortage of challenges ahead—an ageing population, an increase in people with multiple health conditions and, of course, the chance to embrace the full potential of data and technology.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Jim Shannon
It is just, Secretary of State, because you mentioned the issue I wanted to bring up about people getting older. I spoke to your colleague, the Minister for Health, yesterday and I am appreciative of that—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member really must not refer directly to the Secretary of State; it is through the Chair.
Jim Shannon
Recent statistics show that over 40,000 people under 65 in the UK have dementia, and many more have not been diagnosed as of yet. It would seem that these figures are not addressed in the Health and Care Bill, so can I ask the Secretary of State what more will be done to offer support to those suffering with dementia and Alzheimer’s in the UK through this social services care Bill?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman as he raises a very important issue. In this Bill, as I will come to, one of the central themes is integration. When I come to that, I hope he will see how that integration between NHS and social care will help to deliver a better service for those with dementia.
Everything I refer to—these challenges—are all in addition to the challenges of the pandemic that of course we still face and the elective backlog that we know is going to get worse before it gets better. Meeting the future with confidence relies on learning lessons from the pandemic—what worked and what did not work—and building on a decade of innovation in health and care.
Sometimes the best intentions of the past cannot stop what is right for the future. Bureaucracy can still make sensible decision making harder, silos can stifle work across boundaries and sometimes legislation can get in the way. We have seen how unnecessary rules have meant contracts have needed to be retendered even where high-quality services are being delivered, we have seen the complicated workarounds needed to help the NHS and local government to work together, and we have seen the uncertainty about how to share data across the health and care system. People working in health and social care want the very best for people in their care. That is what they have shown time and again, not least in the way they have embraced integration and innovation to save lives through this pandemic. They want to hold on to the remarkable spirit of integration and innovation, but they want to let go of everything that is holding them back and we want to help them to do it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On that point of bureaucracy, I recently saw the apotheosis of the NHS, where an Anglican church had draped an altar with a flag saying, “O Praise the NHS”. So when we have a new Secretary of State, can we have a really hard-hitting attitude to NHS bureaucracy? We all praise our doctors and nurses, but the fact is that, like any other bureaucracy, it is prone to underperformance, waste and incompetence. There is no harm, as long as we preserve the principle of being free at the point of delivery, in having innovative private sector solutions.
Sajid Javid
I hear what my right hon. Friend has said and I think that, as I progress through my opening remarks, he will like what I have to say about integration and cutting bureaucracy.
All these things that I refer to and all these changes we want to make are exactly what this Health and Care Bill will do. I want to thank the thousands of hard-working staff who, through two years of consultation and engagement, have come forward and told us what they think works and what they think needs to change. In the words of Lord Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the overwhelming majority of these proposals are changes that the health service has asked for. The Bill supports improvements that are already under way in the NHS. It builds on the recommendations of the NHS’s own long-term plan. It is a product of the NHS, it is for the NHS, and it is supported by the NHS.
I am grateful to all the organisations that have helped to shape these important proposals—everyone from the NHS Confederation to the Local Government Association. I have spent many of my early days in this job talking to them, and they have all told me the same thing, which is that they are ready to take forward the reforms. I want to continue to work with them and to listen to their specific concerns, just as much as I want to listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members across the House and by Members in the other place.
Sajid Javid
With that, I want to listen to this particular hon. Member.
Munira Wilson
The Secretary of State referred to Lord Stevens and what the NHS has asked for in trying to get rid of things that stand in its way. Something that it has not asked for is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State, which is in the Bill and will lead to political interference in day-to-day operational and reconfiguration decisions, which may not always be in the best interests of patients. Why does he think that that is a sensible way forward and something that the NHS wants?
Sajid Javid
Clinical decisions should always be made by those with clinical expertise—I think everyone in the House would agree on that—and that should be independent of any outside interference. The Bill does nothing to alter that. What it does is recognise that the NHS is one of the public’s top priorities. We spend over £140 billion of taxpayers’ money on the NHS, and it is right that there is proper accountability for that spending to Ministers and therefore to the House. I think that most people would welcome that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has talked about people he has consulted, so would he confirm that he has consulted the trade unions, particularly on schedule 2, which says that integrated care boards may appoint employees to address remuneration, pensions and terms and conditions. Can he confirm that that is a departure from Agenda for Change terms?
Sajid Javid
There have been wide-ranging consultations on the Bill, as I mentioned, which have taken place over the past two years. While I cannot say specifically which trade union or which particular organisation has been spoken to, as I was not in the Department at the time, I know that the conversations have been wide ranging.
The Bill is not the limit of our ambitions on the nation’s health. We are also transforming public health; we are bringing the Mental Health Act into the 21st century; and, by the end of this year, we will set out plans putting adult social care on a sustainable footing for the future.
We are also ambitious for our workforce. I have commissioned Health Education England to refresh its strategic framework for health and social care workforce planning. HEE will work in partnership across the sector and gather views from the widest possible range of stakeholders to help us to shape a workforce with the right skills, the right knowledge and the right values for the year ahead.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has set out his plans to introduce a plan for social care by the end of the year, and I know that he is looking for a cross-party solution. In a joint inquiry by two Select Committees—the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee—one of the recommendations was a system with a German-style social care premium. Would that potentially feature in his recommendations, and does he agree that that is a much fairer system than a Dilnot-style system that incentivises people to spend their assets or move them somewhere where they cannot be touched?
Sajid Javid
First, my hon. Friend is right to say that it would be great if all or most Members of this House, and certainly the different parties, could agree on a new system. I look forward to speaking to all hon. Members about what a future social care system could look like. In terms of the detail, I am afraid that he is just going to have to wait a moment longer, but I agree that the work by the Select Committees will, of course, inform our decisions.
I turn in a little more detail to the measures and themes that are captured in the Bill. The first is more integration. We know that different parts of the system want to work together to deliver joined-up services, and we know that, when they do that, it works. We have seen that with the non-statutory integrated care systems in the past few years. They have united hospitals and brought together communities, GPs, mental health services, local authority care and public health, and it works. We recognise that there are limits on how far this can go under the current law, so this Bill will build on the progress of integrated care systems by creating integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships as statutory bodies. England’s 42 ICSs will draw on the expertise of people who know their areas best. They will be able to create joint budgets to shape how we care for people and how we promote a healthy lifestyle. With respect to the specific geographies of the ICSs themselves, as I have said elsewhere, I am willing to listen.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In passing, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? I also very much welcome part 4 of the Bill, which introduces the health services safety investigations body. This is a great innovation that was promoted by the Public Administration Committee and scrutinised by the Joint Committee that I chair. Can I just reinforce the points that I know he is now receiving from NHS England with a warning about changing the boundaries of the integrated care systems that are already operating? In Suffolk and north-east Essex, we have a very high-functioning de facto integrated care system operating already. Please will he not change it?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and this may be on the minds of other hon. Members as well. It is important to point out that several factors will be helpful in fostering stronger partnerships between the NHS and local authorities, including the alignment of boundaries. Earlier this year, the former Secretary of State asked NHS England to conduct a boundary review of integrated care systems, to understand the best way forward and the best alignment where local authorities currently have to work with more than one ICS. I have met my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, and I know that hon. Members may have made representations to my predecessor. I have been informed of those, and where the information might not be remembered easily, I am sure we can get hold of some video evidence. [Laughter.] I want to thank all hon. Members for their input into this, and I stress that no final decisions have yet been made on the boundary review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a reminder that interventions need to be short and to the point, because there is a lot of pressure on time in this debate.
Tim Farron
My point is about boundaries. Lancashire and south Cumbria have a perfectly reasonable boundary, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is concern that, because most rural communities are attached to bigger, more populated urban ones, that can lead to an imbalance in decisions? One of the proposals that our community faces is that the Preston and Lancaster hospitals could be replaced by a single super-hospital somewhere in the middle. HIP2—the health infrastructure plan 2—is a good thing, but that would be very bad thing, because it would mean that people in south Cumbria could have a two-hour round trip just to get to A&E. Will he intervene and ensure that any proposals under HIP2 that undermine access to healthcare in rural communities are taken off the table?
Sajid Javid
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As I have said, no final decisions have been made, but if he would like a meeting with a Health Minister, we can arrange that so that the matter can be discussed further.
I am also very grateful to another of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), first for his leadership of the Health Committee, whose valuable report and recommendations we have taken on board, and secondly for his tireless dedication to the cause of patient safety, which sees its culmination in the Bill’s creation of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. We must continue, in his words, that quiet revolution in patient safety. I have asked my officials to consider whether the Care Quality Commission could look broadly across the integrated care systems in reviewing the way in which local authorities and providers of health, public health and social care services are working together to deliver safe, high-quality integrated care to the public.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks of patient safety. May I ask him why the Bill contains none of Sir Bruce Keogh‘s recommendations on the cosmetic surgery industry, which are now 10 years old? In response to questions that I have asked, Ministers keep saying that the recommendations are going to be implemented. Could this not be an opportunity to improve patient safety in that area?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. There are issues surrounding the cosmetic surgery industry, and I know that he has spoken eloquently about them in the House before. I do not necessarily agree that this Bill has to be the vehicle for any change, but if he wishes to discuss the matter further, I should be happy to meet him in due course, because it is important and it does require a fresh look.
Whenever the NHS is subject to change, it is tempting for some, who should actually know better, to claim that it is the beginning of the end of public provision. We know that that is complete nonsense, and they know it is nonsense, but they say it anyway. So let me very clear: our integrated care boards will be made up of public sector bodies and those with a social purpose. They will not be driven by any private interests, and will constantly make use of the most innovative potential of non-NHS bodies.
The spirit of this Bill is about holding on to what is best about the NHS and removing what is holding it back. That is something that we all want, and I am looking forward to a mature debate—[Laughter.] Perhaps that is too much to ask in this Chamber with this Opposition Front Bench, but I hope for, and I think the public expect, a mature debate on the Bill and on how we can achieve these sensible changes together.
In that spirit, the second theme of the Bill is cutting bureaucracy. As we have been tested during these past months, we have looked at the rules and regulations through new eyes. It has become increasingly clear which of them are the cornerstone of safe, high-quality care, and which are stifling innovation and damaging morale. It is that second group of rules and regulations that the Bill strips away, removing the existing procurement regime and improving the way in which healthcare services are arranged. Yes, this is about how we deliver better value for the taxpayer, but fundamentally it is about how we can free up NHS colleagues to deliver better care. We know that patients are better served when experts are free to innovate unencumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic processes. That is why the Bill will repeal section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, giving the NHS the flexibility for which it has been asking. I know that this is a point of agreement with the Labour party—
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
We said it 10 years ago.
Sajid Javid
The Labour party said it not just 10 years ago but in 2015, 2017 and 2019—in all those manifestos—so I am sure that its members agree with this direction. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If Members want to intervene, let me say to them that the Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, but just shouting at him is not working.
Sajid Javid
They are excited, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I understand that. Let me excite them much more.
The third theme of the Bill is greater accountability. We have never seen so clearly as we have in the past 16 months how critical the health of our constituents is for the House. The Government of the day always work hand in hand with the NHS to deliver that priority. That is what people would expect from a responsible Government. People also rightly expect there to be clear lines of accountability for how this priority is delivered. Accountability is the foundation of our democracy, and on that I hope we all agree.
On the nation’s greatest priority, our health, this Bill sets out clear lines of accountability to the people we all serve. The Bill simplifies what has been a complex structure, bringing the three different bodies that oversee the NHS into just one, as NHS England. NHS England will continue to have clinical day-to-day operational independence, but it is right that the NHS must be accountable to Ministers, and Ministers must be accountable to Parliament, where we are all accountable to the people we serve.
Naturally, that accountability will extend to these integrated care systems. The right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is on the record, in an interview with the Health Service Journal in December 2019, as saying that he agrees with the principle of the legislative changes that had been put forward by the NHS for “democratically accountable” ICSs. He cannot have any objection to this point. We will see what he has to say from the Dispatch Box.
I hope we can all agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic step. Let me quote once more:
“We will reinstate the powers of the Secretary of State for Health to have overall responsibility for the NHS.”
Those are not my words but the words of the 2017 Labour manifesto. I look forward to working with the shadow Health Secretary on this and other aspects of the Bill, and I urge him to set aside petty party politics and point scoring and do what the NHS wants him to do, which is to back this Bill.
Before I finish my opening remarks, I turn to the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition Members. What is claimed by the reasoned amendment is entirely wrong. This is exactly the right time for these reforms. The response to covid-19 has quickened the pace of collaboration across health and social care, showing what we can do when we all work together, when we adopt new technology and when we set aside bureaucratic rules. The pandemic has also brought home the importance of preventing ill health in the first place. The Bill lays the framework to achieve all that.
More than that, this Bill is what the NHS has been asking for. It builds on the NHS’s long-term plan and the work the NHS has already started to do voluntarily. We have invested record sums in the NHS, both before and, of course, during this pandemic, and we will continue to do so.
The systems are telling us that they are ready, that they want us to go ahead with this Bill. They do not want to see any delay, which is why this is important work for all of us. Hopefully Parliament can deliver what the NHS is asking for.
The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic have only deepened our affection for the NHS, and it has reinforced the noble idea that the NHS is there for all of us when we need it. I started learning about the NHS from a very early age when I used to go to check-ups with my mum and translate for her. It was there for her, it has been there for me, it has been there for my family, it has been there for my children and it has been there for all of us and our constituents.
Even in this fast-changing world, with the new and evolving threats to our health, the founding principles of the NHS are as true today as they ever were. It is our responsibility to build on this incredible inheritance. Our NHS is the envy of the world, so it is right that this Government should work across health and care to shape a system that is truly fit for the future. Our colleagues in health and social care have achieved extraordinary things in the most extraordinary times, and we in this place must give them the firm foundations they need to build back better in the years that lie ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I bring in the shadow Secretary of State, I remind hon. Members that there will be an immediate three-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. There is a countdown clock for those in the Chamber, and for those participating virtually, there will be a clock on the screens.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Health and Care Bill, notwithstanding the need for a plan for greater integration between health services and social care services and for restrictions on junk food advertising to improve population health outcomes, because the Bill represents a top down reorganisation in a pandemic leading to a loss of local accountability, fails to reform social care, allows further outsourcing permitting the private sector to sit on local boards and fails to reinstate the NHS as the default provider, fails to introduce a plan to bring down waiting lists for routine NHS treatment or tackle the growing backlog of care, fails to put forward plans to increase the size of the NHS workforce and see them better supported, and fails to put forward a plan that would give the NHS the resources it needs to invest in modern equipment, repair the crumbling NHS estate or ensure comprehensive, quality healthcare.”
Well, the Secretary of State talked a lot, but he did not say very much. Look at the context of where we are. Yesterday, we recorded 36,000 covid infections. Hospital admissions have increased to over 500 a day, up 50% in a week. Waiting lists are at the highest level on record, currently at 5.3 million. Some 336,733 people have been waiting over a year for treatment, over 76,583 people are waiting over 18 months, and over 7,000 people are waiting over two years. Some 25,889 people are waiting more than two weeks from urgent referral to a first consultant appointment for cancer. Emergency care is grappling with some of the highest summer demands ever seen. Two hundred and fifty thousand people are waiting for social care. NHS staff are exhausted, facing burnout. We went into this pandemic with 100,000 vacancies across the NHS and a further 112,000 vacancies across social care.
The answer from the Secretary of State is to embark on a top-down reorganisation when we are not even through the pandemic—a reorganisation that will not deliver the integration needed, because reforms to social care are delayed again; a reorganisation that will not deliver more care but in fact, in periods of stretched health funding, could well deliver less care; and a reorganisation that is, in effect, a Trojan horse to hide a power grab by the Secretary of State.
Let us be clear why this reorganisation is taking place. The Government have come forward with this Bill because of the mess of the last reorganisation—the mess that the Secretary of State supported and voted for, and the mess that he spoke out for in this House, saying that it would modernise the NHS and that the
“concept of GP commissioning has been widely supported by politicians from all parties for many years. May I urge my right hon. Friend to keep putting patients first by increasing GP involvement in the NHS?”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 773.]
Why, if he believed that then, has he U-turned now? And it was a mess that we warned of. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who opposed that Bill in this House, warned the Government that it would increase bureaucracy and increase the fragmentation that the Secretary of State has just complained about from the Dispatch Box.
Ministers said that that reorganisation under Lord Lansley would reduce bureaucracy, and Back Benchers told us that it would reduce bureaucracy, but what ended up happening? Billions were wasted and thousands of NHS staff were made redundant. That was the Government’s priority then, and now they are asking us to clean up their mess today. They also told us that that reorganisation would improve cancer survival rates, and where are we today? We are still lagging behind other countries on cancer survival rates. Perhaps the Secretary of State could have come to the Dispatch Box and apologised for that Lansley reorganisation and 10 wasted years.
The Secretary of State talked about NHS leaders, but the truth is that NHS leaders asked for a simple Bill to get rid of the worst of the Lansley restructuring and instead re-embed a sense of equity, collaboration and social justice in our NHS structures. That is not what this Bill is. Of course, the Secretary of State secretly agrees with me. According to The Times, he wrote to the Prime Minister saying that there were “significant areas of contention” that were yet to be resolved with the Bill, and that he wanted to delay it. The Secretary of State was only back five minutes and already Downing Street was overruling him. When it overrules him on his choice of spin doctors, he walks; when it overrules him on the future of the NHS, he puts his career first and stays in the Cabinet.
I listened carefully to the case made by the Secretary of State. He talked of the need for greater integration between health and social care and the need to provide better co-ordinated care, and he referred to an ageing population.
To be frank, that was a speech that Health Secretaries and their predecessor Social Services Secretaries have been making more or less since 1968, when Richard Crossman proposed the first set of NHS reorganisations. Indeed, there were echoes of the Secretary of State’s speech in that made by his predecessor Keith Joseph, when he came to this House in 1972 to set up the area health authorities, bringing together hospitals and community care and working more closely with local authorities because we needed seamless care. Those authorities were of such a size that, within a year, they were rearranged again into district health authorities. Given the size of some of the integrated care systems that the Secretary of State is proposing, I suspect that the seeds of the next reorganisation are being sown today.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House that his
“three pressing priorities for these critical…months”
were
“getting us…out of this pandemic…busting the backlog”
of non-covid care, and
“putting social care on a sustainable footing for the future.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 163.]
But absent from his speech was any credible explanation of how this reorganisation will meet his objectives that he outlined to the House yesterday. In fact, in the last 30 years, we have seen around 20 reorganisations of the NHS. Have any of them delivered the outcomes that Health Secretaries have promised from the Dispatch Box? Well, not according to analysis in The BMJ, which observes:
“Past reorganisations have delivered little benefit”.
Why should this one be any different?
The question for me is: how will the 85-year-old with multiple care needs experience better whole-person care as a result of the restructuring that the Secretary of State is embarking upon? How will waiting times for elective surgery for cancer and mental health be improved by this reorganisation? How will health inequalities that have widened and life expectancy advances that have stalled be corrected by this reorganisation? To those questions, the Secretary of State had no answer today: the Bill fails those tests because it is a badly drafted Bill and could in fact even worsen health outcomes.
Let me outline our specific concerns. On the proposed integrated care boards, the Bill collapses the remaining 100 or so clinical commissioning groups into 32 integrated care systems differing in geographical size and with some covering populations up to 3 million or 4 million. In some parts of the country, the ICSs are not based on the NHS agreed boundaries, but currently on centrally drawn-up boundaries for political reasons. We know that Cheshire will be combined with Merseyside. Glossop is cut off from Greater Manchester and allocated to Derbyshire. Frimley is split up, leading the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to complain in an Adjournment debate recently:
“Do not break up Frimley ICS. Just for once, let common sense prevail.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 238.]
These boundaries and the way in which they were proposed by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), prompted NHS Providers to warn that the disruption could lead to
“a worsening of patient care”.
And then, of course, we have the design of the integrated care system, split across two committees—a partnership board containing people from local authorities, the third sector and others, and then an NHS board responsible for spending the money, for commissioning. The Secretary of State has moved away from GP commissioning, of course; he wants the NHS board to commission now. Those two boards will probably have different chairs, but the NHS board only has to have “regard” to the partnership board strategy. Nor is it clear how local authority seats—the one local authority seat—will be decided when they cover more than one council and possibly even councils of different political persuasions, so we will see how a consensus can be built then.
Other important voices are left out. Mental illness accounts for roughly a quarter of the total burden of illness, yet there is no guarantee that mental health providers will get the seats on these boards, when we know that mental health services are under pressure and the Secretary of State tells us that the mental health backlog is one of his personal priorities. The pandemic has also reminded us that the health and wellbeing of our community is not just in the hands of large hospitals or general practice. It is also in the hands of our directors of public health, who have shown exceptional local leadership throughout this crisis, standing on the shoulders of their forebears, who in the past confronted diseases such as cholera, smallpox and diphtheria. Test and Trace would have been far safer in their hands from the outset, by the way, and what is their reward? They are sidelined. Public health, again, should be properly represented on the NHS boards and we will table amendments to that effect.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just about their being sidelined; it is actually about the budgets for public health, which have been pushed off into the autumn? If the consultation paper that went out last year is anything to go by, County Durham would lose 19% of its budget. How can we effect these changes without its being divorced from what will be provided in terms of cash?
Jonathan Ashworth
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to the financial flows in a few moments. But how on earth can we have a triple aim of trying to improve health outcomes for a population and not even give public health a voice and a seat on the decision-making body that decides health plans for an area?
The Secretary of State talks about integrating health and social care. There is no seat for directors of adult social services on these committees, either. And what about patients? Patients were not mentioned very often by the Secretary of State in his speech. Patients will always come first for the Opposition. They have no mandated institutional representation, either—no guaranteed patient voice—so we have yet another reorganisation of the NHS whereby patients are treated like ghosts in the machine. It is utterly unacceptable. This is fragmentation, not integration, with a continued sidelining of social care.
There is a loss of local accountability as well, because there is no explicit requirement that the boards meet in public or publish their board papers. Although NHS England has stated that that is its preference, it is not required; nor is there any commitment, despite the wide geographical spread of some ICSs, for meetings to be made accessible online. But, of course, the White Paper did indicate that the independent sector could have a seat on an ICS, and the explanatory notes to the Bill state that
“local areas will have the flexibility to determine any further representation.”
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman talks about solutions to social care. Will he come on to his own solutions to social care? Will they potentially include the recommendations of the Select Committees about that German-style social care premium—recommendations made by members of his own party who were elected by his party to serve on those Committees? Is that something that he is now willing to explore? He has ruled it out time and again on the Floor of the House.
Jonathan Ashworth
I have. The hon. Gentleman is a dogged advocate for that proposal for social care, and he is quite right: he always raises it with me. I am unpersuaded but I am more than happy to sit down with the Secretary of State and with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West to discuss a solution to social care. We keep being told that there are going to be cross-party talks, but I think I missed the Zoom link, because they have not happened so far.
As I was saying, these committees do permit a seat, if the committees want it, for the independent sector. In Bath, in Somerset, we have seen Virgin Care get a seat on the shadow ICS. The Opposition think that is unacceptable and we shall table amendments to prohibit it.
I welcome the removal of the section 75 competition and procurement rules, finally scraping the remnants of the Lansley competition rules off the boots of the NHS. We did warn him and others that this compulsory competitive tendering would lead to billions going to the private sector, would be wasteful and bureaucratic, and would be distracting—and it even led to the NHS getting sued by Virgin Care when it did not win a contract. But this is not the end of contracting with the private sector. Without clauses to make the NHS the default provider, it would be possible for ICBs to award and extend contracts for healthcare services of unlimited value without advertising, including to private companies. Given the past year, when huge multibillion-pound contracts have been handed out for duff personal protective equipment and testing, we naturally have concerns about that and will seek safeguards in Committee. We are worried about further cronyism.
We are particularly concerned about the Bill because of the power grab clauses for the Secretary of State. He is creating 138 new powers, including seven allowing him in effect to rewrite the law through secondary legislation, to transfer functions between arm’s length bodies without any proper scrutiny. He has not explained why he needs these powers or given any guidance on how he expects to use them. These powers also include a requirement that Ministers be informed of every single service change, every single reconfiguration, and the Secretary of State will then decide whether or not to call them in for ministerial decision. Are you sure you want that power, Secretary of State?
The Government have gone from wanting to liberate the NHS under Lansley to now listening out for the clang of every dropped bedpan echoing through Whitehall. This is not a plan for service modernisation; it is a “Back to the Future” plan and it will mean more inertia. Instead of powers to interfere at every level, resetting the mandate for the NHS within years, we instead would want the duties on the Health Secretary, and therefore on the 42 ICSs to which he delegates those responsibilities, to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service, as per the National Health Service Act 2006, to be fully reinstated and made explicit.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As ever, I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. If this is the “Back to the Future” Bill, presumably it puts right what once went wrong. Does he support the clauses on foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and the watershed proposals for advertising?
Jonathan Ashworth
Yes, although I am disappointed that they are in this particular Bill. I think they should be part of a stand-alone Bill. In my concluding remarks, I will make a point or two about other public health interventions, which I imagine and hope that the hon. Member, as a great champion of public health, would support.
It is crucial that the Secretary of State’s duty to provide comprehensive healthcare is reinstated, rather than the duty to meddle in the NHS at any time he wants, because there is a lack of clarity about how the funding flows work in this system. The talk is of moving to capitated budgets for an area to provide holistic care to meet the complicated care needs of individual. But when waiting lists are increasing at the current rate, and when cancer waits and mental health referrals are going up, how is an area going to fund the episodic care for each unit of extra care that is needed—often care that is expensive and more complicated because it needs to be done in the acute sector?
We have worries. Clauses 21 to 24 on the financial duties on ICS boards, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are alarming, because they put in place a duty to ensure financial balance across the ICS area, but there is no clarification of how that balance should be achieved and enforced. Local health budgets have been stretched to breaking point after years of underfunding, so what does this duty mean for existing deficits? At the moment, trusts have a combined deficit of £910 million. King’s has a deficit of £111 million. Worcestershire has a deficit of £81 million. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust has a deficit of £80 million. Will the ICBs need to fill this £900 million black hole before they are even up and running How exactly will trust and ICS board deficits be dealt with at the end of each financial year?
This could well be a return to the days that we saw in the ’80s, which some Members in the House may recall, when health authorities would close beds and put off paying bills from January onwards in order to hit financial balance. If health authorities have to hit this financial balance year by year, will it result in a postcode lottery of more rationing and an even longer list of treatments being removed from the NHS through the decisions of ICBs because they have to hit balance, effectively forcing patients either to go private or go without? I hope that the Minister, in summing up, can clarify what the situation will be.
If a set of providers, trusts and an ICB feel that the financial settlement they have been given by NHS England will not allow them to deliver the levels of care to bring down the waiting lists, which the Secretary of State said is one of his top priorities, or to improve mental health outcomes, which he has also said is one of his top priorities, what is their appeal process? How will the arbitration process work on an area’s financial settlement under the current plans to bring together NHS England and NHS Improvement, not split them out?
The Bill is spun as an attempt to integrate health and social care, but there is nothing in it actually to integrate health and social care, because there is nothing in it to fix social care. If it is about integrating health and social care, where is the long-promised Bill to reform social care? The Bill will repeal provisions in the Care Act 2014 that require patients to be assessed for their social care needs before they are discharged from hospital. Without long-term funding in place, that could mean a patient being sent home, left out without support and waiting for an assessment. Will the Secretary of State, or the Minister who responds to the debate, guarantee that that will not be the case? Will they put in place the necessary funding alongside the Bill?
A number of royal colleges and health bodies have said today that the biggest challenge facing the NHS is workforce. The Bill proposes a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce once every five years. That is simply not good enough. We need a solution to workforce now; we need a solution to recruitment now; staff need a fair pay rise now; we need more investment in training and professional development budgets now; and we need safe staffing legislation now. We will therefore look to amend the Bill, hopefully on a cross-party basis and perhaps working with others who put forward proposals to improve the workforce sections of the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked the Secretary of State, what does the Bill mean for “Agenda for Change”? The Bill suggests that an integrated care system will be able to change “Agenda for Change” terms; we disagree with that.
Finally, on public health, the Bill introduces restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink. We welcome this step—it, too, was in our 2017 manifesto, which the Secretary of State has been reading—but we would go further. Why can we not have more restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy food around schools? Our public health crisis is about not just obesity but smoking and alcohol, so why are there no provisions in the Bill on smoking services and to ensure alcohol calorie labelling? We will table amendments on those issues in Committee.
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. Will the person with learning difficulties or the older person who needs social care experience improved care? No. Will social care be brought back in from the wilderness? No. Will the cancer backlog be tackled more effectively? No. Will health inequalities be narrowed? No. Will parity of esteem for mental health be delivered? No.
Instead of this being a simple Bill to end competition and foster local collaboration, NHS staff will be left trying to second-guess where the Secretary of State will interfere next in the safe running of their local NHS with his in-year changing mandate. The rules on funding could result in more rationing and cuts, so we cannot possibly support the Bill. We have championed integrated care for many years, but the Bill does not deliver it and we urge the House to accept our reasoned amendment.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
To reorganise the NHS as one of your first acts as Health Secretary is what Sir Humphrey would describe as brave. I support this Bill, because it contains changes that the NHS has asked for. I take the Secretary of State at his word that there is more to come on social care, and he has said that he will pursue the idea of independent safety and quality inspections of the new integrated care systems to make sure that they are outward facing and focused on the needs of patients.
When it comes to the biggest challenge facing the NHS today, which is workforce gaps, the Bill says little or nothing. Independent forecasts say today that we are currently short of 400 psychiatrists; 1,400 anaesthetists; 2,000 radiologists; 2,000 midwives; 2,000 to 2,500 emergency care consultants; and 2,500 GPs. We have more nurses but we are short of learning disability, mental health and community nurses.
Steve Brine
It is unquestionable that we have a challenge with the GP workforce. It is about numbers, yes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that constituents have a big challenge with access to general practice? We currently do not have the right balance between telemedicine and in-person medicine.
Jeremy Hunt
There is a big issue, and my hon. Friend is aware from his time at the Department of Health that its root cause is capacity in the system. These capacity issues taken together are why the Health Foundation says that, in just over a decade, we risk a workforce gap in the NHS of about half a million people. That is why this is such a big issue. I urge the Secretary of State to think about that during the Bill’s passage.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is also the case for the rehabilitation services used by stroke victims? There is a vital link between occupational therapists and physios, but we do not have the proper workforce in place for at-home care after a stroke.
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These issues are about not just doctors but all associated health professionals, allied health professionals and indeed the social care workforce. It is important to note that they predate the pandemic. That is why, when I was doing the job of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I set up five new medical schools and increased the number of doctor, nurse and midwife training places by a quarter, but we need to go further.
When the number of clinicians we train is decided by haggling between the Department of Health and the Treasury in a spending round, there is always the risk that it will be eclipsed by more short-term considerations. The truth is that we have a short-term emergency with workforce burnout, so I urge my right hon. Friend to look at the simple and sensible solution proposed by the Health Foundation and all the royal colleges in The Times today to legislate for Health Education England to have a statutory responsibility to publish annual independent workforce projections across the health and care system for the next five, 10, 15 and 20 years. That would show how many training places are needed, which would start to tackle this problem and the obscenity of spending £6 billion every year on locum doctors and agency workers. That cannot be the best use of funds.
Frontline health and care workers are exhausted. They know that there is not an instant solution, because they know it takes three years to train a nurse and seven years to train a doctor, but we can at least give them the reassurance that there is a long-term plan in place. That is not in the Bill, but it needs to be. Given the dedication that we have seen from health and care staff over the last year, it is the very least that we owe them.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 was what got me involved in politics, as I followed the Lansley proposals in sheer disbelief that anyone could think that breaking the NHS in England into pieces and making them compete with each other would somehow improve patient care. So here we are, less than a decade on, and the Government are having to unpick some of the worst aspects of their legislation, which drove competition instead of collaboration and led to the fragmentation of the NHS in England.
Many will be glad to see the back of section 75, which forced services to be put out to tender to commercial companies, but the Government’s covid response does not exactly suggest that they are any less keen on outsourcing. In the last year, we have seen the establishment of parallel systems of laboratories and contact tracing instead of investment in the expansion of NHS labs and public health teams. Health and care services need collaboration and integration with the patient and their family at the centre. That was key to the NHS requests that led to the Bill.
This is obviously a bit of a kitchen sink Bill, with many disparate components. The main aim is meant to be removing some of the barriers to local collaboration, and to some extent it will do that. Achieving integration, however, will still depend on the establishment of a culture of genuine co-operation within integrated care systems and partnerships. They should be statutory public bodies focused on how to provide the best services to their local population, including working with local government to provide social care and tackle the social determinants of health. Instead, private companies can sit on the integrated care partnership boards, as is the case with Virgin Care in Bath, Somerset, and could influence the commissioning of services for which they are hoping to win contracts. It is hard to see how this is anything other than a blatant conflict of interest and suggests that private providers are moving higher up the ladder and could exert influence on a larger scale.
One issue is transparency, as private companies hide behind commercial confidentiality and do not publish accounts of how they have spent public money. Instead of taking the opportunity to return to a publicly funded and delivered health service, as we are lucky enough to have in Scotland, the purchaser-provider split remains and the principle of commissioning and procurement means that financial competition continues. The administrative costs of such transactional systems waste funding that would be better spent on direct clinical care. Unfortunately, the Government are still wedded to the flawed idea that financial competition drives up quality, yet there is no evidence of that. Indeed, financial competition can mean that, when a service starts to struggle, the loss of funding makes its failure become inevitable. It is actually a relentless focus on safety, clinical audit and peer review that can drive improvement in the quality of patient care.
Thanks to devolution, our NHS was spared this destructive experimentation in marketisation, but we inherited a system of competing hospital and primary care trusts, which were then abolished and replaced with statutory public health boards. These are funded to deliver primary, community and hospital care to the population of their geographical area, and work with local authorities on integrated joint boards to deliver public health and social care to the same population.
The long-term Scottish policy of integration was one of three aspects of our healthcare system that was praised in the Nuffield Trust report, “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” that it considered the NHS in England might want to look at. The other two aspects were quality improvement and patient safety. I was honoured to lead the development of the Scottish breast cancer standards in 2000, and, through our yearly audit and peer review, saw outcomes in all units improve in the following years. We now have regular prospective audits of clinical care in 19 of the most common cancers, as well as standards in a broad range of medical conditions and services as diverse as diabetic retinopathy, bowel screening and forensic medical services.
In contrast, many clinical outcome audits have disappeared in England, and publication of the “Getting it Right First Time” audit into breast cancer services has been held back since December 2019. The whole point of such audits is to identify weaknesses and drive clinical improvement. They should not be delayed for political reasons, because they highlight issues that need to be tackled.
With regard to patient safety, I am very glad to see the proposal for the Health Service Safety Investigations Body make it into the Bill after a four-year delay. The agency will take a similar approach to that used in air accident investigations and share the learning from significant healthcare failures to try to prevent similar episodes in the future. Having been on the pre-legislative Committee, it will be interesting to see how that innovative system evolves.
However, I find it surprising that more has not been taken from Scotland’s national Patient Safety Programme, which promotes a whole-team approach to patient safety to try to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. I remember it being introduced to surgical theatres in 2008 and it reduced post-operative mortality by over a third within two years. It has been extended to almost every division of our health service, leading to a significant reduction in standardised hospital mortality and morbidity, such as sepsis or pressure sores. A key principle at the core of both the patient safety and quality improvement programmes has been the involvement of frontline staff and patients in their design and development. I am sure that the Secretary of State or Health Ministers would be made very welcome by me and my colleagues in the Scottish Government should they wish to visit Scotland to see the programmes in action.
Several clauses of the Bill apply to the devolved nations, but although some relate to traditionally reserved issues such as professional regulation, others are less clear. There is growing concern in Scotland and Wales about how this Government are using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to undermine devolution and about how the data-gathering or procurement aspects of the Bill might be widened to apply to our health services.
In 2015, NHS England’s five year forward view highlighted the critical dependence of the NHS on a well-functioning and resilient social care sector. That is still the gaping hole in this legislation. With the funding gap in England now between £8 billion and £10 billion a year, a failure to properly fund social care will undermine the whole integration agenda, as providers are unlikely to be willing to share financial risk with a woefully underfunded service.
Not only has the pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of the social care sector, particularly care homes, but it has brought home the important role played by care staff. The Feeley review for the Scottish Government proposes the development of caring as a profession and proposes taking a human rights approach to social care, valuing it as enabling participation in society rather than looking on care support always as a burden. At the 2019 election, the Prime Minister boasted that he had a fully prepared social care plan, but it has yet to see the light of day. It is hard to see how any integration agenda will succeed without it.
Lord Stevens’s plan stressed the importance of preventive public health to reduce the burden on the NHS, but public health budgets in England have been slashed over the past five years. While policies on tackling obesity are welcome, they are quite narrow and there is little recognition of the role that food poverty plays. Healthy foods are often more expensive. Indeed, poverty is the biggest single driver of ill health. With another decade of Tory austerity due to begin with the cuts to universal credit in September, there is little chance of improving health and wellbeing, particularly among the most disadvantaged.
Wellbeing is not about healthcare, and it is more than just an absence of physical or mental illness. Developing a wellbeing economy would require a total change in philosophy from this Government—and there is little sign that they are interested in taking up the challenge.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I want to make three quick points in my short contribution today.
The NHS is a great institution because it has wonderful, dedicated and selfless people working in it. That was recognised by the Department in the people plan, on which clause 33 builds. I had wanted to make other comments about the workforce but, frankly, they have made more ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). I support exactly what he said. I encourage the Minister to listen to his comments about the need for a long-term plan and perhaps for the duty to be shortened in time, as well as about Health Education England. All my right hon. Friend’s comments were admirably sensible, as we have come to expect.
I welcome the new powers of direction, and I want to counter some of the criticism in the House about them. The newly merged NHS England and NHS Improvement have a range of new functions. Despite what the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), said, it is clear that the powers of direction will apply only if they are in the public interest and if they relate to the functions. Given the new scope and scale of those functions, it seems right that accountability—and possibilities for the accountability needed in the future—be put in place.
Likewise, I encourage the Secretary of State not to listen to criticisms of political expediency and political interference with respect to reconfiguration. All too often, it is not political expediency but political acrimony that trumps political need. All too often, reconfiguration that would benefit our constituents and the health of this nation is held up. Far from meaning that every bedpan in the NHS will be looked at, reconfiguration is a sensible move. Quite rightly, the reconsideration will still be done by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, and it is right that if the Secretary of State has the chance to look at those reconfigurations earlier, it should too. I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to ignore the criticism and to proceed with that power.
My third point is on the prevention aspect of the Bill, which I warmly welcome. Obesity is a UK-wide health crisis. More than 60% of adults in the United Kingdom are above a healthy weight. Some of the measures may well be discussed in Committee, and there may well be some changes in Committee, but the thrust of the measures is correct. We in this country need to recognise that health outcomes and inequalities are affected by not tackling prevention. The Bill starts that; I warmly welcome it, and I will be happy to support it.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
I find it very worrying that the Government are choosing to reorganise the NHS during the third wave of the pandemic—a time of exhausted staff and huge pressure. The health service has been stretched to its absolute limits and the road back will be long and difficult. The NHS is scrambling to catch up, yet amid the chaos, the Government want to completely restructure it. Although I support the integration of healthcare and social care, that is not what the proposed integrated care boards and partnerships will achieve.
I am especially concerned that the Bill removes the duty to provide secondary care services, permits the deregulation of all health professions and encourages hospitals to discharge patients prematurely without the assessment of their care needs. In some areas, commissioning responsibilities are up for grabs or even promised to local authorities, which believe they can just use them without the benefit of NHS commissioning experience. There is no doubt that patients and staff will suffer amid the organisational chaos.
I am delighted that this appears to be the end of the disastrous competition of the Lansley Bill, but I doubt we can trust that the end of tendering will mean the end of privatisation. It could actually give rise to privatisation that is unregulated by the tendering process. The private contracts awarded in my constituency have been nothing short of a disaster. To be told that the culprit can have a voice in future decision making is simply unacceptable. How can we allow self-interested, profit-motivated company stakeholders to influence decisions that are supposed to be made with one person in mind—the patient? Remember, it is all about the patient.
I am very concerned about boundaries and the democratic deficit that they will throw up in my constituency. Primary care will be in the Lancashire integrated care system, while acute services will be in the Cheshire-Mersey ICS. My constituents will not be at the table at any point when their hospital services are discussed, as they are not in the Cheshire-Mersey footprint, although their hospitals are—so much for the primacy of place that everybody talks about.
This is a disaster waiting to happen. Many MPs voted for the Lansley Bill with deep and great misgivings. They were right then—the Bill is testimony to that. I implore them not to make the same mistake now.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Health Bills, rightly, do not come around too often, so when they do there needs to be good reason. My conclusion, from the necessary establishment of integrated care systems to the so-called triple aim, the removal of the competition aspect and the new power of direction, is that there is good reason for legislation at this time. This is obviously a vast Bill, but because Health Bills do not come around very often, it is understandable that colleagues and officials will use the opportunity to give legislative cover to things that they have been working on for a long time. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is a very welcome example of that.
I want to focus on workforce and then on primary care, and in doing so I refer the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On workforce, I remember publishing the cancer strategy in 2018. The issue then was not our ambition but having the cancer workforce to meet it. Obviously, the chances of surviving cancer have improved significantly in recent years. There are many reasons for that, but detecting 75% of cancers at stage 1 or early stage, which must happen, needs the radiographers in post and demands an endoscopy workforce that can properly execute the FIT screening for the bowel cancer programme, as one example.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the necessary workforce in the NHS. Does he agree that if we were perhaps to offer indefinite leave to remain to the many thousands of frontline NHS workers in all departments who are here on visas and have worked hard through this pandemic, we would help to fill the gap that so desperately needs closing?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady makes a sensible point. There is obviously a process in place whereby that can happen, but if she is asking whether I agree with a liberal immigration policy to help our health service, then absolutely, yes I do. Addressing the cancer workforce and the wider NHS staffing picture is not an omission from the Bill—we cannot legislate staff shortages out of existence—but if we do not address that issue and face up to our long-term structural gaps, many of the reforms around tackling the backlog and building back better will not amount to a row of beans.
Jeremy Hunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the extraordinary work he did when he was a Minister on early diagnosis of cancer. Is he aware that the Health and Social Care Committee has just opened an inquiry—we had our opening session yesterday—into that issue, and into how we can get the right workforce in place to deal with those important matters?
Steve Brine
I was aware of that, and I am pleased to hear it. The Select Committee will soon have Cally Palmer before it—she is the national cancer director and one of the best in the business—and I look forward to following what she says. In advance of the comprehensive spending review, the Bill should include a requirement on the Government to publish modelling of the future supply of the entire healthcare workforce.
On primary care, I welcome the formal creation of integrated care systems, but we need them to realise their potential, and to do so fast. If they are going to work, general practice needs to embrace the wider primary care family, which means finally to recognise the potential of community pharmacy, ophthalmology and dental services as vehicles of prevention as much as of treatment.
Finally, if we move upstream of the Bill, what we do must be about prevention. We hear talk this weekend of a waiting list touching 13 million people. Let us tackle that for sure, but let us also get behind the food and drink clauses in part 5, and think about the future and our children as much as about the present. Several years ago I was fortunate to write up the high fat, sugar and/or salt proposals as part of chapter 2 of the child obesity plan, and I am pleased that the 9 pm watershed is legislated for in the Bill. I pay tribute to Jamie Oliver and his Bite Back 2030 campaign, and the young people involved with that, as well as to Cancer Research UK for its support. I realise that not everyone on these Benches, or perhaps outside, supports that move, and I agree that it will have little impact if that is its grand sum. Ministers need to take the tackling obesity strategy that was published last year, implement it all, and then go again.
I welcome the clauses on the fluoridation of water supplies. Let us stop debating whether we do that and —to borrow a phrase—follow the science.
In conclusion, the Bill is worthy of support on Second Reading. There will be an awful lot of work to do in Committee and the other place, but I will certainly support it this evening.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Our NHS is built on the values that Britain holds dear: each of us is equal, and we will be treated on the basis of our need, never on our ability to pay. It is part of our national heritage, so much so that even the Tories have to pretend that they believe in its founding principles. Those are principles of fairness for all, and from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Those are the values that led to the creation of the Labour party over a century ago. If the Tories hold those values so dear, why have they failed to apply them everywhere else?
This is the Tory Government who left children without food during the school holidays, and who are failing to pay for children to catch up with their education. They are cutting £20 from universal credit for the poorest households in the country. Why did we have 11 years of austerity, when billions were taken from public services, hitting the poorest communities hardest? There was no sign of levelling up there.
In the past 40 years our NHS has come under threat on two occasions: first during the Thatcher years when it was starved of resources to breaking point, and again from 2010 with the Tory austerity years and the Lansley Health and Social Care Act 2012. Now the Tories are at it again. Integrated care systems are nothing short of capitulation to the forces of the market.
This Bill will give the private sector the freedom not only to plan services but to do so in their commercial interests above those of patients and to cover their tracks by hiding the records of meetings where they have intervened. For too long, there have been those within the NHS who believe that it can only be improved if it is exposed to the rigours of the marketplace. The rigours of the NHS are saving lives and healing patients. There is no higher market test for the skills and dedication of health workers and none is needed. Where the private sector is used, it should be to support NHS services, not replace them.
Nye Bevan said:
“The NHS will last as long as there’s folk with faith left to fight for it.”
The Labour party breathed life into the NHS. This Bill is one of those occasions where we have to fight for the NHS again, and the Labour party will lead that fight.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I was almost three when I was lying in a hospital bed and my parents were told that I only had two hours to live and they should start preparing for the worst. It was the brilliant doctors and nurses of the NHS who saved my life. The paediatric surgeon who saved my life still refers to me as his miracle.
Only five weeks ago, I became a father for the first time. Thank God for the amazing doctors and midwives at Warwick Hospital, who displayed the highest degree of professionalism. While I do not want to say that they made the journey as painless as possible, mainly because I was not the one giving birth, they certainly made it a little bit easier. I want to thank the midwives, Sharon Lester, Gemma Fletcher and Nadine Morley, and the doctors, Samir Sadanandappa and Giles Coverdale, for all that they did.
I am a believer in the NHS. I am grateful for it. I want to do everything I can to preserve its status as one of the foremost healthcare services in the world. To do this, we must not shy away from reform. We cannot stop in the journey to make the NHS better, fixing what is broken, revolutionising old practices and evolving into a healthcare system that continues to be free at the point of access but delivers world-leading healthcare.
In this Bill, I am particularly supportive of the integrated care systems approach and putting ICSs on a statutory footing. In Birmingham and Solihull we have an ICS on a non-statutory footing. In my experience, while clinical commissioning groups do many good things, when they do not, there is no clear line of accountability. I believe that the Bill will fix that. When I have not been happy with the CCG, I have found myself getting lost in an opaque quagmire of passing on responsibility and lack of accountability, and ultimately it is my constituents who suffer. I am therefore pleased with the ICSs’ place in the Bill, with clear lines of communication straight to the top and putting patients at the heart of everything we do, as we will then have a more tailored and better healthcare service.
In particular, I am keen for us to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. What works for the urban part of my constituency does not necessarily work for the rural parts. Will the Minister give consideration to what ICSs can do to provide a much more adaptable approach to different communities and different patient needs?
I am concerned about the impact of the past 16 months on the mental health of our population. One charity I spoke to this week said that one in four people will suffer from a diagnosable mental health problem in the next 12 months. I have spoken to a number of charities that have equally great concern about the situation that we are facing. I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister on what the Bill does in terms of improving mental healthcare provision and hopefully get some clarity on that.
I believe that this Bill will improve the NHS. I am optimistic for its future and for the healthcare of this country, as long as we put patients at the heart of everything we do.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) and to congratulate him on the birth of his child.
First, I am going to vote against giving this Bill a Second Reading. I cannot believe that the Government are going ahead with the Bill at this time. It is irresponsible and without any consideration to those who have worked to save our lives and continue to save our lives. The Secretary of State is going to have to assert himself, because he is only just in the job and he seems to have been bounced into this legislation.
Why is this happening now? We have been through this before. I was on the Health Committee from 2010 to 2015. The right hon. Stephen Dorrell was its Chair. On a cross-party basis, we heard evidence that the Bill introduced in 2012 was not the best solution for the NHS. We managed to pause the Bill but the Government continued to press ahead.
Integrated care is Labour party policy. We have seen it. We visited Torbay, where the fictitious Mrs Smith had a single point of entry and everyone was able to track her all the way through the system—through hospital and out—for all her needs. But the 2012 Act stopped that. It stopped the pooling of resources. Integrated care can work only if there are adequate resources for local authorities. Austerity measures since 2010 have starved local authorities and other public services of funding. That is what is making people angry. But the governance of the integrated care system has no clinicians and no patients. People who use it or work in it do not get a say. All sorts of other people can be added on.
My second point is that we do not trust the Government on contracts. Look what happened during the pandemic: £347 million to Randox, the Tory-linked private healthcare company whose testing kits had to be recalled over the summer because of concerns about contamination. We warned them about section 75 and opening this out to tender. The transaction costs associated with that drain the NHS of resources. There is fragmentation and destabilisation. Just ending section 75 is not sufficient; the NHS must become the first and the default option, and private providers cannot be involved in the ICS or in commissioning decisions. We cannot have a select group of fast-tracked friends.
My third point is about the workforce and it has already been raised. They have been magnificent. They have already had a slap in the face with a 1% pay rise and now they are facing further reorganisation. Workforce planning is key to a smart organisation. Clause 33 says who is responsible, but not what must be delivered. Instead of reporting once every five years, how about laying that before Parliament every year? The modelling will have to be done on the workforce assessment, so why can it not be made transparent and available? As the British Medical Association said, we need independently verified projections of future workforce supply so that local and regional decisions can be made on safe staffing levels. That phrase is not even in the Bill, post Francis.
The Secretary of State should think again, as this is the wrong time. The graphs are going up. The BMA and the royal colleges are against this Bill. The main point about healthcare—the right to healthcare—has not been enshrined in the Bill. It must be stopped now, and people and patients should be put first.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I thank Neil from Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Buckinghamshire County Council, the local Bucks clinical commissioning group, local GP surgeries, REACH care homes and care workers across South Buckinghamshire, Thames Hospice and Jayne from the Care Campaign for the Vulnerable? They are all already modelling integrated care, which is promised and promoted through this Bill, and I just want to thank them for their tireless service.
I also need to declare an interest: I am now a carer for a very disabled relative, who became disabled through the pandemic and now requires 24-hour care. So I am fully aware of how broken the care pathways are. I want to speak on behalf of disabled adults and their access to care, and the carers who struggle with the demands of finding ways of advocating for their loved one in the current system. I welcome any changes to integrated care because of that. I want to share examples from my personal experience, not because it is important; it just chimes with what I keep hearing from patient advocacy groups, Age Concern, Mencap and other charities. The problem we see is: when a patient is discharged from hospital, who then takes up the duty of care? I have countless examples of my relative being discharged with open bleeding wounds or bed sores, of waiting four days for a nurse to come to attend to them, of being given the wrong medication, of being unable to access—
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I just wanted to give the hon. Lady a bit more time. Does she agree that we would want to see more in this Bill on how social care is going to be accounted for? Currently, I feel that is lacking.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Lady for the point she has raised. I have had reassurances from the Minister that we are going to address the social care issues, but I agree that we need parity of esteem between health and adult social care. We need to see those who are delivering those care pathways—local authorities—given the parity of esteem that the NHS and other care providers now have. I hope that we will look at this further as the Bill progresses.
Parity of esteem is very important because there is a difficulty with collaboration and co-ordination of care, and it is the major driver of health inequality and avoidable deaths for people with learning disabilities. Many people with learning disabilities have very complex health needs that require healthcare professionals to collaborate and to co-ordinate interventions. On top of that, healthcare staff need to work together to deliver the healthcare that those vulnerable patients need, which requires effective communication and understanding, as well as resource. How those funding streams are co-ordinated and improved in future is something that should be looked at.
I have seen at first hand, particularly with stroke victims who leave hospital with varying levels of cognitive and physical impairment, the need for critical rehabilitation services to be co-ordinated and put in place the moment people leave hospital, but that is often difficult. Many Members have raised the issue of workforce capability—I echo that. We need to look at how we can work together collaboratively to put patients first and deliver the vital services that many disabled adults need. We have an ageing population, and we face a crisis in adult social care that will eclipse all other things in healthcare. If we work to deliver solutions now—I welcome what is in the Bill—to the hard problems that we face in integrated social care, we can find the solutions that we need for the future.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]
With the climate crisis and the reality of an ageing population, there has never been a better time for the Government to centre the wellbeing of people and planet and the way in which public services and the economy are run. Sadly but unsurprisingly, the Bill fails in this context, so I will vote against it, because it does not fundamentally deal with the very real issues facing our healthcare system. It does not address the desert of NHS England providing oral and dental healthcare, which has made it impossible for my constituents to get an appointment. It does not guarantee fair pay and conditions for the key workers who have seen us through the pandemic, and it does not deal with the scandalous state of mental health- care. Patients in my constituency are in crisis, are discharged too early, or not admitted at all, while for a decade, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has failed to end the practice of sending patients out of area.
What the Bill does do is transfer yet more centralised power to the Executive—rightly described as a power grab by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth)—and, of course, to the private sector. Clause 13, which provides for the establishment of integrated care boards, opens the door to private companies having a say in where funding is allocated and what services are delivered. Clause 3 gives greater political control to the Secretary of State over the NHS England mandate without creating a duty to provide universal, comprehensive and free healthcare to all. Clause 38 empowers the Secretary of State to intervene in the reconfiguration of services, opening the door for politicised interference and gridlocks on decision making.
Where is the democracy, accountability and transparency in the Bill? How will the right of my constituents to healthcare be guaranteed over and above the interests of private companies and the political whims of the Secretary of State? To see what happens when private companies have any role in delivering care, we need only look at the social care crisis. In England, 84% of care home beds are managed by private companies, and three of the five largest care home companies are owned by investment firms whose main priority is economic rent seeking, not the long-term care of our elderly. That model has, unbelievably, led to a cut in the number of care home beds, despite an ageing population, meaning that demand is only growing.
I therefore urge the House to vote against this legislation on what remains of NHS England. It extends the same failed ideology that puts profit before people and which has driven our planet and public services to breakdown.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Today’s Bill will help our healthcare system to become more accountable and less bureaucratic, allowing our brilliant healthcare professionals to focus on their job of providing world-renowned care to patients, rather than filling in unnecessary paperwork. It allows our healthcare system to be flexible, adapting to meet future and local needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) said earlier, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely the most effective, and today’s Bill will mean local areas can develop practices that best suit their needs.
Rob Roberts
No.
This is something we are acutely aware of in Delyn, as we have a much higher proportion of over-65s than the national average. Sadly, the Welsh Government’s funding to the north Wales health board is significantly lower per capita than that enjoyed by the health board in south-east Wales, but that is a debate for another time and place.
Rob Roberts
No.
Sadly, one of the major elements of today’s Bill that should be praised falls a little short for my constituents in Wales. The Bill will lead to greater collaboration and integration between the NHS, local authorities and care providers in England, and ultimately this will deliver more joined-up working and the best outcomes for patients, yet this move towards greater collaboration needs to go further. We need to see collaboration in healthcare across all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
The NHS is not limited to one part of our country; it is nationwide. When someone is treated in their local hospital, they are treated by the NHS—not NHS England, or NHS Wales but the national health service. People do not see that there should be a difference and, frankly, they do not care.
Just as we should be united in our response to covid-19, it is now time for our healthcare system to work together across borders for the good of all UK residents. Despite holidaying within the same country, as so many people are doing this year, if a constituent from Delyn holidays in Cornwall and needs NHS treatment, their medical records will not be on file and will be difficult to access. Without immediate access to those medical records, I cannot help but worry that it could affect the outcome and care they receive, demonstrating the need to share records between all four nations. This issue is one of many that could be resolved through greater collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on healthcare, just as we saw with the fantastic vaccine roll-out.
I urge the Government to remember that they are the Government of the whole United Kingdom, which should come with an overarching responsibility to care for and look after all their UK citizens, regardless of the nation in which they reside. As this Bill progresses through the House, I hope the Government draw on the lessons they learned from working together on the covid-19 vaccine programme to consider how greater collaboration in healthcare can be achieved between all four constituent parts of the UK to tackle the public health issues that we collectively face.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I previously had a role within the NHS, and I have family members who work in the NHS, of whom I am very proud.
Nine years ago the Conservative party passed the Lansley reforms, and for nine years the NHS has suffered the consequences of that disaster. We have seen creeping privatisation, fragmentation of services and a lack of adequate funding. For patients that has meant disjointed care and soaring waiting lists, made worse by covid. For healthcare professionals, it has meant the NHS is no longer a hospitable place to work.
Before the pandemic, the national health service had a vacancy rate of 8%, which is 100,000 vacancies. I know from discussions with a variety of professional bodies and unions that there are significant skill shortages that will only get worse. Last year, a survey by the BMA found that 45% of doctors across the UK experience depression, anxiety, stress, burnout and other mental health conditions. How is it right that our NHS professionals are so over-represented among those experiencing mental health problems?
The Royal College of Nursing has found that 36% of nurses are thinking of leaving the profession, and YouGov reports that a quarter of NHS workers are more likely to quit their job than they were a year ago, due to low pay and understaffing. While Ministers have clapped for carers on their doorsteps, many of my constituents who have worked in the NHS rightly say that they do not want platitudes. They want to be heard. They want a proper pay rise and an end to top-down reforms that do nothing to address the real needs and their real concerns.
For them, this Bill is more of the same, but it is also an indictment of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is the Government admitting that they have failed. Rather than learning the lessons, they have doubled down on the failures. There is nothing on waiting lists, nothing on vacancies and, despite the Prime Minister’s promise of a plan for social care, nothing on fixing the system that the pandemic has shown is not fit for purpose.
Rather than reinstating the duty on the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive health service, reversing the privatisation of the NHS or reinstating the NHS as the default provider, the Bill allows private providers to sit on the boards that decide how NHS money is spent. It is astounding, but not surprising. After nine years of failure and after a year of handing millions of pounds to Tory cronies for useless PPE and a failed privatised test, trace and track system, the Government are now proposing to increase the influence of private companies in the health service. Unfortunately, on all these issues the Bill has nothing good to say, and even worse, it says all the wrong things.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In opening this debate, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would improve patient safety. One area in which it does not do that is the area of cosmetic surgery. In April 2013, the Government commissioned Sir Bruce Keogh to do a review of this industry following the PIP—Poly Implant Prothèse—implants scandal. He came forward with some very sensible and clear recommendations to improve safety in the cosmetic surgery industry and to make sure that patients were protected. The review highlighted the fact that those buying a ballpoint pen have more protection than people having non-surgical procedures in this sector. These recommendations have sat on the shelf in the Department of Health since then. I have asked numerous times when they are going to be implemented, only to be told tomorrow, but tomorrow never seems to come.
We did see some change with the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 —which, for example, limited botox for under-18s, but this business is a wild west when it comes to regulation. There is a missed opportunity in this Bill not only to get proper patient safety, but to implement Sir Bruce Keogh’s recommendations, which the Government say they support but somehow do not want to implement. This is a multibillion-pound industry, and patients are being put at risk. It is mainly women who, in this sector, need protection. I hope that the Government will implement the Keogh recommendations in this Bill, and I put the Minister on warning now that I will be tabling amendments for that. This is important, and I do not yet understand the reason why the Government are not doing it, because the royal colleges support this and a large number of Members of Parliament have backed these reforms. They do need to be implemented, and we are missing an opportunity to do so.
May I touch on one last thing about public health? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that public health, strangely enough, has been forgotten about in this crisis. If we had actually concentrated on putting the main focus on public health and supporting directors, I think we would have had a better outcome. This is not just about this Bill forgetting about public health; it is about the money that goes with it. Under the fair funding formula being touted last year, County Durham would have lost £19 million in public health funding, while Surrey would actually have increased its budget by £14 million a year. That cannot be right. Public health now needs to be at the centre of our healthcare locally, and the Government have to ensure not just that it gets a voice in this Bill, but that local directors of public health get the finance and support they desperately need.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
In the short time I have to speak, I would like to comment generally on the Bill and specifically on one part of it. This is a Second Reading debate, and I see much merit in many of the provisions of this Bill, and the general thrust and direction of it. I understand much of the thinking behind it, as it is a real opportunity to improve the overall performance of our health service, remove some of the unnecessary bureaucracy that has grown up around it and rationalise some of the geography through the ICSs—a very relevant issue to Cumbria—as well as to improve the decision-making process through the boards and encourage collaboration within the health service, although we must still be open and transparent. These are all very welcome changes that have broad support, including from the health professionals in my community with whom I have already had discussions. This will be on top of the additional financial commitment to the health service that this Government have already made, and of the commitment to more doctors and nurses, all of which is very welcome.
I would, however, like to focus on an area of the Bill where I have some concerns. Clause 125 and schedule 16 relate to advertising, and they have the potential to adversely affect our food and drink sector. I remind the Minister that that is the largest manufacturing sector in the country. It employs a significant number of people up and down the country, it makes a huge contribution to our economy and our exports and—this is a key point—it is an innovative sector with considerable research and development and investment. It has already done a huge amount of reformulation to take sugar and salt out of our foods and it continues to do much on this.
I fully appreciate that obesity is a major concern for our society, and rightly so. Everybody wants the UK to be a fit and healthy country, but we have to tackle this issue in a sensible and proportionate manner. I am not convinced that schedule 16 in its present form will achieve very much. What it will do is reduce investment, resulting in fewer products coming to the market, including fewer healthy products—and those are what we want to see those. There would be less incentive to innovate and ultimately fewer jobs and less money in our economy, and all for very little gain in many respects. Also, as an aside, we need to remember that our own health and wellbeing are our own responsibility. I shall therefore be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill today, but in Committee and on Report, I and I am sure other hon. Members will seek amendments to schedule 16. That is so we get the right balance between our health agenda, the food sector and our individual freedoms and responsibilities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I would like to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats have long supported the aim of integration between health and social care, and the far greater involvement of local authorities in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services. We recognise that the pandemic has forced many of these bodies to work closely together in a much more collaborative way, and that is welcome. However, the Bill pays lip service to social care. It is largely a Bill about NHS reform, with yet another acronym-laden reorganisation that seeks to provide the legislative basis to integrate NHS services, currently in crisis mode, with a broken, underfunded and fragmented social care system. It is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State for political interference in operational and local service reconfiguration decisions and in who runs integrated care boards. The Bill is woefully inadequate in ensuring that the plans and resources are in place to ensure that we have sufficient doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals and carers to deliver care, both now and in the future. This is all against a backdrop of record waiting lists and staff who are burnt out, stressed and struggling to cope with the third wave of the pandemic while dealing with surging A&E visitors and tackling the enormous backlog of care.
Without meaningful social care reform, this Bill cannot realise its aim of providing citizens with better joined-up care. With over 100,000 vacancies in the workforce, 1.5 million people are currently missing out on the care they need, putting additional burdens on the NHS and, importantly, on 9 million unpaid carers. The Government have promised—at the moment I take them at their word, though they have broken it many times—that they will bring forward social care reforms later this year. So why not delay the Bill for a few months and take account of the new model of social care, rather than doing a half-baked job now?
It really beggars belief when we look back over the past 16 months of the pandemic that the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who was the architect of the proposals, seriously thought that granting himself more powers over the day-to-day running of the NHS was a good idea. We only need to look at the PPE fiasco and the failures of test and trace, both of which were run centrally, to see that handing back power to the Secretary of State is the very opposite of what we need. Allowing him or her to meddle in the day-to-day running of our NHS seems to fly in the face of the desire for more local and regional decision making.
I fully support and endorse the proposals of the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) on the health and care workforce independent planning proposals. They need to be properly resourced and annually reported to Parliament. Without a workforce plan, without wholesale reform of social care and while waiting lists are skyrocketing and the Health Secretary is embarking on a power grab that is his predecessor’s vanity project, this Bill will fail in its fundamental aim, shared by most Members of this House and health and care leaders—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Lady’s time has run out.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I declare my interest and my family’s interests in healthcare service.
I welcome the Bill. Those concerned about it should realise that it is an evolution, not a revolution, coming from the ground up. Do not take it from me; take it from the evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee from Simon Stevens, who said:
“We have been working so closely for a number of years with colleagues across the health service and our broader partners. Genuinely, I think this is unusual, if not unique, in having come from the NHS as a series of asks to Parliament rather than something that Parliament is perhaps imposing on the NHS.”
That is the leader of the NHS.
Three minutes is a very short time to try to pull this Bill apart, so I am going to use my time to set out some amendments and new ideas that I would like the Minister to consider. Some are practical, some are short and some are much bigger. The first is simple: annual virus drills for care homes. We have fire drills regularly, but, given the pandemic, care homes may well benefit from being further prepared for future pandemics.
I would like mental wellbeing to be seen as a public health issue. Everyone suffers with their mental wellbeing; not everyone has mental ill health, and this House often gets confused between the two. That is really important, because until we label mental wellbeing as such, it becomes very hard to implement education and protective policies. Many Members will know that my particular interest is body image—the labelling of altered images, just as we label calories on food, so that we have parity between physical health and mental health.
My final idea—this is probably the most revolutionary piece I would like to put across—is to have a named person for change on the frontline. We have named bodies for whistleblowers, and we have protected people who are guardians for data, but fundamentally, change has to come from the bottom. All too often in my career, I was told, “You’re too junior” or “This is the way we’ve always done it.” We want to empower the people on the frontline who understand how the system works to make changes, and I think there is a chance to amend the Bill to do exactly that. I am happy to meet the Minister to explain further.
As I have a little more time, I am keen to comment on the reduction of bureaucracy. It is all very well making sure that there is not a problem when we are commissioning, but fundamentally, we need to look at the admin on the health service side—the barriers between primary care and secondary care. About 5% to 10% of a GP’s workload is dealing with chasing admin. That is not time well spent; it takes services away from the clinical frontline, and it is something that could be remedied, possibly even without legislation.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
We all know that the last top-down reorganisation of the health service was a disaster for our people and those who work in it, so I was quite excited to hear of the plans to sort it out. I must have been mad. Instead of bringing forward a Bill to deal with their own mess and sort out the health crisis they have created, the Government have introduced a hotchpotch, which will do neither and could make it worse.
The Prime Minister’s response to decades of regional inequality and underfunding of communities such as mine is pathetic. It seems that, instead of introducing robust proposals to reskill our people, invest in our services and tackle their homemade crisis in the NHS, the Government are telling us that an increase in al fresco dining and an extension to the service of takeaway pints are the answers. That sort of trite nonsense is downright insulting to people who live in constituencies such as mine.
People in Stockton North live shorter, less healthy lives than others in more affluent areas by virtue of geography alone. As Cancer Research UK has said:
“If the UK is to tackle inequalities and make sure no community is left behind…then health must be hardwired into the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda.”
If the Government are serious about levelling up for communities such as mine, they will have to take meaningful action to tackle the health inequalities that plague them.
In Stockton North, 7.4% of the population suffer from asthma, higher than the 6.5% who suffer across England. In England, the level of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among the population is 1.9%; that rises to 3.1% in my constituency. There are other inequalities, too, and we need action now. Will the new Secretary of State come good where others have failed and provide Stockton with the new hospital it desperately needs?
Some 13.2% of adults in Stockton-on-Tees are smokers, and smoking-attributable hospital admissions and deaths are increasing, yet Government action to reduce smoking has generally stagnated. Measures in the Bill to tackle obesity are welcome, but smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature death, and yet there are no proposals to tackle it. The Bill represents an ideal opportunity to introduce a US-style “polluter pays” levy with tobacco control, as recommended by the all-party group on smoking and health, and which the Government promised to consider two years ago in their prevention Green Paper. The all-party group—I declare my interest as the vice-chair—has provided a model for this approach, and I am grateful to Action on Smoking and Health and others for their work. The all- party group published a comprehensive set of recommendations that would help the Government to achieve their ambition of a smoke-free 2030, including further regulatory measures to de-normalise smoking, but nothing has happened.
Cancer Research UK has estimated that, on current trends, we will not make England smoke free until at least 2037, and it will be longer for poorer communities. We need action now. The Government say that we need bold action; they should take it now. That is one step towards tackling inequalities that blight our country.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
In the past, successful reorganisations have been centred on patient care. We have seen that with cardio and we have seen that with cancer. The reason why this will be successful now is that the aspect of patient care that will improve, including the outcomes for patients, will be around accountability. There are three ways in which the Bill does that quite successfully, but there are also ways in which it could do more.
First, on the involvement of the Care Quality Commission, having the CQC inspect social care services will be crucial for increasing visibility and transparency in terms of the outcomes for patients. The criteria that the CQC uses when inspecting social care and focusing on patient outcomes will make a difference in terms of the quality of care that patients will get—that is also true for integrated care systems as well. We need to make sure that these services are not measured on bureaucratic targets, but on what they are actually doing for patients.
As a side note, let me say that we have talked a lot about GP surgeries today. The CQC, as we all know, inspects GP surgeries. There is a question as to whether these surgeries are doing enough, especially at the moment, when it comes to the outcomes for patients. I have a lot of very good GP surgeries locally, but the levers by which we as Members of Parliament can get them to improve the quality of services are somewhat lacking in many cases and this is something that could be looked at as part of that admirable proposal to increase the involvement of the CQC as part of the Bill.
The second area I want to touch on is to do with the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. We have seen through the Health and Social Care Committee how important it has been in terms of changing the culture within the NHS. What we have also seen, though, is the number of times that the recommendations have not necessarily been followed through. More focus on that within HSIB and a mechanism by which the Department of Health and Social Care can be mandated to follow through on the outcomes could really add to the accountability part of the Bill.
The final point is around the somewhat thorny issue of political control. I happen to think that my constituents have a right to be involved in decisions that are made by the health service on their behalf that are not clinically based. It is absolutely right that we have a health service that has to explain to my constituents why it wants to do a reorganisation in the area. If my constituents do not agree with it, I should have a mechanism by which I can go to the Secretary of State and say, “Do you know what? I do not agree with what you are doing here. This is not right for my constituents.”
I understand the arguments that are being made today, but the fundamental point about accountability is the one that will really shape the future of our health service. It is a very positive thing, and the mechanisms in the Bill will have a positive effect on the outcome of patients within my constituency and nationwide.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
During the pandemic, NHS staff, care workers and public health teams have all gone the extra mile, as they always do, in protecting and caring for people. Health professionals have been ably assisted by a number of former colleagues who had retired and by an army of volunteers, and I thank them all.
In government, Labour increased NHS funding by more than 9% a year. Let us compare that with the just 2.5% from the Conservatives before the pandemic, or the £8 billion cut from council social care budgets since 2010. In the Liverpool city region, 50,000 patients are waiting to start routine treatment at Aintree University Hospital alone, of whom a third have waited more than 18 months. Meanwhile, many people find it difficult to get an appointment at their local GP surgery. New facilities, including a new health centre in Maghull in my constituency, would help there.
Alongside dealing with the immediate challenges of the pandemic, Labour’s priorities involve addressing the problems caused by those Conservative cuts which predate the crisis: waiting lists, staff recruitment, social care funding, and yes, the need to give our staff a pay rise. After all, who will look after patients if we do not value our staff? Sadly, the Conservatives have rather different priorities. The pandemic has seen companies without a track record—companies that happened to know the right people—making their fortunes. As the National Audit Office confirmed, companies without political contacts had only a 1% chance of succeeding, while £10 million was handed out in contracts without competition. Then there is Serco Test and Trace: delays in returning test results, dependence on £1,000-a-day consultants, and unused call centre capacity.
All that waste and inefficiency prompts us to ask why Ministers were so committed to outsourcing. The Bill offers some answers. Private companies on new health boards and the centralisation of power point to a potential consolidation of the cronyism and privatisation that have characterised the Conservatives’ approach to the covid crisis. Every day that frontline NHS staff are forced to spend on top-down reorganisation is a day less to tackle waiting lists, address the challenges in social care, and cope with covid. Meanwhile, the reorganisation will take money away from local services, where it is most needed. A prime example is the cut of £253 per patient from Knowsley as a result of the Bill. One of the poorest boroughs in the country will face poorer health outcomes.
That is the reality of this Bill. How can it possibly be right?
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, particularly its intention to better integrate health and social care in England. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity, I am pleased to see the introduction of restrictions on the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar products online, and on television before 9 pm. I would, however, emphasise the need for a level playing field between the two. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I endorse the findings of our inquiry into the preceding White Paper, especially its comments on social care provision and workforce planning. I hope that these matters can be addressed as the Bill, and indeed the year, progresses.
The Bill also provides the opportunity to address some of the disparities in healthcare provision across the United Kingdom. Further to my constructive engagement with colleagues at the Department, I hope that the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), will consider four key proposals.
First, we should mandate the collection of an agreed set of UK-wide directly comparable data on NHS performance and outcomes, for clinical and research purposes. I am already engaging with the Office for National Statistics on how that could work in practice, and believe that the Bill could have an important enabling role to play. Secondly, data interoperability must be improved. It is unacceptable that the health service in Wales often cannot communicate in a fit-for-purpose way with services in England, and vice versa. Thirdly, my direct experience of working in the NHS leads me to feel strongly that inspection, safety and audit mechanisms should be introduced at a national level to ensure a minimum standard of care for all British citizens. Those who are managing inferior services must be able to learn lessons from more effectively run areas and, ultimately, be held to account.
Finally, I hope that the Bill can be used to provide people with equal access to and choice of secondary and tertiary healthcare services across the country, regardless of where in Britain they live. My constituent Ian Kightley was diagnosed with cancer in 2015. As a result of his treatment, he developed problems with his vision and required cataract surgery in both eyes. Like so many in north Wales, when he was advised of a two-year waiting list he was forced to pay for private healthcare, which he was able to do only through fundraising. Only in the last week, while working as a GP, I saw patients who had been advised of two-year waits solely for their first out-patient clinic appointments at Glan Clwyd Hospital.
This Bill provides a vital opportunity for us to level up healthcare and ensure that all our constituents can access the best treatment as soon as possible.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
When a Labour Government proposed a national health service after the second world war, promising free universal healthcare for all, it was a radical idea opposed by the Conservative party, which complained—I quote from an amendment tabled at the time—that it
“discourages voluntary…association…and undermines the freedom and independence of the medical profession”.
The Conservatives did not like it that the NHS was centralised, public and free for all. They condemned it as Marxist and voted against it 22 times. Fundamentally, they opposed the NHS for taking healthcare out of the market and for putting public good before private profit, but they saw its popularity and begrudgingly were forced to accept it.
Those fundamentals have not changed. This NHS corporate takeover Bill is another step away from the original truly public healthcare system, free from the corrosive influence of profit. The Conservative party still opposes that idea. Conservatives should not just take my word for it; they should take the words of their own Members. The Prime Minister, when he was a Back Bencher, slammed the NHS as “monolithic” and “monopolistic”, and called for privatisation. Four senior Cabinet members, when they were Back Benchers, wrote a manifesto in which they argued that two thirds of hospitals should be run outside of the NHS, and run privately or not for profit. We also have a new Health Secretary, who in the last year, alongside his role as a Back Bencher, has been on the books of US megabank JP Morgan. He has been making £150,000 a year from a company that—I quote from its literature—
“see the opportunities that lie ahead”
for private healthcare. The Health Secretary’s ideological hero, Ayn Rand—whose work he says he rereads every year—was an extreme right-wing libertarian philosopher, who detested socialised healthcare.
It is not just words; it is deeds too. The Government are breaking up the NHS, not all in one go, because they know that the public would not like that, but piece by piece. Privatisation by stealth—that is what they have been doing. Since coming into power in 2010, more than £96 billion has gone to non-public healthcare providers and nearly 20% of healthcare bids now go to private providers. This Bill will not reverse that. It will simply entrench it. It will put private companies on healthcare boards, giving them a say over our care and public funds. It will add steroids to the cronyism on steroids that we have seen in this pandemic, whereby Tory mates and donors have been handed billions of pounds in dodgy covid Government contracts. It will implement a healthcare model that incentivises cuts and closures, and rations funding to health boards.
This dangerous Bill is another step towards privatisation. In its place, we need to reinstate the NHS as a truly public service with a proper pay rise for its workers of 15%, making up for a decade of falling pay.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to focus on two main areas of the debate: the role of patients in accountability and transparency; and tariffs—the way in which we pay for procedures and care. I support the Bill, but I hope that we have the means to address the deep-rooted cultural issue of regarding patients’ views as less valuable than those who work in our national health service. Before I was elected, I was often involved in advocacy campaigns. Patient groups would want to challenge NHS England’s commissioning policies or service specifications. These policies govern the technologies and procedures that are used to treat conditions, but the patient groups would find the decision-making processes totally impenetrable, as would the clinicians and health policy experts advising them. What chance do individual patients and relatives have to make their voices heard?
The same impenetrability applies to clinical commissioning groups. Patient access to established procedures and technologies is blocked by local policies, but people have to be dedicated to find these policies on convoluted websites or page 178 of a 256-page document. For example, CCGs regularly restrict patient access to hip and knee procedures for patients with a body mass index of over 30. Extraordinarily, some CCGs allow procedures only for patients who have a BMI of less than 25. I would confidently predict that that would disqualify the vast majority of hon. and right hon. Members, and we should call it out for what it is, which is rationing.
Such rationing was routine before covid created massive backlogs in NHS waiting lists in some CCGs. Transparency and openness is the solution to these problems. A formal role for patients on ICS boards, a formal role for patients in the development of commissioning policies and creating a national appeals board for challenging commissioning decisions are all ideas that I hope Ministers might consider as the Bill progresses.
Finally, on tariffs, national tariffs are not perfect but they do incentivise providers to treat as many patients as they possibly can. The Bill states:
“NHS England must publish…‘the NHS payment scheme’”—
a document “containing rules for determining” the prices to be paid in future, including, for example, for hip and knee procedures. Tariffs have led to hip and knee procedures and other procedures being done at volume and at scale, certainly, at least, when commissioners agree to pay for them. High volumes of elective procedures have been a good thing and the current elective backlog is probably the biggest challenge that the NHS faces coming out of the pandemic, so whatever ends up in that document, it needs to be clear, transparent and provide incentives for high-volume procedures to be carried out at pace and at scale.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Government’s health strategy is clear: while health demand rises, the amount of resources being provided to the NHS is declining, which leaves well-heeled patients with nowhere else to go to avoid ill health except into the so-called independent sector. For example, a constituent told me that his opticians had said that he could wait six years for cataract operations, by which time he would be nearly blind, or he could pay for a cataract operation now in the private sector.
Even before covid, the Government had cut the health budget and spending. In Britain we were spending £2,000 per head of population less than was being spent in Germany. There were cuts to the numbers of staff and to their pay, 100,000 vacancies, 17,000 fewer hospital beds and over 100 fewer A&E facilities, with hospital waiting lists therefore doubling—even before covid arose—since the end of a Labour Government. The Bill continues all that process, as we would expect. It will make the NHS more remote because it is top-down, and it is a Trojan horse for elements of privatisation.
Newly remote administrators will have little sensitivity to local health requirements. Members should think of the differences in the health needs of former coalfield communities such as those I represent in West Yorkshire, the inner city of Bradford and the relative affluence of Harrogate, yet all that is to be covered by a single new board, and the centralisation of clinical services makes them less accessible. Some 20,000 people are living in my constituency with no car to their households’ name and with poor public transport, many of them with chronic health needs. How on earth will they be expected to travel to centralised services in Leeds or elsewhere under those circumstances?
There are two competing views of health provision facing each other. Either health is about an ethos of care or it is about making money. This Bill leads in one direction. The Government do not want to fund the NHS properly, so they are trying to entice more private money into health, often from sources, we note, from the Tory party. Privatisation puts one person’s wealth in front of another person’s health. We should look at the pages of the American health service providers today salivating at the prospect of growing NHS waiting lists, and now, so-called independent providers are to be invited to sit on boards that actually manage the NHS budgets. The idea of profiteering from someone else’s ill health is repulsive to most British people, yet it is intrinsic to this Bill. We can call it only one thing: parasitic capitalism. Along with the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and many other practitioners, we must resist the creeping destruction of our NHS.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Generally, the Bill is to be welcomed as it seeks to promote collaboration and the integration of local health and care services. It aims to give local people, local clinicians and those running local NHS and care services more control over the way that health and care services are delivered. The King’s Fund highlighted that the Bill will remove “clunky” competition rules and make it simpler for health and care organisations to work together and deliver more joined-up care to more people. That said, it is important to recognise that the last 16 months have been very challenging and very exhausting for those working in health and care, and in many respects, the last thing that they now need is yet another NHS reorganisation. Groups such as the BMA have concerns and I urge the Government to look at those closely in Committee.
I wish briefly to highlight two issues. First, I urge the Government to retain the existing boundaries, with the Waveney area remaining in an ICS with Norfolk. To change the boundaries to make them coterminous with the two counties would be highly disruptive and an unnecessary distraction, and it would demotivate hard-working staff. It would place at risk the health integration that has taken place in the area in recent years. To achieve better collaboration with care services, it is better to build on the existing foundations rather than to dismantle them. In many respects, boundary wars have been going on behind closed doors for the past seven to eight months, though I am grateful to both the Secretary of State and the Minister for listening to my concerns in recent weeks. I urge them to retain the status quo.
Secondly, the health issue that has taken up most of my time in recent weeks is NHS dentistry—or rather the lack of it. Many of my constituents are in agony and local NHS dentists urgently need the funds to see more patients. We are gradually moving towards a short-term solution, but it has taken far too long. In the longer term there needs to be greater accountability; dentists need to have a voice on integrated care boards; dental budgets should be protected; and steps must be taken to tackle the staffing crisis.
In conclusion, the Bill provides a statutory footing to ways of working that are in many respects evolving naturally. However, there are potential pitfalls, particularly —from my perspective—the changing of ICS boundaries, which I urge the Minister to avoid at all costs.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. To introduce a Bill like this when the covid pandemic is far from over and staff are on their knees shows a lack of understanding of what is needed.
I am concerned that this reorganisation of the NHS is being used as an opportunity to extend the involvement of UK and international private healthcare companies. The Bill proposes that private healthcare companies can become members of the integrated care boards, potentially meaning they will be able to procure health services from their own companies. Under the Bill, ICBs will have only a “core responsibility” for a “group of people”, in accordance with enrolment rules made by NHS England. There are concerns that this evokes the US definition of a health maintenance organisation, which provides
“basic and supplemental health services to its members”.
What is included in the core responsibilities?
Why is there no longer a duty but only a power for ICBs to provide hospital services? What does that mean for the thousands waiting for elective surgery? What about those waiting for cancer and other therapies? For those who say, “What does it matter who provides our healthcare as long as it meets the NHS principles of being universal, comprehensive and free at the point of need?” I say that not only is the Bill a clear risk to those founding NHS principles but there is strong evidence that equity in access to healthcare, equity in health outcomes and healthcare quality are all compromised in health systems that are either privatised or marketised, as the NHS has increasingly become.
That brings me to my third area of concern: health inequalities. It is notable that the Bill places the duties for the reduction of health inequalities with ICBs. The 2012 duty on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequalities is repealed, showing the clear lack of commitment to levelling up and the reduction of the structural inequalities that have been laid bare by this pandemic and contributed to the UK’s high and unequal covid death toll. With this change, the Secretary of State is ignoring not only decades of overwhelming evidence that clearly shows that health inequalities are driven at national policy level, but the Prime Minister’s commitment to implement the recommendations that Professor Sir Michael Marmot made in his covid review last December to tackle inequalities and build back fairer.
My final point is on social care. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, I express my profound disappointment that, 19 months since the Prime Minister pledged to fix the broken care system, it still has not been fixed. The Bill is a missed opportunity to set out the framework for social care reform in the context of an integrated health and social care system. For people with dementia and their family carers, who have suffered disproportionately from covid, this is a real blow. They deserve better. For me, the principle of health and social care—
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Anything that starts to undo the damage done by the 2012 Act is welcome. Some of the Bill reflects what has been the reality on the ground for some years: our local health services have indeed been ignoring the competition elements. I applaud them for it; they sensibly recognised that the only way the NHS could cope would be to co-operate, not compete.
I put on record my thanks to those leading our health and care system in Cambridgeshire in recent years. They were brave—they should not have had to break the law to deliver the services that our people needed. I also give heartfelt thanks to all the staff, medical and non-medical, who go above and beyond. What they do not need at the moment, on top of everything else, is the uncertainty that now encompasses them.
The reason why those people were in that difficult position is what makes me oppose the Bill: I will never trust the Conservatives not to try to privatise the NHS. That is based on long experience, because Cambridgeshire was the test bed for many of the 2012 reforms, which of course were driven by Lord Lansley, the then MP for South Cambridgeshire. Long before I came to this place, I was working with other campaigners, particularly Unison, Unite and GMB colleagues, to tackle what felt like an endless onslaught.
I remember arguing over the lifting of the private patient cap. The then chief executive of Addenbrooke’s Hospital told me at an annual general meeting that where he came from, people were very relaxed about private healthcare. For years, Addenbrooke’s had land allocated for a private hospital, and the chief executive admitted that the future business model was to seek to bring patients from across the world.
The then chief exec of the Royal Papworth Hospital was on record as wanting to expand private care from 5% to 15%. Nearby Hinchingbrooke hospital was run as a private outfit by Circle Health, until it handed it back because it could not make it work; Circle was then run by Ali Parsa, now CEO of Babylon Health, whose app was so brazenly promoted by the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). Then there was the UnitingCare fiasco, which I spoke endlessly about in this House: an £800 million five-year contract under which older people’s services were, effectively, privatised, until it collapsed in a huge waste of time, effort and public money. So there is form, and that is why I will always oppose this legislation.
There are other concerns, but time is limited, so I will cite just a couple. The British Association of Social Workers has highlighted the removal of social work assessment prior to hospital discharges. It is right to do so. The relationship between hospitals and some care homes has long been far too close, in my view—frankly, at times it borders on the corrupt. There is pressure to discharge too quickly, so the last thing we need to do is remove professional assessment. I am also concerned about clause 80 on data sharing, because I do not trust the Government on that either.
We have a wonderful NHS. It needs support, not reorganisation, but all past experience and evidence tells me that the Tories will always want to find a way of making money out of it. We will always try to stop them, because that is not what the NHS is about.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to support the Bill. It is the first significant reorganisation of healthcare in recent years, and only the second since the Conservatives came into office following 13 years of Labour Administrations who reorganised the health services nine times, so we should not be taking lessons from the Opposition on the timing or the fact of putting things right.
The Bill is very substantial legislation that learns lessons from the way in which the NHS has had to work during the covid pandemic. In particular, the flow-through of patients discharged out of the acute sector as a result of much closer working with social care and local authorities is an integral part of creating the new integrated care boards. I very much welcome the fact that they are being established on a statutory footing and that there will be representation from local authorities and a role for health and wellbeing boards to provide local oversight. That is an essential step to allow the healthcare economy across our communities to collaborate effectively, and to remove some of the artificial barriers.
I will touch briefly on three other points. On the measures proposed for reconfiguration, we in Shropshire have been at the wrong end of a protracted reconfiguration process for our acute hospitals. Streamlining the process by which decisions are made will benefit patients. In Shropshire, it has taken several years to reach the point at which decisions can be made, and at every stage obstacles are put in place that add to delay and uncertainty. As a consequence of that, it is hard to attract staff to a system not working as well as it should, and the system has gone into special measures. The provisions to streamline difficult decisions are therefore very welcome.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, said, the Bill is somewhat light on workforce, but it does include key measures to speed up the ability of physicians trained in other systems to be welcomed into the NHS or to return to the NHS and if they have retired. I urge Ministers in Committee to look carefully at what can be done—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid we are under huge time constraints.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This Health and Care Bill has been conceived in bunkers behind screens within echo chambers. It is straight from the US health market, and its architects are immune to objection from the frontline leaders who are expected to deliver a new health and care system. In case the Government had not observed it, those people are in the midst of managing a pandemic, its resurgence and its aftermath. They are holding together a fragile workforce, traumatised by the pressure and sacrifice of the covid war. They are vaccinating a nation while seeing others fall to preventable diseases. They are embracing those with broken minds as they try desperately to hold on to their own.
It is no time to strip out the NHS’s infrastructure and replace it—eager as we are to do so—with something as ill-defined, void of detail and illiterate as the Bill presents. The Bill will shift the blame for an imploding NHS and shattered care system from the impervious Prime Minister to NHS workers. The backlogs will be their fault. They will be to blame for service cuts, and the Government will shrug their shoulders at the postcode lottery and rationing. We have more than 5 million people waiting for hospital appointments. We are unable to see a GP for weeks. We are waiting longer than ever at A&E and, when the care system fleeces people for all they have and fails to restore their dignity in their fading years of life, the Bill scapegoats local health and care teams while the Government wash their hands.
We are in this mess because, in 2012, the Government—and, let us not forget, their Lib Dem chums—messed with our NHS, ignored clinicians and seeded the failures that we have witnessed throughout the pandemic. History repeats itself. The market-driven system enabled Ministers to sign away billions of pounds on crony contracts while frontline staff were wrapped in bin bags—and some, tragically, in body bags. The Bill lets the Government off the hook. When things go wrong, they will simply blame others as they avoid shame. But, worse, private companies are already sitting round the tables of the shadow integrated care systems to profit further. Nothing has changed. If the Bill changes nothing, we do not need it to further destroy the remnants of Labour’s precious NHS. At the one time we need certainty, there is none.
The Bill fails to provide the vital stability, funding, accountability or transparency that is needed. It fails on prevention and the advances that patients need. It has more private commissioning, not less, no workforce planning or vital staff pay and, crucially, no social care, yet the NHS will integrate with it. Labour believes that people deserve better. We must have integrated health and social care, free to all in need, wholly delivered in our public sector by fairly rewarded staff and accountable to this Parliament and to the people. Now is not the time and this is not the Bill. I will vote against it.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Bill, and I particularly welcome its aims and objectives to provide the best possible health and care to everyone in this country. However, to achieve that, things must change in the legislation. It must have explicit provisions for mental health, not just physical health. It must also include provisions for children’s social care, not just adult social care, and provide for the commissioning of not just medical services, doctors, nurses, infrastructure and hospitals but medicines and devices, which we know have been crucial in the fight with covid.
How are we going to do that? First, we need to include parity of esteem clauses—one for mental health and one for social care. We need to define what we mean by parity of esteem, which will be a first: what are we going to put in? Not just money; what processes will we promise to deliver? What healthcare outcomes are we looking to deliver? We need the same for mental health and social care—both are deserved.
As others have said, we need a proper workforce plan, but it must cover not just health but social care, and it must look specifically at how we will deal with recruitment. How will we deal with the career path in future? How will we look at training and retention for the future? There should be an integrated plan, not one for health and one for care. Our nurses, for example, work across both systems.
We need to provide for the commissioning of medicines and devices. Currently, it is a postcode lottery. The previous legislation on medicines and devices covered licensing, but not commissioning. Patient choice depends upon forming that system so that everyone gets access to the medicines approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Currently, that is not the case.
We must positively review the big-picture strategy. What do we need? What are the skills we need for health and care? We must look broadly, not narrowly. We must look at what greater role our pharmacists can play. How can we improve our training so that people have more general skills that we can use in a pandemic such as this, so that everyone in the health system can be used? To support that, we will need to rework the membership provisions for the ICBs and the ICPs. We will need to amend the data regulations to ensure that they can go beyond the boundary of the NHS, and we will need to look at our medicines directory—the sister of the devices registry—to ensure that it includes information from research through to patient experience. There is much to do; it can be done. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The NHS was established to provide equal rights to healthcare, free at the point of delivery, irrespective of income or personal health. Yet as we emerge from the pandemic in praise of the NHS, this Bill is yet another step towards dismantling and privatising the system.
With the highest vaccination rates, thanks to the NHS, England also has the highest infection rate of the delta variant, thanks to the Government going into lockdown too late and coming out too soon. With 128,000 people dead, 695,000 currently have the covid variant and there are record waiting lists. The Government should be investing in more capacity now—in the workforce and in beds. They should be reinstating the 12,000 empty beds. Instead, the Government are putting £10 billion into the private sector over four years, with the framework contract, when the private sector has only 8,000 beds in total. Doctors will have to leave NHS hospitals to go to private hospitals, further disrupting NHS services.
Coming out of the pandemic, we need a healthcare Bill that re-energises the NHS and rewards our nurses and doctors who saved the country from calamity. Instead, this Bill allows private health companies to sit on boards, deciding where the NHS funding is spent. It allows further outsourcing, opening the door to more taxpayers’ money being siphoned off to the profits of private contractors. The NHS is being fragmented. Talk of patient choice is disingenuous, as funds must be transferred in the internal market, so it is a postcode lottery. There has not been patient choice in England since the internal market was introduced.
In contrast, in Wales, the Labour Government continues with a planned system that has delivered the highest vaccination rate in the world and a 90% effective test, track and isolate system, wholly delivered by the public sector through councils and health authorities. Wales has a lower death rate over a five-year average—13% in Wales vs. 20% in England, despite Wales’s older population. There is public procurement in place of crony contracts to Tory donors.
Wales has shown that public money is used most effectively in the NHS by public sector delivery, so more people are treated equally, irrespective of income and personal health, true to Aneurin Bevan’s founding principles. Instead, the Bill is a back door for United States companies, via trade deals, to further break up our system, on the road to health insurance, which hits the poorest and sickest hardest.
This is a rotten Bill. It is bad for Britain’s health, bad for our wealth and bad for our most treasured achievement —our NHS.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I confess that I am wary of NHS reorganisations, but as Sir Simon Stevens told the Health Committee, this one is almost unique in being primarily a response to a series of requests from the NHS to Parliament. In delivering a more integrated health and social care system, the Bill will implement a number of proposals in the NHS’s own long-term plan and crucially, as other hon. Members have said, the Bill is accompanied by the commitment to raise NHS funding by £33 billion—the largest cash increase in its 73-year history.
I would hope that, in putting the integrated care systems on a statutory footing, Ministers will give them a strong mandate to conduct and fund research. The pandemic has shown the vital importance of research. Not only did the Oxford University scientists deliver a world-leading vaccine in record time, but their recovery trial established dexamethasone as the first effective treatment for covid, saving thousands of lives.
The report that I co-authored for the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform sets out a blueprint for a new regulatory architecture for clinical trials to replace the EU clinical trials directive. The Bill could be an opportunity to take those reforms forward, along with our ideas on a more modern approach to health data. These plans would improve the chances of discovering better treatments for life-threatening diseases and could unlock huge economic opportunities, capitalising on the abilities of our world-leading scientists and universities.
As many have said, the Bill must be used to improve workforce planning. As demands grow on the NHS, we must continue to expand capacity, and we cannot do that unless we are training and recruiting the people we need. In particular, we must have more GPs so that our constituents can get the care that they need when they want it. GPs are currently under unprecedented demand pressure. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill gives GPs a strong voice in the new structures to ensure that local input is given to those new structures.
Supporting the NHS will always be a key part of the work that I do as MP for Chipping Barnet, because I know how important it is to my constituents. Knowing that the NHS is there when we need it is one of the greatest advantages of living in our United Kingdom. The covid emergency has reinforced that a thousand times over, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of our NHS and thank them for their courage, dedication and professionalism.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
This month we marked the 73rd birthday of the NHS, and instead of celebrating it and giving it the homage that it deserves—the NHS, one of the very best things about our country—the Government have introduced a Bill that looks set to ramp up their long-standing attempts to continue to privatise it. I was proud to add my name to the reasoned amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) because we do not need private healthcare companies to sit on boards deciding how NHS funding is spent, further outsourcing of contracts without proper scrutiny, transparency and accountability, or the introduction of a model of healthcare that incentivises cuts and the closure of services.
Forcing NHS staff to implement yet another top-down Conservative reorganisation would take people away from the task of tackling growing treatment lists and coping with rapidly rising covid cases. We need to fill our 84,000 vacancies, and we need a 15% pay rise across the board for our NHS staff. It is hard to see how ordering a reorganisation such as this while ignoring calls for increased funding and a plan for social care could be anything other than disastrous.
This corporate takeover Bill—which is exactly what it is—will put private companies at the heart of the NHS and pave the way to sell off our confidential health data to multinational corporations. Nobody wants that. It will normalise the corrupt contracting that we have seen during the pandemic. The money that we spend on our healthcare should go to the services that we need, not to the pockets of Conservative party donors or corporate shareholders. Over the path of the pandemic, we have seen what this outsourcing and privatisation has meant in practice. Contract after contract awarded without competitive process. People being failed. Failing contracts. Delivery failed on again and again. Now the Government want to open up new ways for that to happen, just as they have done throughout the pandemic.
Let us consider what happened with Track and Trace, which was a complete disaster in the hands of Serco. The system has been so ineffective that, recently, MPs concluded that it had ”no clear impact”—a £37 billion system with no clear impact. After a decade of cuts, it was our NHS and its staff and volunteers who led the vaccination roll-out. That was a success, but it was their success, not the Government’s success. That is a lesson that we can learn about exactly what happens when we give the NHS the funding it needs, but the Bill does nothing to do that. We do not need more overpaid consultants involved the NHS; we need to value the staff we already have, and put in the investment that made the vaccination programme a massive success. We must be clear—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We must move on to the next speaker.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I strongly support the Bill. However, although it contains strong measures to combat obesity, there is none to tackle smoking, which is the leading cause of preventable premature death, including cancer. I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health. The report we proposed suggested that we implement the “polluter pays” levy that the Government promised to consider two years ago. The Bill is the ideal opportunity to introduce such a levy. Analysis by Cancer Research UK shows that we will not achieve the Government’s aim of a smoke-free England until 2035—the Government target is 2030, so years later—in our poorest communities, so there is no time to waste. We must get on with the job.
In the Government’s recent paper on public health, they accepted that they have a responsibility not only to help people improve their own health, but to go further when it comes to industries that are based on addictions such as smoking. The Bill is the ideal opportunity, and I urge the Government to consider the recommendations laid out by the all-party group and table them as amendments in Committee, so that we tackle the most deadly addiction in our society.
We need to combat not only smoking rates but the long-standing, unacceptable health inequalities that exist across the country. The plan needs to be comprehensive, but it will not be effective without sufficient additional and sustainable funding. A smoke-free 2030 fund, using the industry to pay for it, but without industry interference, could pay for the comprehensive measures that we need to reach that ambitious target across all socioeconomic groups.
On the plan to combat obesity, there is a measure that will be harmful to many of our media companies, but it will not hit some of the social media and online companies. That runs the risk of having a two-stage process. Perhaps we could consider having limits at weekends to limit the impact of junk food advertising on TV when our young people are watching.
Overall, however, this is a good Bill. We should support it, and we should support our national health service that has brought it before us today.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everyone working in health and social care and to unpaid family carers. All of them have gone above and beyond in their caring roles during the pandemic. The Government’s response to that could have been to give NHS staff a proper pay rise, to publish plans to put social care on a sustainable financial footing, or to recognise fully the tremendous contribution made by unpaid carers. Instead we have this Bill, and a top-down reorganisation of the NHS that will concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, offering no guarantees of better outcomes for patients and removing rights from carers.
It is welcome that the Bill brings an end to every NHS contract having to be put out to tender and that some changes in the Bill reference unpaid carers, but further changes are needed. Change is needed to put a duty on the NHS to have regard to carers and to promote their health and wellbeing.
It is welcome that the Bill includes a duty on both NHS England and the integrated care boards to consult carers, but rather than just involve and consult them in relation to patients, the duty that is needed is for the NHS to consider carers in their own right, as proposed by the Health and Social Care Committee in its report.
It is worrying that the Bill undermines carers’ rights in relation to hospital discharge. Clause 78 removes carers’ fundamental rights by removing the need to assess a patient at the point of hospital discharge. The way that is done removes carers’ fundamental right to have an assessment to ensure services are provided to make sure the patient is safe to discharge into their care. This is an issue, as Carers UK quotes research showing that only 26% of carers were consulted about discharge and that a third were consulted only at the last minute.
The Bill proposes to extend the Care Quality Commission’s remit to cover the delivery of social care services. However, that excludes social care provided through NHS continuing healthcare. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found last year that people continue to be seriously let down by failings in how continuing healthcare is delivered. I ask the Minister to agree with the Continuing Healthcare Alliance that there should be an additional duty on the CQC to assess integrated care systems’ delivery of their continuing healthcare duties and to hold them to account where these duties are not being met.
The Care Quality Commission will have a remit to rate local authorities’ delivery of social care, but when £9 billion has been taken out of social care budgets and long-term reform is consistently delayed, the Government should recognise that inadequate social care services are a problem of their own making.
Finally, I question the timing of the Bill. Staff are exhausted and are facing another wave of covid infections over the summer. I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that and adjust the timeframes for implementing these reforms so that they do not end up distracting from the NHS’s real job of caring for patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, and I pay tribute to my NHS managers and social care managers in Cornwall. They have been straining at the bit for a long time to integrate more effectively and more successfully, and the Bill will help them to formalise that integration and do a good job of it.
In the short time I have, I want to talk about the patient’s perspective. We know that diabetes, for example, costs the NHS and social care a colossal amount of money, and we also know that across the UK we have pretty much all the tools, treatment, care, support and devices so that someone with diabetes can manage their condition and live, as much as possible, a full and good life. We also know that, because of the current situation, that care is not joined up and is not universal across the country. I hope the Bill delivers, for diabetes, a joined-up, clear pathway from diagnosis—I welcome the emphasis on prevention, too—through their lifetime, as they manage this lifelong condition. The Bill enables them to get every bit of support and care and every device they need to live full lives, to manage their care and to take an active part in society as a whole.
I am talking about people with diabetes because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes, which I should have declared, but the Bill also provides a blueprint for all sorts of lifelong conditions that enables people to live their lives successfully in their community.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In today’s debate we have heard from 37 hon. and right hon. Members, as well as the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), and another 29 hon. Members registered an interest to speak but were not called. A huge range of topics has been covered, some of which I hope to address briefly. I hope Members will forgive me if I cannot mention each contribution individually.
Many Members have talked about the particular geographic configuration of their ICS, and it is clear that there is lots of unhappiness about that in certain parts of the country. That is hardly surprising, given that has been done without any parliamentary oversight so far. It seems that, under the Bill, Parliament will not even get to approve where the boundaries lie.
There has been no attempt at public consultation or discussion about where these boundaries sit, and that is a theme throughout the Bill. Decisions, money and power move further away from the public and closer to the Secretary of State. He is certainly taking back control but, at the same time, he is silencing the patient voice.
In the Bill, the Secretary of State has a veto on who leads the integrated care systems, and he can stop foundation trusts borrowing money that they desperately need to tackle the £9 billion maintenance backlog. He even has the power to decide whether to instigate the closure of local services.
By contrast, when the 2012 Act was going through Parliament, Lord Lansley, who was then Secretary of State, told the Chamber:
“We want clinicians and their patients to lead the NHS, but they cannot do this while they sit under a vast hierarchy of regional and local organisations, all reporting to Whitehall. Everyone agrees that top-down command and control gets in the way of clinicians doing their job”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 613.]
The Bill supercharges command and control, so it is little wonder that even the British Medical Association has come out against it. It creates a vast web of new organisations, but very few of them will make decisions. It is pretty clear that the integrated care partnerships in particular will be little more than bystanders when it comes to the crunch, and that the boards will have all the power. That is a huge democratic deficit that must not be allowed to go unchallenged. When we hear about companies such as Virgin already having a seat on one of the ICS boards in the south-west we know that the power lies in totally the wrong place. The Bill needs to make it crystal clear that private companies should be a million miles from making decisions about how the NHS is run.
At the same time, the Bill does not legislate for boards to include a representative from a mental health organisation, for example. How will that encourage integration, let alone parity of esteem? There are plenty of others who are not guaranteed a seat at the table but who ought to be in the vanguard of integration: directors of adult social care, directors of public health, carers and, most of all, patients, who seem to have been completely forgotten in all this. How will decisions be made by the boards? Will there be transparency about where the money is spent in those areas which, we should not forget, are much larger than clinical commissioning groups. How can we be sure that the money will go to those parts of the ICS with the most need, and how can that be challenged if it does not?
We have seen the blatant abuse of the levelling-up fund, and party political considerations seep into every decision made by the Government. Will it now be patients who pay the price for that? How will the combined trust deficits of £910 million be met? The danger is that the Bill will force ICSs to close small local services to bail out the bigger trusts.
While we welcome an end to section 75 provision, I wonder exactly how much money has been wasted in convoluted procurement processes and legal challenges. Is it £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion? Whatever the final figure, there is no doubt that that money could be better spent on frontline services. While moving away from that monumental mistake is a good thing, it seems as if we are going from one extreme to the other, with the removal of any safeguards at all on who contracts can be awarded to. The Government are legislating for cronyism. I am sure that pub landlords and pest control companies will be delighted, but we cannot give the Secretary of State the blank cheque that the Bill allows.
There is a huge blank sheet of paper where the plan to tackle the workforce crisis ought to be. The Secretary of State will produce a report once every five years, but that is not a serious commitment to the workforce. Indeed, it is not a serious commitment to Parliament either, and the social care workforce is not even mentioned. Let us not forget that we have 122,000 vacancies in that workforce. The Select Committee has set out the kind of people whom we really ought to aim to employ, with annual, independently audited reports that cover the NHS and social care. In the words of the Select Committee:
“The way that the NHS does workforce planning is at best opaque and at worst responsible for the unacceptable pressure on the current workforce which existed even before the pandemic.”
The Bill will only reinforce that position, rather than reverse it.
In the introduction that the Secretary of State gave to the Bill today, it sounded very much as if he thought that it was the panacea that we have all been waiting for, but many more experienced Members could be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu. Let us remind ourselves of what Lord Lansley told the House about the 2012 reforms:
“Previous changes have tinkered with one piece of the NHS or another, when what was needed was comprehensive modernisation to create an NHS fit for the demands of the 21st century. That is precisely what this Health and Social Care Bill will deliver.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 616.]
The Health and Social Care Bill provided for the constitution and structure of the NHS to work for the long term. How has that worked out? There are record waiting lists and staff vacancies; billions diverted into the private sector away from the NHS; life expectancy has stalled; and A&E targets have been missed five years in a row. The NHS was trying to unpick the last disastrous reorganisation before the ink was even dry on the Royal Assent, so why is this set of reforms going to be any more successful than the last? How is one line of this Bill going to tackle the operation backlog? Is not the truth that without a proper sustained funding settlement to meet the demand in both health and social care, this latest set of reforms is merely another rearrangement of the deckchairs? Why, oh why, is so much time and resource being focused on a wasteful, top-down reorganisation, in the middle of the pandemic? Even the Prime Minister told us on Monday that we are not out of it yet. Only today, planned operations have been cancelled in Newcastle because of a surge in covid cases. Is it not the case that every meeting called, every document written, every minute spent on this top-down reorganisation is less time spent on fighting the increase in covid cases we currently see, bringing down waiting lists, tackling the increase in mental health conditions, solving the workforce crisis and actually delivering the reform to social care that the Prime Minister promised nearly two years ago?
This Bill is the equivalent of someone reorganising the whole interior of their house, spending fortunes on new furniture and decorations, but finding it is all ruined within months because they forgot to put a roof over their head; we cannot fix the NHS if we do not fix social care. We know that, everybody knows that. The Government say they have a plan, but we still do not know what it is. Crucially, for the purposes of today’s debate, we do not know whether it will fit in with what is in this Bill. So are we going to have yet another reorganisation next year because there was no forward thinking? What about learning the lessons from covid? The inquiry is not even going to start until next year, so are we going to see yet another reorganisation when we have learned the lessons from that? The only thing guaranteed from this reorganisation is that another one will surely follow shortly afterwards. So let us reject this Bill, go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that actually deals with the challenges that we have to face.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Before winding up this important debate, I would like to put on the record, as I always do and as I know the shadow Minister does, our gratitude to all the staff in the NHS, social care and local government, and other key workers, for everything they have done in recent months. This Bill is evolution, not revolution. It supports improvements already under way in our NHS and it builds on the recommendations of the NHS’s own long-term plan, laying the foundations for our recovery from this pandemic. This Bill is backed by not only the NHS, but so many others working across health and care. A joint statement from the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers and the Local Government Association reads:
“we believe that the direction of travel set by the bill is the right one.”
It notes that working in partnership at a local level is “the only way” we can address the challenges of our time. The chief executive of Age UK has said that ICSs are to be embraced and made as effective and inclusive as they can be, and the King’s Fund is calling for us to press ahead. The list goes on; the NHS wants us to press ahead, and in the words of Lord Stevens, “The overwhelming majority of these proposals are changes the health service have asked for.” So it is vital that we in this House do right by them and by patients at this critical juncture. It is the right time for this Bill. We legislate, Opposition Members obfuscate. I remind the shadow Secretary of State of his 2017 manifesto, which stated:
“We will reinstate the powers of the Secretary of State for Health to have overall responsibility for the NHS.”
With this Bill, we put increased accountability for the Secretary of State at the heart of this, yet now the shadow Secretary of State no longer seems to agree with himself and characterises his own proposals as “meddling”. I know that he is dextrous in his politics and in his policy position, which is probably why he has survived under multiple Leaders of the Opposition, but this is stretching it a bit.
We have sought, in getting to this point, to work on a collaborative basis at every stage, and hon. Members can be reassured that we will continue to adopt that approach in the weeks ahead as we proceed with this Bill, when we hope it goes into Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in his opening remarks his willingness to listen. In particular, he highlighted that in the case of ICS boundaries no decision has yet been made. As he set out, we are determined to embrace innovative potential wherever we find it. That is quite different from many of the accusations we have heard here today. I know it is tempting for some—even when they know better, and they do—to claim that it is the beginning of the end for public provision. It is not and they know it. They know it is scaremongering rather than reality. They know that there has always been an element of private provision in healthcare services in this country, and they should know that because, as the Nuffield Trust said in 2019:
“The…evidence suggests the increase”
in private provision
“originally began under Labour governments before 2010”.
The shadow Secretary of State should certainly know that because he was a special adviser in the Treasury and in No. 10 at that time.
With regard to the implementation of the Bill, the NHS itself wants, subject to legislation, to move at pace to implement statutory arrangements for ICSs by April 2022. That is why NHS England is beginning preparatory work, including publishing an ICS design framework. Further work, including on integrated care board design and consideration of appointments and staff from CCGs will take place, after Second Reading, of course; this is all subject to the passage of the Bill.
Let me turn to some of the specific points raised by hon. and right hon. Members. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about “Agenda for Change”. I can reassure her that it is not the intention that ICBs depart from “Agenda for Change”. The Bill’s drafting and wording is in line with existing arrangements for other NHS bodies with regard to “Agenda for Change” and translates it into this context. However, I am always happy to discuss that with her further if she wishes. Her suggestion that this was conceived, as she put it, in a bunker is quite simply not the case. Indeed, all the stakeholders, including the NHS, have said that this is one of the most collaborative pieces of legislation development they have seen.
Turning to the workforce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, we cannot legislate to address workforce challenges but we can and we will look very carefully at the recommendations of the Select Committee and of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt).
While we do not always agree on everything, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made sensible points, although I would slightly tease her that she argued against the principle of the Secretary of State taking powers in reconfiguration and shortly afterwards her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), intervened on him asking him to do exactly that.
Edward Argar
She did.
In response to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), I am again grateful for her comments and happy to accept her kind invitation to join her on a visit to Scotland.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made a very important point. In doing so, he rightly paid tribute to the work in this space done by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) with her recent private Member’s Bill. As the Secretary of State said, either he, I or the relevant Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss it further. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) was right to talk about the need for local flexibility. That is what we are seeking to do.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked more broadly about public spending constraints after 2010. He is brave, perhaps, to mention that. I recall the legacy of the previous Labour Government, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) summed up pretty effectively in saying,
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
On social care, which a number of hon. and right hon. Members mentioned, we will take no lessons from Labour. In 13 years, after two Green Papers, a royal commission and apparently making it a priority at the spending review of 2007, the net result was absolutely nothing—inaction throughout. We are committed to bringing forward proposals this year. Labour talks; we will act.
The NHS is the finest health service in the world. We knew that before the pandemic, and the last year and a half have only reinforced that. It is our collective duty to strengthen our health and care system for our times. I was shocked, although probably not surprised, that the Opposition recklessly and opportunistically intend to oppose the Bill—a Bill, as we have heard, that the NHS has asked for—once again putting political point scoring ahead of NHS and patient needs. For our part, we are determined to support our NHS, as this Bill does, to create an NHS that is fit for the future and to renew the gift left by generations before us and pass it on stronger to future generations. We are the party of the NHS and we are determined to give it what it needs, what it has asked for and what it deserves. I encourage hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendment, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I apologise to the 30 Members who did not get to speak in this important debate, some of whom are currently in the Chamber.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Health and Care Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 7th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2021 - (7 Sep 2021)
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch off all electrical devices or turn them to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings of this Committee. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking; this is in line with Government guidance, and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space, both when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, and when officials in the Gallery communicate with Ministers, they should do so electronically. Date Time Witness Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 10.30 am NHS Employers; Health Education England Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 11.25 am NHS England and NHS Improvement Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 2.30 pm NHSX Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 3.15 pm NHS Providers; NHS Confederation Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Care Quality Commission; Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 4.45 pm Local Government Association; Faculty of Public Health Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 5.15 pm Welsh Government Thursday 9 September Until no later than 12.15 pm UNISON; British Medical Association Thursday 9 September Until no later than 1.00 pm Royal College of General Practitioners; Royal College of Nursing; Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Thursday 9 September Until no later than 2.45 pm The King’s Fund; Nuffield Trust Thursday 9 September Until no later than 3.15 pm Gloucestershire Integrated Care System; NHS Confederation’s ICS Network Advisorate Thursday 9 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Centre for Governance and Scrutiny; Centre for Mental Health Thursday 9 September Until no later than 4.30 pm Healthwatch England Thursday 9 September Until no later than 5.15 pm Association of Directors of Adult Social Services; British Association of Social Workers
We will consider first the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion enabling the reporting of written evidence for publication, and then a motion allowing us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope those matters can be decided without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was discussed yesterday by the Bill’s Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 7 September) meet——
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 September;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 September;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 September;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 September;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 October;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 October;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 October;
(j) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 27 October;
(k) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 October;
(l) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 to 16; Schedule 3; Clauses 17 to 25; Schedule 4; Clause 26; Schedule 5; Clauses 27 to 38; Schedule 6; Clauses 39 to 41; Schedule 7; Clauses 42 to 59; Schedule 8; Clauses 60 and 61; Schedule 9; Clauses 62 to 66; Schedule 10; Clause 67; Schedule 11; Clauses 68 to 72; Schedule 12; Clauses 73 to 93; Schedule 13; Clauses 94 to 106; Schedule 14; Clauses 107 to 118; Schedule 15; Clauses 119 to 125; Schedule 16; Clauses 126 to 135; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill; and
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 pm on Tuesday 2 November.—(Edward Argar.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Edward Argar.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be circulated to its members by email and made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Edward Argar.)
The Chair
If everyone is agreed, we will go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
Some of our witnesses will be giving evidence today by video link, while others will appear in person. It is helpful, particularly when witnesses are giving evidence by video link, if Members could direct their questions to specific witnesses. Before calling the first panel of witnesses, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. We have until 10.30 for our first panel. Do Members wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I have no relevant interest to declare, but we are unable to see a screen. Would it be possible to erect a screen so that we can see those giving evidence?
The Chair
Yes, we can do that. As there are no witnesses giving evidence in person, it would be okay for Members to sit at the witness table, if that would be better.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I want to declare an interest as a medical practitioner, although not commonly practising, and as a member of the British Medical Association.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Likewise, I declare an interest as a serving general practitioner in the NHS, a member of the BMA and as a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
The Chair
Thank you. I am very keen that we continue this session as quickly as possible. We will now go to our witnesses. Good morning and on behalf of the Committee, thank you very much for agreeing to give evidence. Please introduce yourselves for the record.
Dr Navina Evans: Shall I go first?
The Chair
I think that would be good; ladies first.
Dr Navina Evans: My name is Navina Evans and I am chief executive at Health Education England.
Danny Mortimer: Good morning. My name is Danny Mortimer and I am the chief executive of NHS Employers, which is part of the NHS Confederation.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Members who wish to ask questions should please indicate that.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: Thank you very much for the invitation to give evidence today. I am really pleased to note the prominence the Bill gives to the workforce, and the important focus on systems working together, and working together with social care. I think that implementation will work well because we can build on what we are already doing. There is a great deal of collaboration between all parts of the system, and I can give you lots of examples if you wish of how we have developed the workforce over the past few years, particularly through the pandemic. We can build on what we have done together with other parts of the system. HEE plays a unique role because we have relationships with educators, providers of healthcare, the regulators, the professional bodies and NHS employers and other partners, as well with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. We play a convening role, and we have already used that experience, ability and capacity to develop the workforce so far. We think the Bill will enable us to build on that.
Danny Mortimer: Navina captures really well the work that is already going on, not least, as she has said, through the pandemic. My members, who are the trusts and ICSs around the country, are already trying to find ways of developing joint approaches to developing their workforce, not least with their colleagues in social care, but also by thinking about different ways in which they can recruit and perhaps make employment in the NHS more accessible to people from harder, under-served communities. Some fantastic work has been going on with the Prince’s Trust, for example, around the NHS, and that has increasingly been done through the organisations that are being formalised through this Bill.
I also think that the commitments that the Government are expected to make later today, not least around investment in social care, will help organisations to work together. We have a pressing need in the health service to invest in the longer term in our workforce, but that is even truer for our colleagues in social care. Again, that is a significant step forward today, which we hope will go even further in the spending review, in helping employers to ensure an adequate supply of people in the longer term, not least with the support of Navina’s organisation, and also by being able to innovate together in developing roles that better meet the needs of the communities they serve.
Edward Timpson
Q
Dr Navina Evans: Yes, I do. I think they build on what we have already done well and strengthen our ability to go further.
Danny Mortimer: I agree with that. I think there are some risks. At the heart of the Bill, it is formalising organisations that can lead, innovate and perhaps do things differently from each other in local areas. We have a very centralised healthcare system in this country, and one of the risks is that the vision in Bill of integration and devolution to local areas is not realised, because the centralising impetus is very strong. However, the Bill absolutely captures what has now been many years of growing collaboration and integration between health organisations but also, importantly, with our colleagues and friends in local authorities and social care.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I can give you three areas of learning that we in HEE were really pleased to see. One is around flexibility and better collaboration, which meant that our students and learners had a different kind of learning experience and also were able to contribute in a very real way to the care in service. This has led us to build on the reform agenda for education and training, and we are working with partners in education, the professional bodies and the regulators to see how we can use what we have learned to enhance that.
That is the first thing; the second thing is that we have seen quite a lot of barriers between organisations and systems being broken down. Again, that is something that we in HEE feel we should make the most of, together with partners, for future ways of working. The third area is the use of technology, digital and new ways of working. We have really moved quite significantly in how we work, including in how we learn, teach and train. Again, those are areas that we are very excited to build on. In many of them we had started before, but we accelerated during the pandemic, and we will not be going back. We will only be moving forward.
Danny Mortimer: I think that Navina captures really well that catalysing effect that the pandemic has had. I think that in many parts of the country there has been a much greater sense of there being one team within localities and communities. There have been some fantastic examples of health and social care teams coming together to respond, given the particular impact of the pandemic on social care settings and on the most vulnerable members of our communities. There is more to do, but the recognition that actually there is one workforce and one team, cutting across the NHS and other health organisations in other parts of the public service, is absolutely growing.
I think that the Bill, by formalising arrangements and stretching what is expected of systems, provides real opportunities for those systems increasingly to inform the kind of national work and planning that Navina and her colleagues lead, as well as the kind of informed work that the Secretary of State and the Minister want to take forward for health and social care.
Dr James Davies
Q
Dr Navina Evans: HEE has recently been given a ministerial commission to lead on developing a strategic framework for future workforces planning. We think that this is really timely in relation to the Bill. What we feel really matters in workforce planning is driving actions and solutions. We need to be able to identify future needs and shortages, and then ensure that the systems develop plans, but these plans need to be able to access all levers at all levels. It is quite a complicated business, but we feel that it is timely for us to pay particular attention to it.
There are a number of areas to consider. We need to look at service redesign; workforce redesign and transformation; employer roles, in terms of retention and recruitment; other supply interventions, such as international recruitment; and then—this is particularly relevant for HEE—future supply through education and training. We then want to pull the system together, through our convening role in HEE, and to have two principal ways of thinking about this: the future needs more and different, in terms of workforces and people; and we want to focus on skills, not necessarily just roles. The really critical point about this commission is that it asks us to ensure that we include the regulated social care workforce in our planning, which is a real step forward. We are looking to ensure that planning should track long-term trends in demand, that we should not be too tied to short-term fiscal cycles, and that we are prioritising supply for the whole health and care workforce.
Danny Mortimer: It is very welcome that the Department has commissioned HEE to do the work that Navina has described, but the NHS Confederation is clear, alongside a whole range of other organisations that work on behalf of the health service in particular, that clause 33 is insufficient for the task that the NHS faces in workforce planning. What it sets out, as Committee members will know, is a requirement for the Secretary of State to describe the process of workforce planning every five years. We have proposed to Parliament that that needs to move from setting out the process to actually setting out the requirements that health and social care have, and to do that much more regularly—we propose every two years.
For us, what is in the Bill is positive, because it is good to have the process described for the first time, but actually, as Dr Evans has just touched on, we need to spell out what the health and social care systems need in the longer term, but also in the immediate term. In some ways, that would mirror the work of the Office for Budget Responsibility in terms of advising the Government and Parliament about likely health and social care spending. We then need a corollary that sets out what is needed to respond to that in terms of people. Health and social care is fundamentally made up of the 3 million people who work in it. We sometimes fixate on the buildings and the technology, but it is fundamentally, in its essence, a people business. We think that that is a pressing issue, not least because of the pressures we face. That is not to say that the Government have not and do not invest in workforce numbers—significant decisions have been made in recent weeks around expanding medical school places, for example. But what we do not have is one coherent, single plan that is presented to the country and particularly to Parliament, which sets out what the NHS and our friends in social care will need to meet the demands that are being placed on us by the population, their health needs and quality of life, and also of course any priorities that the Government might set for social care and health services.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Q
Danny Mortimer: It is absolutely the case that the individual organisations in the NHS, social care, charitable organisations and local authorities that make up the partnership as well as the board will remain separate legal entities. We do not see that it is desirable for the NHS to move from having 250 separate employers to having 42 employers. What we have in the NHS is a set of national terms and conditions. My organisation has a particular responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State to negotiate those with our trade union colleagues. We see that they work well for the NHS and I detect no movement among my membership to move large scale away from those national terms and conditions, which cover the vast majority of staff who work in the statutory NHS.
What we see with ICSs is that organisations are increasingly coming together to address shared challenges. We observe that those challenges are not about pay and conditions but about supply. They are about working together to think about how to promote a specific area for people to come and work in, whether that is Nottinghamshire or West Yorkshire and Harrogate, where there has been some fantastic work in promoting careers in the sector as a whole. We see people coming together to work with directly elected Mayors around the skills agenda. There has been some really fantastic work, for example, in the west midlands, with health and social care organisations coming together with local authorities. We see similar work and engagement with the Mayor of London on the skills agenda that he is taking forward. Again, that is being done by organisations working together. That helps partners—local authorities are engaging with health and social care as a team rather than dozens of separate organisations. It also helps us promote careers that span the whole range of settings that we operate in and speaks to the particular priorities of our colleagues in social care. We see some really fantastic examples of that in various parts of the country.
Finally, we see a real opportunity to take forward the work that I have just talked to Dr Davies about. Systems, as they look at their services and their knowledge of the things that they are providing in their communities to your constituents, can inform the national plans that Navina described in her answer to Dr Davies. We can have a much greater connection between local priorities and some of the decisions that are made nationally about how we invest longer term in education. Of course, the NHS workforce is about 50% degree educated or degree equivalent. So there are significant investments that the Department of Health and Social Care, the Office for Students and the education sector make in our workforce. Being able to root that in what it is that local services need and how they are developed seems to us like a fantastic opportunity, and would help us to avoid the problems that we have got into in the last couple of decades with pressure points in various parts of our workforce.
Dr Navina Evans: I will build on what Danny has just described. You have given some really good examples of how local employers are coming together in systems to address workforce issues. I would add a bit more about how we do it and how we can do it even better going forward. Health Education England has a role in developing careers and attracting young people—all people—into the health and care workforce. We play a really big part in that. First, we have found that doing that locally, at a very local level with the communities and organisations that really understand their local populations, has been a really good thing to do. Some of the examples that Danny gave have built on that and we will move forward on that.
Secondly, we have structures in which people boards, at integrated care system level and definitely at regional level, now bring collections of the different organisations together. We have systems that are starting to think about themselves as anchor systems, which means that they can influence employment, the economy and the success of local communities.
Finally, the population health issue has been something that we have really woken up to, and we are cognisant of the fact that we have to focus on and rebalance the health and wellbeing of the population. Through the pandemic, we have learned a lot more about where we need to target our efforts to reduce inequalities. That can only be done really well through collaboration at a local level. Organisations such as mine need to work closely with our partners in NHSE, with the Department and with other national organisations to make sure that we support those local efforts to be sensitive to the needs of their particular population. It is bringing the national priorities, principles and policy into life at a very local level by making sure that we have the systems and structures in place to deliver what is needed locally. We had already started working on that—the work is well under way—and the Bill will enhance our ability to get on with doing that.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
“must assist in the preparation…in this section,”
but only
“if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.”
You have talked about locally led decision making and planning. Do you both agree that we need better co-creation? My amendment covers the fact that a plan should be developed and agreed by stakeholders in particular. Would your organisations welcome this amendment, which would result in an annual workforce strategy and require it to be developed by all other healthcare organisations working in this sphere?
Dr Navina Evans: From HEE’s perspective, we will deliver on the duties that Parliament decides that we ought to deliver. We feel that we have the capacity and the capability. We can organise ourselves to deliver whatever is required of us by the Bill. The work that we do is lithe—it is iterative. We do iterative planning, in a meaningful way, at the national and system level, so we will be able to respond and fit in with whatever is required of us by the Bill and Parliament.
Danny Mortimer: Thank you for the question. Absolutely, there is an opportunity for the Bill to define a wider range of stakeholders. The systems at the centre of the Bill—integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships—are central to that, and their perspectives, as we have just talked about with Ms Smyth, in terms of the needs of their population and the services they need to put in place to respond to them, need to be at the centre of the process that Navina and others would lead on behalf of the Secretary of State. That is the first thing. Secondly, there is an opportunity through those systems to broaden our conversation to include social care as well as health. That is really important to us on this day of all days, in terms of the announcements later.
In terms of the regular appraisal, we absolutely believe that five years is absolutely insufficient for the task. We also believe that it cannot just be about process. It has to be about setting out clear requirements and clear specificity about those requirements over different time periods. There is something about the short-term need, and there is also something about five, 10 and 20 years. It needs to be regular. We have proposed two years because it is a huge amount of work and that feels to us to be a minimum in terms of how regular the perspective could be, but it may well lend itself to an annual update, as you have described.
We also see that organisations such as Health Education England and Skills for Care, which operates in the social care sector, absolutely have the capacity and capability to lead this work. Their way of working, similar to the Department’s way of working throughout the preparation of this Bill, is about engaging, convening and trying to bring stakeholders together to get a broad range of perspectives. That is our experience of the long-term process that Navina and her colleagues are leading on behalf of the Department at the moment. The Bill confirming that would confirm ways of working that we are starting to see develop with stakeholders in a really healthy and constructive way.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Danny Mortimer: There are important links with Wales, and of course with Scotland as well, in many parts of the country. There are a couple of things to say. The first is that there are undoubtedly things that the English system can learn, and is learning, from our colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who are taking similar approaches in terms of how they respond to the challenges we face in social care and health. In my own organisation, we represent organisations in Wales and Northern Ireland, and there is a really rich learning that we can do there.
Secondly, in practical terms, there are good lines of communication and liaison between healthcare organisations that operate along the borders that you have described. It will carry on being really important that those lines of communication, that liaison, the financial arrangements and the sharing of care between different teams on various sides of the borders continue, and we see nothing in the Bill that prevents that. If anything, we see opportunities through better co-ordination in England at a system level to be able to help patients who travel across from Wales into England, or patients who travel from Scotland into England. If anything, I think we can improve the planning and liaison through what is in this interesting Bill.
Dr Navina Evans: We already have very strong four-country relationships, particularly in the education and training space, where we make sure that we share standards, that we do planning around the curriculum and the reform of education, that we ensure quality and that we go for improvements in the way in which we support and train our future healthcare workers. In the regulation space, we work very closely with the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other bodies, to make sure that that happens. They obviously have four-country oversight, so we already work very closely with them. Also, all our professional bodies, such as the royal colleges, have to represent members from across the whole UK. In that space, there is a lot of good work that we can continue to build on, learn from and share as a result of this Bill.
Hywel Williams
Q
There is one other point I would make, and this is more philosophical than practical. The Welsh Government’s approach to health is based on a wellbeing model. It is much more proactive than other models. I hope that, philosophically, that sort of approach is useful and interesting for you, and that you will be taking full notice of it.
Danny Mortimer: The second point, in particular, is really well made. That is absolutely the focus that we see integrated care systems taking. The engagement with population health that Navina described is about trying to gear a system much more to long-term investment in the quality of people’s lives.
We have become, in recent years—even before the pandemic—much more geared towards crisis response. That is not in the best interests of the long-term health of the population. It does not help us to address the inequities that we see in our population, and that we saw very starkly during the pandemic.
Navina may be aware of the issues around workforce mobility between the four countries. The co-ordination that Navina leads, and that we have with our professional regulators, is really important. We have a shared workforce, and we have shared approaches to education as well as things such as pay and contracts. That is really important to ensuring that the job market is stable, particularly if we experience supply issues in particular geographies or parts of the workforce.
Dr Navina Evans: I have nothing to add on the movement of the workforce between the four countries, but I take the point that this is something we need to be mindful of, and I will make sure that the issue is a priority in our conversations with our counterparts in the four countries.
On wellbeing services, that is absolutely the way in which the reform of education and the curriculum is moving. Health Education England is working with partners to develop that. Our integrated care systems, and our colleagues running services who are closest to the point of care, and who know their populations best, have been saying for some time that we need to focus on wellbeing, prevention, intervening earlier and keeping people well. That is a priority for our partners in NHS England and NHS Improvement as well. We already have programmes of work to take this forward.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I will give you three points that are really important. One is the absolute priority, focus and prominence given to looking after our workforce. Again, we will build on work that we have already been doing in the last few years. For example, in the interim pupil plan, there is a very strong focus on wellbeing, culture, leadership and retention. We have been working, together with Danny’s organisation and others, on thinking with staff about retention. One thing that is really important is looking after people. There are lots of good examples of work being done all around the country to improve wellbeing and therefore retention, and to minimise or prevent burnout. This is quite high on the agenda for our partners in NHS England and NHS Improvement. It is very high on the agenda for us in HEE, because we look after our students, trainees and learners, who are also part of the workforce, and they tell us what helps to keep them well and prevent burnout. We need to start doing that work, which is part of our business, very early on.
I am pleased to say that our partners in the universities, royal colleges and other professional bodies are really mindful of this. They all have work streams around wellbeing and preventing burnout. In the Bill, we can highlight the importance of this, and build on work that is already being done to look after our staff.
The Chair
Thank you. I intend to move to the SNP spokesperson at 10.15 am, and to the Minister at 10.25; the session ends at 10.30. If we can keep questions and answers succinct, that would be appreciated.
Danny Mortimer: Noted, Mrs Murray.
I agree with everything that Navina has said, and it is a huge focus for the health service. In terms of supporting the health and wellbeing of staff, I think the Bill can go further under the terms of clause 33—it represents the conversation that we have had with them a couple of times. Absolutely we should support people and absolutely we should care for them, but if there are gaps in their rotas and in their teams that only increases the pressure on people who are already working flat-out. The pandemic has shown us starkly where those gaps and needs are, but we were experiencing them before the pandemic. There are parts of our workforce—mental health, learning disability nursing and some of our smaller allied health professions, such as therapeutic radiography—that absolutely need urgent long-term investment. We need that investment in staff as well as in the pressing need that we saw covered in social care settings and in hospitals during the pandemic. The requirement for a regular assessment of what the health and social care system requires to meet the needs of the population would help us to support that.
Justin Madders
Q
Danny Mortimer: I do not know to what extent Parliament is able to, or is willing to, pre-commit Governments to funding decisions such as you have described. Absolutely, that would bring clarity for us all in terms of what was needed, and it may well offer clarity in terms of the prioritisations that we have to make on investment in the workforce. We have seen a massive expansion in our medical workforce, particularly in hospitals, in the past 20 years, but we have not seen a similar expansion in the nursing workforce. That is not something that was clearly set out for us and for a Government to help make decisions about. I think a clearer, more effective clause 33 would help a Government to do that, and in turn help a Parliament to support a Government in that.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Navina Evans: We expect to go back to the Minister with our findings by early March. After that, we will have a clearer understanding of when we will publish our framework.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Navina Evans: From our perspective in Health Education England, our input is quite confined to the workforce planning. We are able to manage within our existing resources and to redefine and redeploy them. We are also able to work collaboratively with partners who are very willing to help us in this work.
Danny Mortimer: I cannot give you an exact figure, Mr Madders, but I can reassure the Committee that the way in which the proposed change will be implemented is much more about minimising the organisational disruption change that we have experienced with previous reforms, either the one 10 years ago or the one a decade before that. We are seeing a clear commitment to move staff who are currently employed in clinical commissioning groups—the Bill will disband those groups—to the new ICS organisations. That is a very positive way of managing the change rather than that experienced previously, which was hugely time-consuming in terms of management time and hugely unsettling for vital staff in terms of planning services. We are avoiding the problems that we faced in the past. Amanda and her colleagues at NHS England are to be commended for the proportionate and sensible manner in which they are looking to implement the changes, especially in terms of how they impact on people and organisations.
Justin Madders
Thank you. For the last minute, I am going to hand over to my colleague.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Danny Mortimer: We have a really constructive set of relationships in the NHS with our trade unions, on both terms and conditions and the social partnership forum, which the Minister’s colleague Helen Whately chairs and which brings trade unions and employers together.
There is an interest in how the health service organises itself, and there is an interest in how the health service and our friends in social care can better work together to relieve the pressure that our colleagues were experiencing even before the pandemic. Of course, there are other things that people are interested in as well. There are outstanding questions about long-term pay strategy, and there are other issues around working environments and support that Navina touched on. Those are really important as well.
There is a recognition, when I speak to trade union leaders and representatives, of the opportunities available through system working to improve service delivery, and therefore to help their committed members do their jobs better and relieve the pressure that they have been under for far too long.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Navina Evans: Thank you for the question. It is for Parliament to decide what goes into the Bill. We will, of course, work accordingly with the duties. We already work with the four nations around the foundation year programmes, we share a lot of intelligence and recruitment work and we are continuously looking for ways to strengthen that. It is an important priority for us to share learning and recruitment between countries.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I see that we are addressing exactly those problems around where people go to do their jobs and where the placements are. Having to travel to get the right training jobs is something that we have been grappling with for a very long time in Health Education England, and I remember that we were grappling with it when I was a trainee. That is something that we focus on anyway, and if it were to be strengthened in the Bill we would, of course, look at the duties that were expected of HEE in terms of working across the four nations to solve this issue. We would be building on what we are already doing to address that.
Dr Whitford
Q
Danny Mortimer: Thank you, Dr Whitford; there are a couple of things there. On the geographical changes, what ICS leaders wanted was clarity. They have now been given that by the Department and NHS England, and they will move forward and can adapt accordingly.
On the impact on the frontline, throughout the pandemic, and increasingly before it, we saw a much greater sense of teamwork across some of the boundaries that we can create between parts of the health service, and between the health service and other public services. There is an opportunity to accelerate that in lots of our settings. That will be a positive. It will help people care better for their patients. Most importantly, it will help patients and their families to have a much more seamless experience.
This is not a magic thing—you know yourself how complicated the hand-offs and transitions between different teams can sometimes be—but this Bill formalises the recognition that we have had over recent years in England that to start to properly and truly focus on what individuals need, we have to have better co-ordination between our teams. It is not about the institution first; it is about the team first, and obviously most importantly the patient first. The absolute opportunity for us is to do those things better for the patients in between our services.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Whitford
This is the last question.
On the health services safety investigations body, I was on the pre-legislative Committee, where there was an aim of protecting the safe space disclosures quite thoroughly to ensure staff had the confidence to discuss very sensitive issues. In the version that is in this Bill, much more is covered by safe space protection, but then there are exemptions such as the coroner. Although staff can be summoned and made to give evidence, if they feel that that will end up being shared through a lot of disclosure exemptions, do you think they will really believe that that space is protected, in the way it is in the airline sector?
Danny Mortimer: There is a very difficult balance that health service leaders know they need to strike. The requirements around transparency to the public are much higher for the health services and for people such as you and Dr Evans, as health service practitioners. The coroner’s ability to review what happened is a really important step for families, and we are very respectful of that.
What the Bill does—this is how it describes the investigations branch—is to build on work that the NHS and the Government have been taking forward since Robert Francis’s inquiry into whistleblowing to ensure that we have cultures, practices and processes that enable people to be candid and open without fear of consequence, in terms of what has happened. We realise that that is how we learn and improve. We also realise that have a lot of work to do to help all parts of our workforce—clinical and non-clinical—feel much more comfortable and supported to raise concerns, give feedback and be honest about what happened. As you will know, there is an enormous amount of work going on across the four countries to create those kinds of cultures, but at the same time, we also recognise that we have that responsibility in terms of transparency to the public, and to patients and their families.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I will start with the opportunities. We in HEE are really pleased to see that workforce is prioritised in the way that it has been. For us, that means that there is an expectation and an understanding of the need to tackle complex issues of future workforce planning, and that is hugely important. We can do it; it is a difficult task, but through collaboration and bringing people together, it is something that we simply must do, so that we can have more and different, and we can be really future-focused and progressive in the way that we deliver health and care. It is all down to our workforce. So that is the huge opportunity, as we see it.
There are risks. For us, one risk is that too much bureaucracy and added layers of hoops will get in the way, and the other risk is that we have to work hard to make sure that we address culture and collaboration to make this truly successful.
Danny Mortimer: The opportunity, we believe—along with colleagues across the health service—is in clause 33, going further and deeper there in terms of the assessment of need, as well as an assessment or a description of process. Clearly, what legislation cannot do is set out the kinds of behaviours that make that a well-informed and inclusive process. To reassure the Committee, though, what I do see is that the way of working we experienced during the development of this Bill, the way of working we are experiencing with Dr Evans in terms of the process she is leading at the moment—the long-term framework—is inclusive. It is trying to bring different voices in. Difficult decisions may well need to be made about prioritisation, and we understand that, but that is much easier to do and much easier to understand if it is based in that kind of process and behaviour. However, clearly, that is one of the risks.
As I have already said, we have had an increasingly centralised healthcare system over these last few years, and that is also one of the risks. If we stifle the local leadership and local innovation, and if we do not seek that local input in terms of how the development of local services needs to inform, in particular, the long-term planning for workforce, then that is a real risk for the legislation.
Edward Argar
Q
Dr Navina Evans: We in HEE think this is absolutely the right time to be doing this. We are at a moment where we have a lot of learning from what we have been through this last year. We have a real opportunity where many different pieces around innovation and improvement are coming together, and we have learned a lot from our previous experience of delivering the Health and Care Bill. For us, we think that this is absolutely the right moment to be doing this work.
Danny Mortimer: We would agree. NHS Confederation members were clear about the need for this approach before the pandemic, and I think that is even more pressing because of the pandemic. Actually, given the announcements that the Prime Minister is expected to make later today, it reinforces that need to better integrate health and social care, so the timing is very good.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Amanda Pritchard and Mark Cubbon gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England, and Mark Cubbon, the chief operating officer of NHS England and NHS Improvement. Both witnesses are appearing via Zoom, and we will run this session until 11.25 am. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Amanda Pritchard: Good morning. I am Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England.
Mark Cubbon: Good morning. My name is Mark Cubbon, and I am the interim chief operating officer at NHS England and NHS Improvement.
Karin Smyth
Q
We have just heard some interesting evidence, and I want us to be very specific about our terminology when we refer to integrated care systems, integrated care partnerships and the integrated care board. In your view, who is accountable for the spending in my local area under the new arrangements? Approximately £1.5 billion is spent in the local area. In the new system, who is accountable for that spend?
Amanda Pritchard: Thank you. If I start, Mark can come in and add. In the new proposals, the integrated care board carries the statutory responsibility, on behalf of the NHS, for the allocation of spending, performance management and the delivery of NHS services within the system. That, of course, has a delegated set of responsibilities, as per the current commissioning arrangements, down to individual organisations—be they groups of GPs, hospitals or community services— for the spend within those organisations, but the accountable part of the system is the integrated care board. As the proposals set out, it has a very important relationship with the integrated care partnership, but without the line accountability for the funding flowing through that part of the structure.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: In the current structure, they are accountable through the NHS—sorry, not the current structure, because you are talking about the future structure. In the proposed future structure, they would be accountable to a combined NHS England and NHS Improvement structure. At the moment, we operate that through seven regions, and then through to the national NHSEI executive. We are, in turn, accountable to Parliament.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: We have a clear accountability to Parliament through the Secretary of State in the current structure, and the Bill is not proposing that that will change. The other thing that we should say is that CCGs have a clear accountability to involve the public and patients in their decision making. Again, in the current proposals, that responsibility would transfer through to the new integrated care system, and particularly the integrated care board. While we just talked about formal line accountability, that does not detract from the clear expectation that flows through, that the integrated care board would have accountability to involve the public and to consult with them. The transparency that is expected now of the CCGs and NHS organisations is written into the expectations and would flow through to the expectations of the new integrated care boards.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I do not believe, although I may ask Mark to come in on the detail, that there is any proposed change to those arrangements. Mark, would you like to pick this one up?
Mark Cubbon: Thank you, Amanda. I am not aware that there is any significant change proposed by the Bill to the arrangements in place at the moment.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I will give you a headline answer, because I think this is really important. Part of what we would welcome in the Bill is that, by working as a system, one of the things that all partners will want to do is to come round the table together to make some of those important decisions about where the investment goes. In particular, if we are thinking about capital, I know there are examples already of where organisations have chosen to invest in community estate, additional diagnostics facilities or other parts of primary care estate. In fact, Mark and I were on a visit a few weeks ago to an ICS where they were telling us about some of the work they have done on that.
Moving to looking at system funding envelopes, particularly around capital, allows much more flexibility about how some of that resource is used in the interests of the whole population and the whole health system, rather than, at the moment, where putting things into slightly more siloed funding arrangements can end up being detrimental to certain parts of the system.
That comes back to some of the guiding principles of why the NHS has welcomed, certainly, the thrust of these proposals where integrated care is concerned, because it is all about building on some of the direction of travel that has been in the NHS for some time about trying to work much more collaboratively together. This helps remove some of the barriers that currently exist, for local systems to do that.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Through the existing capital allocation processes. Rather than just going to each individual organisation to then make their own decisions about how they spend it, it would now go through the ICB, so there is a process that allows consideration in the round of how the system spends that money most effectively on behalf of its entire population.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Again, I will ask Mark to add to this if he would like to. At the moment, the proposal is that funding would go formally through the integrated care board. The expectation is that, in developing the constitution and the detailed ways of working for each integrated care board, they would describe how the decision making is done, at not just the ICB level, but the place level, with the expectation that part of the principle would be subsidiarity.
If you are looking at the most sensible place for making decisions, for big, strategic investment the oversight of the overall allocative decision making may well sit best at ICB level; if you are talking about something that might have more of a borough footprint—thinking about London—you would want a lot of the decisions about local services, community primary care services and capital decision making to support those local initiatives to be made there. There would be a number of layers within the ICB involved in that decision making, but ultimate accountability would sit with the ICB itself.
Mark Cubbon: The only thing I would add is that this is essentially why we are bringing leaders together to form the ICS body. The key thing will be how the resources allocated to that ICS can be deployed in such a way that strategic objectives can be delivered. The allocation down to place, as you have said, is important so that decision making can be as local as possible to where the service is, so clinicians and frontline staff can make the changes they want in order to deliver improved outcomes for their patients.
Jo Gideon
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I will start off, but Mark has led the work for NHS England and NHS Improvement on developing guidance to support local systems exactly in the area you ask about, on how to bring this to life and plan now for what we hope will be legislation coming into effect in April ’22. I do not want to steal his thunder on any of this.
One thing we warmly welcomed in the proposed legislation, and something we have heard about time and time again from our key stakeholders, is the flexibility. There is a minimum mandated legal set of requirements and structures, but, as you say, also an expectation that local systems will develop for themselves the structures and ways of working that make most sense for them. This is an obvious point, but what will work in Devon will by necessity look quite different from what you would want to put in place in somewhere such as Greater Manchester.
On behalf of our stakeholders, we have already welcomed the flexibility around that that has been described, but we have rightly said that, in addition to the suggested roles written into the legislation, there are some roles we would expect to see included on boards—we describe this as “mandatory guidance”. We have used that partly as an opportunity to pick up on exactly the point you make about clinical leadership and clinical representation. As a national health service, it is clearly right that we ensure that we have that strength of clinical voice.
At the moment, the mandatory guidance describes the need for a medical director and a director of nursing in addition to the expectation written into the legislation, which is that there would already be a representative from primary care as part of that ICB. Mark, you have done all the work thinking about how this is going to work in practice; do you want to pick up on that?
Mark Cubbon: Right at the core of the new working arrangements, we believe that clinical decision making and clinical input and engagement are an essential part of how the new arrangements will be put in place, so that frontline clinicians can shape how services should look and be involved in the planning and delivery of those services. In the guidance that we have put out, we are leaving a lot of flexibility for the ICB to bring in the appropriate number of clinical professionals to support those endeavours, and that is in the shaping of services, the planning and the execution of plans to deliver them.
While we talk a lot about doctors and nurses, there are 14 other allied health professions, and it is quite difficult to allow everyone to have a seat around the top table. We are strongly encouraging all ICBs to ensure that they have the right level of engagement and the right forum in place to ensure that the voices of all those professionals can be incorporated in the development of plans to deliver better services for patients and improve outcomes for members of the community. That is what we are asking all the organisations to do, and it has all been built on evidence that we have gathered from the clinical community over quite an extensive period of engagement. In fact, we published the guidance that Amanda referenced only last week, and it refers to the importance of clinical leadership at all levels: where the services are delivered at place; where services are planned for more local arrangements in the way that we have described; and then sitting more strategically at the ICS board as well.
Dr James Davies
Q
Amanda Pritchard: On a positive, it is great that so many people want a seat on the boards, because I think that actually shows the level of engagement in ICSs. In practice, this is a very organic development from where the NHS has been since 2016, when we first started talking about STPs, as they were known then. This has been very pragmatic, bottom-up and testing as we go, and it now feels as though it is very much with the grain of where the NHS is.
I am not surprised, but I am really pleased, that so many different groups want to be involved. The balance that Mark has just described, which I think the legislation gets right at the moment, is in recognising that to be functional, we have to have the right number of people around the table. At one point we added up how many there would be if you allowed everybody who wanted one a formal seat at the table, and I think Cheshire and Merseyside ended up with 63 people who would be formal members of the board. That is completely unworkable.
It is about trying to find a balance that says, “Let’s be clear what you must have. Let’s use the opportunity that we have through NHSEI to introduce both mandatory guidance—things that people have to do—and guidance that sets out what we would consider to be best practice.” We have been very clear about, for example, the need to have arrangements in place to hear from all those terribly important stakeholders, and indeed for some of the duties, as I have mentioned already, that CCGs continue to carry around engagement with patients and the public, which is the other critical voice that we do not want to lose in any of this. That is the right balance, because it allows us to use some of those tools to keep some safeguards in place to give some clear direction, but it does not try to end up with either a one-size-fits-all solution for ICBs or something that is just unworkable because of the scale.
The Chair
Thank you. I believe Mr Edward Timpson indicated that he wanted to ask a question.
Edward Timpson
Q
Amanda Pritchard: This absolutely, again, falls into the category of formalising, in large parts, the way NHSEI already works, but removing some of the slightly more bureaucratic and legal barriers that we have in place at the moment. I came in two years ago as the chief executive of NHS Improvement and into Mark’s role as the chief operating officer of NHS England at the same time. Certainly, my experience over the last two years has been that, in practice, NHSE and NHSI really do work, to all intents and purposes, as a single organisation—but, as I say, with some of the bureaucracy that is still around that—and that has been absolutely essential over the last 18 months, particularly through the pandemic.
NHS leadership absolutely has to speak with one voice and has to be able to have consistent decision making. We have to have a way of managing, where this comes up, the tensions that sometimes arise between different parts of the system, but also leading in practice that integrated working and joined-up approach, right from the top. It was really only, I think, the 2012 Act that brought in the separation formally, legally, so in a sense what we are doing is stepping back to something that was always the way the NHS worked prior to that. As I say, we are really now just formalising the way things currently work, and have needed to work over the last 18 months or two years.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Also, I wanted to ask for your views on the duties for the ICBs, particularly around research and innovation. It may be a terminology issue, but the duty to promote innovation and to promote research, through the ICBs, is only
“on matters relevant to the health service”
or
“in the provision of health services”.
It does not cover the care system. I would have thought that when we look at the very definition of an integrated care board, it should actually be promoting research and also innovation when it comes to the care system, as well as health services. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on that.
Amanda Pritchard: It is a very good reflection on the importance of education as one of the key partners that would absolutely come round the table. I think that is where the ICS structure really helps us as well, because it allows that broader partnership construct, including education and local authorities. I would say—again, from some of the visits I have done recently—that people are really clear about the importance of things such as housing as part of the partnership, as colleagues would expect. Lots of people with different perspectives and different important roles in the system absolutely need to come together around that broader ICS structure, I think, to really give us the maximum benefit from the legislation that is proposed.
To pick up specifically on education, you are right to say that there are two parts to it. Clearly, there is a role for education providers, whether that is schools, universities or other providers. Part of what we have written into the expectation of ICSs in this core role, which is about contributing to the broader economic and social inequalities agenda within their own area, speaks directly to that. That is as much about education, training and employment within health and care as it is, of course, about the wider economy. The NHS, as an anchor institution in many parts of the country, can be an important player in that as well; so it is very clearly our expectation that education will be a key partner in all those different ways.
On research and innovation, as you have rightly noted, there is again a carry-over from the CCG responsibilities, which carry over into integrated care. We have made it clear in guidance that we see this as a really critical opportunity. Certainly, that is not and should not be limited to health. However, again, we have seen during the pandemic in the last 18 months that the power of bench-to-bedside translational research could not have been clearer, as well as the opportunities now to write in, right from the start—certainly through what we have been doing on guidance—the expectation that that research would be strongly supported and encouraged by integrated care systems as they go forward. Again, that is absolutely with the grain of what the health service wants to do and intends to do. Mark, did you want to add to that?
Mark Cubbon: Just two key points. With universities, we would expect them to be heavily engaged at place level. We have recently published some guidance with the LGA, which considered how we get place-based activities and partnerships so that we have places thriving—the guidance is called “Thriving places”. We also talk about the benefits of the university sector being involved with place-based arrangements, to do all the things that Amanda just set out.
Therefore, we certainly expect that local arrangements and local dialogue, co-ordination and planning around education for local communities can help with recruitment and the workforce contribution that it can make, but also for the betterment of the local community itself.
We would also expect, probably at partnership level, some university input, whether from an academic health science network or indeed colleagues at NIHR. We have recently been doing sessions with NIHR to talk about how to ensure that our clear ambition for this translational research and this health and care research can really be brought to the fore. It is a key pillar of activity that has seen us through some really difficult times during the pandemic and one that will also be essential as part of our recovery.
The Chair
Thank you. We now move to the shadow Minister, Mr Justin Madders, and Mr Alex Norris.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: One of the really important things in all of this, of course, is that we do not over-claim for what the Bill will achieve. If I look at what has happened in the NHS over the last 18 months to two years, it is absolutely clear to me that the ability to work together has been critical to the ability of the country to respond to covid, and the opportunity now to strengthen those arrangements, write them into legislation and remove some of the barriers that exist will be an important factor in helping the health service now, in partnership with local government, education and others that we have talked about, absolutely to recover from the challenges of the last year and to continue to build on those really strong local arrangements that have been such a hallmark of the way that things have worked over the last couple of years.
But of course, that is only one part of what it will take for the NHS to respond to the challenges that we have at the moment. It is absolutely right that the NHS staff, who have worked so tirelessly over the past two years and of course beyond to look after what we now know are over 400,000 covid in-patients, get the backing and the funding they need, not just to deal with what is very much still with us, with covid in our hospitals and communities right now, but absolutely to make sure that we are as front-foot as possible in tackling the inevitable backlogs that have built up over the past couple of years.
There is a complex set of things. Workforce is critical: the support we give to the people who have already done so much for us—we continue to invest in them and support them, so that we have the right pipeline for new staff joining, the right skills and the right support. Then there is the funding that we need to do the work that we have, and the capital funding to invest in some of the transformation that has already begun and needs to continue. But also, I think the Bill provides us with the framework to continue to support that really powerful local joint working that we have seen over the last two years, and which we are already seeing really at the heart of the covid recovery within the NHS and more broadly.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: It is worth saying that there are some big unknowns in the position at the moment. We just do not know, really, how covid is going to play out over the next few months and years. One of the things that colleagues have talked about, and are very aware of, is that a lot of people did not come forward for care over the past two years. One of the messages that I would like to give again is that, for anyone who is concerned about symptoms, the NHS is absolutely open for business. Please do come forward and seek diagnosis, treatment and support.
We do not know, as we sit here today with two big variables, quite how things are going to play out. What we can say for certain is that today we have over 6,000 people with covid in hospitals. It is costing the NHS more both to care for those patients safely, with all of the infection control arrangements that need to be in place—
The Chair
Thank you for that, but I just remind the shadow Minister to keep within the scope of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Actually, in some ways that does link to what I was just saying, because—you would expect me to say this—just to reflect the reality of where we are now, covid is still with us, but we also have a real commitment and opportunity to lean in now to that recovery of routine services. I think success looks clearly like we now have the platform right to be able to continue to evidence that local partnership working is really making a difference. What does that mean? It means partnership in practice, both to deal with the current challenges that the NHS is facing and will continue to face, and to start to show that we can really eat into the backlog of routine care that we know is with us and make the commitment, which I know is felt so deeply across the NHS, to tackling inequalities and really trying to think about some of those long-term planning commitments that talked about prevention and outcomes.
We want to see progress against all those things, but we also want to continue to support local systems, as they have been all the way through, to partner together to continue to deliver things such as the vaccine programme in really innovative ways. For me, this is all about putting the NHS on a firmer statutory footing, whereby partnership becomes the way that we do things, building on what has happened over the last few years and removing any remaining barriers that we know exist and which stop us progressing with the really important job now of improving care for the population and for our patients.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Thank you for that, because from the NHS perspective, the reason we have been supportive, particularly of the integration parts of the Bill, is that it is all about what it enables us to do for patients. Mark and I have done a lot over the last few weeks and months. We have seen so many examples in practice of where it is about the ability to work in partnership, whether that is about mental health crisis lines that are partly delivered through the voluntary sector, with a bit of funding from the NHS, but with support from specialists and mental health trusts as well as primary care. It is about coming together to create those sorts of innovative services, whether it is children’s and young people’s services, such as in south-east London, or whether it is in schools, picking up where children and families have medical and health problems. It is about linking them to the right support within local government, housing and so forth.
That is the sort of thing that we have seen develop over the last few years. As I say, it has been turbocharged through covid, but what we now want to do—this is the critical part of the legislation—is to make that easier. We want to make it the norm and allow people the right opportunities to come together and think about what their population needs and what will make services. It is back to the triple aim of improving the health of the population, the quality of care for patients and the sustainability of services. But ultimately, it is about being able to work together to set up those sorts of innovative arrangements, to see them embedded in practice and to see the NHS working in an integrated way around individuals as the norm. Let me bring in Mark, because this is absolutely his operational space.
Mark Cubbon: Thank you, Amanda. Going back to what patients can expect to see, I think they can expect our local integrated care systems to continue all the efforts to engage with our communities and talk about how we are planning to provide more joined-up care for our communities, because that is one of the key benefits that we will get from the new arrangements. There will be fewer hand-offs in care and fewer organisational boundaries for patients to bump into occasionally, so that we can have joined-up conversations and talk about how things are going to be better. Our local systems, leaders and clinicians will be better placed, so that we really face into and talk about how we will reduce the inequalities and deliver better outcomes. That engagement will be really important, and I think we will build on what works well at the moment and continue to make sure that the patient point is front and centre of all that we are trying to do. We have clinicians leading the charge, in terms of the delivery of those services.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Mark, do you want to pick this one up? I know you have been leading on this issue for us.
Mark Cubbon: I will indeed. This is definitely a different change from 2012, and probably different from any other changes that have been put in place in previous times as well. We are very much approaching this in the way that we have done. From the outset, we have given a clear message and reassurance to staff who are working in CCGs on job security, so that they know that almost all posts, and the individuals holding those posts, will transfer over to the new organisations. There are not big redundancy bills attached to these changes. We very much want to make sure that the job security is there and that the roles are transferred—
Justin Madders
Q
Mark Cubbon: We do not have a figure for all the changes, but we know that the CCG cost envelope, which is attributed to every CCG as it stands at the moment, is the cost envelope that will be allocated to each of the ICSs as well. We are not expecting the running costs to be significantly different from those that we have for CCGs.
Dr Whitford
Q
Mark Cubbon: The ICB is essentially how the NHS leaders come together specifically to oversee how resources are allocated and how the NHS delivers its side of the bargain, in terms of how the rest of the ICS works and is able to support integration. The ICP—the partnership—is where we bring together other partners who will have a view, an input and a role to play in that integration agenda. That is essentially, at a very high level, the separation of the partnership and the ICB itself.
On how we get representative views from the whole breadth of the clinical community, again this was published in our guidance—we have further guidance that was published last week—which talks about the clinical community, based on all the engagement that has been done so far. The kind of arrangements that we are very likely to see are where we have clinical reference groups and clinical boards that start to shape all the representative views that give a holistic perspective on how services should be planned and how we should be delivering services for our patients and communities.
Although not every individual will have a seat around the board or partnership table, we are advising the boards and clinicians across the whole footprint to ensure there is deep-rooted engagement. We are trying to galvanise the clinical community and get consensus on the direction of travel in terms of how services should be delivered for patients to deliver better outcomes. That is what we are encouraging our local ICSs to do. We are giving as much guidance as possible, but it will be down to this local flexibility so that our clinicians locally can start to work out how they best come together to do all the things I just set out.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I am happy to, and Mark may well want to add. You are absolutely right that when the NHS went out to consult as part of the exercise that we undertook back in February, we were describing a single board structure at that moment. It is a change that we proposed to Government on the back of the stakeholder feedback that we had, particularly from the LGA, which suggested the dual board structure, partly because it gives the real clarity, as we talked about earlier, about where the money flows and where the accountability for NHS service delivery sits. It therefore allows a wider partnership to play in, with a particular view to all the other aspects of population health and the wider agenda. That is not where we started, but it is where we now feel very comfortable, in response to the strong stakeholder feedback.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Again, you are absolutely right, and that is a risk, which is why we started where we did. What is now described—the requirement to have regard to and respond to that overarching strategy—is the safeguard that means you cannot have the NHS in any way separated from that broader ICS structure, and from that wider strategy for which the partnership will be responsible. As we have discussed, I am not expecting that that will necessarily be the only way in which wider partners are brought into the ICB, but the fact that there will be a local government seat on the ICB is another important way that stops the NHS just working on its own.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: It has quite a specific, technical meaning, so from our point of view we would understand that to be a very clear direction.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I might let Mark come in on this, because it is something that we have thought a lot about. You are absolutely right that the purpose of all of this is to make sure that we are improving care and services to patients, but with regard to that triple A, it is also of course about the sustainability of services and the broader population health challenge. Part of the structure that the Bill will allow us to put in place on things such as the provider collaboratives absolutely begins to put back firmly at the core of how we do our business procedures such as the clinical peer review.
We have now got the data through things such as GIRFT, which means that we can incorporate it formally in a structure that brings together the providers and also crosses pathways, so that we are not dealing with acute on its own, or with mental health or primary care on its own. We can then look at each against best practice and see how different parts of the system are performing, assess some of the challenges and collectively think about how to come together to secure improvement. That is already happening, but the Bill will allow us to make that much more at the core of how the systems approach local improvement. Mark, would you like to add to that?
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Yes. There is still a huge amount of national audit work that does take place. Thank you for mentioning GIRFT, because we do have some other really important improvement programmes that are very data driven, which have an important place in this conversation. We certainly see the proposed legislative changes as a real opportunity to bake that way of working in, not just nationally but through systems coming together to do it as part of their local activity as well.
Dr Whitford
Mark, do you have anything to add very briefly?
Mark Cubbon: One of the major changes is a move away from competition to much more collaboration, and that is one of the things that the Bill sets out. That is what we believe in and what people are looking for, from what we hear from the service. With that collaboration what we start to see is much more accessible input from people and organisations, so that we can share and learn from each other and start to instil the best practice that we see in one part of an ICS, and have the opportunity to discuss that and see how it can benefit other parts of the ICS, and so reduce variation and deliver much more consistent care to patients.
Before I started my job at NHSEI, I was chief executive of an acute hospital on the south coast. While there have always been opportunities for colleagues to come together and discuss how best to approach a challenge, and to ensure opportunities for sharing good practice and learning from each other, the Bill starts to take down barriers and is much more enabling than what came before. Yes, of course clinicians have informal ways of coming together to look at how changes can benefit patients, but these structures are intended to allow a much greater exchange of ideas, which will be of great benefit to patients; hopefully we can start to implement those ideas at greater speed.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that there will be a hard stop at 11.25 am. If witnesses could keep their answers as brief as possible, it would be much appreciated.
Edward Argar
Q
If I recall correctly, your predecessor, now Lord Stevens, says that about 85% of provisions in the Bill were things that the NHS asked for in its 2019 consultation. Do you recognise that figure, and how would you characterise the approach that has been adopted to the development of the Bill?
Amanda Pritchard: Thank you. I would struggle to give an exact percentage, but the Bill certainly contains widely supported proposals for integrated care. We have been working very closely with our stakeholders, colleagues across the system, you and others to ensure, as far as possible, the same approach to consultation, listening and hearing. You cannot please everybody all the time, but we want to reflect what feels genuinely like a consensus view about what will best help the NHS deliver on all the challenges we have discussed. That is reflected in the Bill, so thank you for that. As it goes through Parliament, we very much want to continue to see that spirit of joint working, consensus building and engagement, so that when it hopefully becomes legislation in April ’22, it lands with all the support that I think it currently has.
Edward Argar
Q
Amanda Pritchard: As I said, I genuinely think that our experience across covid has strengthened the argument for moving to legislation now, because our way of working in the past two years has been characterised by integration and partnership, and that is how the NHS and partners need and want to work—now and as we head into next year, facing that set of challenges that people are so very committed to continuing to tackle together. Yes, Minister, I think this is an important Bill. The integration agenda is not the whole answer, but it is an important component of it, and the sooner it comes, the better.
Edward Argar
Q
Mark Cubbon: All I would say is that collaboration and partnership work is a key feature of our response to covid. It is ever more critical, in the light of the question of how we will approach our recovery. Fantastic working has been enabled locally through necessity; now, we hear from the whole service that we want to build on that. We look forward to the future with that in mind; the Bill allows us to do that.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of our morning sitting. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm in this room to take further evidence.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 7th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2021 - (7 Sep 2021)
The Chair
This is the third panel. We will now hear from Simon Madden, the director of data policy at NHSX, who is appearing in person. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. Good afternoon, Mr Madden. Could I ask you to introduce yourself for the record?
Simon Madden: Good afternoon. I am Simon Madden, director of data policy, NHSX.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Simon Madden: We have obviously set out the position. The Government have set out the position in respect of GP data for planning and research, in terms of taking a pause and having a conditions-based approach, rather than a clear timeline for the commencement of that. Above all else, I think that the overriding need for trust and transparency—to build public trust in the use of health data—is vitally important, and the ways in which this is governed need to be transparent in such a way that the general public can see quite easily how their data will be used.
Indeed, I think it is a responsibility on Government and those of us in the health and care system more broadly to really promote the benefits of sharing data. It is a public good and, while putting in place sufficient safeguards and then giving the public the opportunity to opt out of that process if they are not convinced by those safeguards, it remains a public good and contributes to the broader health, if I can put it that way, of the health and care system.
Alex Norris
Q
Simon Madden: Essentially, they are separate in terms of process. The general public will not make a distinction between any things to do with their health data. Whether it is the draft data strategy that we published earlier in the year or the GP data for planning and research programme, to the general public it is about their health data.
It is incumbent on us to make sure that we have a strong narrative that reflects all aspects of health data. We need to reset the relationship between the patient—the citizen—and their health data, so that a perception does not arise that we are taking their trust for granted, because that is certainly not the case. The provisions in the Bill around data are meant, to some degree, to provide clarification where there is some confusion in the current framework about how and when data could be shared.
The Chair
I will come to you in a second, Karin. I am just trying to balance it between the respective parties.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Q
Simon Madden: I completely understand that. We have to be very clear about what we mean by “commercial companies”, because pharmaceutical companies that develop treatments and vaccines are also commercial companies.
Dr Whitford
Q
Simon Madden: I get that, but there is no doubt that, in order to improve treatments, we need to contribute to research in some way.
You are absolutely right. It goes back to my trust and transparency point. One of the things that we signalled in the data strategy particularly was a movement towards trusted research environments. That is crucial. In some ways, what we have announced on GP data for planning and research is an acceleration of that work. We have said that data will not be shipped around or disseminated; it will be accessed only within the confines of a secure, trusted research environment, with full transparency about who has access, who runs what queries, and so on. It will be held and will not be shared. That is the general direction of travel that we want to see, and that is why we set that out in the data strategy.
We do not have to make a choice now between enabling access to data, or sharing data, and protecting privacy. Technology has allowed us to create environments where it is perfectly possible for data to be accessed safely and securely, with strict safeguards, without privacy being compromised.
Dr Whitford
Q
Simon Madden: Data will not be handed over in a trusted research environment; it is only accessed in one place.
Dr Whitford
Q
Simon Madden: I completely understand. That is why I mentioned that it is incumbent on us to have not only the right safeguards in place but the right narrative and to engage with the public so that they understand what those safeguards are, how they operate and how they can opt out of the system. One of the things we have been looking at in developing the final version of the data strategy following the engagement is how we can do much more on public trust and transparency. It is not just about a one-off marketing campaign; it is about an ongoing public dialogue and involvement of the public in future policy considerations. Again, it goes back to that resetting point; I think this is a reset moment. Technology now allows us to go that bit further than we have ever been able to go before in terms of protecting privacy, but we have to be in a stronger position to explain that to the public and how it all works.
Karin Smyth
Q
Simon Madden: Forgive me, but I will take full advantage of the fact that I was not there and have not seen the statement that the Prime Minister made. A feature of our plans set out in the data strategy—not so much in terms of the Bill itself—is for each integrated care system to have a basic shared care record, so that throughout their whole health and care journey a patient or citizen does not have to do simple things like repeat test results or repeat their prescriptions, and so that their care journey between health and social care, with provisions for safeguarding and safeguarding information, is seamless.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I will ask a couple of questions, if I may, Mr McCabe, and then perhaps the hon. Member for Nottingham North can come back in if we have time. Moving away from what has been explored by colleagues so far on the extremely important protections around data sharing and data use, can you set out how the changes set out in the Bill relate to and will help you deliver the data strategy that you have in place?
Simon Madden: It is important to set out that these provisions alone, while they do much within the Bill, must be seen in the context of that wider data strategy. They support our ambitions, and the integration and collaboration that is described in the Bill will be a huge enabler for the ambitions set out in the strategy itself.
The provisions themselves focus to some extent on tidying things up and providing a degree of clarification. I mentioned the provisions for clarifying NHS Digital powers: currently, there is sometimes confusion around what data NHS Digital can share and in what circumstances it can share it. Sometimes, that leads to problems when data may need to be shared for very good reasons—for justifiable reasons—but NHS Digital is sometimes not convinced that it has the legal power to be able to share the data. This puts beyond doubt its ability to share data appropriately.
Another provision is on information standards. We are making a provision in the Bill to mandate standards for the storage and collection of data. That is important to ensure that data can flow between different IT systems and organisational boundaries in the health and care system. That will then help individual patients and improve health outcomes. We want to ensure that providers of health and care services purchase only technology that adheres to that set of standards, so that we have that interoperability, and those improved outcomes for patients, through that mandation of information standards.
We have also put in clauses around sharing anonymous health and care information, which help to essentially set a duty to share anonymous information when it is legally permitted to do so. One of the lessons that we have learned over the pandemic has been that, although it is perfectly permissible for data to be shared—it is legally permissible to do so—the shift from “can” to “should” has a great impact within the system.
Our invoking of the control of patient information regulations under existing legislation, to enable that sharing of data and to say, “You should share data in these circumstances,” has significantly helped the free flow of data safely and securely within the health system. That has had an impact on patient care. I think that the duty to share anonymous data will help to put on a more permanent footing some of those provisions that we have seen during the pandemic.
Edward Argar
Q
Simon Madden: I think it is a fair reflection, to a certain degree. I think that the thing that we must always be conscious of, particularly in the field of data and technology, is that we see advances but legislation often does not keep up with those advances. It is about ensuring that everyone understands their responsibilities—not just that the public understands the responsibilities of organisations that are safeguarding data, but that those organisations themselves have the right powers to be able to share data safely and securely. I think it is evolutionary in that sense, but it is also about making sure that the provisions in the Bill are keeping pace with the development of technology and how data is used in the real, modern world.
Alex Norris
Q
Simon Madden: I should perhaps caveat my previous comments by saying that they very much are, in our mind; it is all about health data. The focal point for us at the moment, which we are working through with Ministers, is the formulation of the final version of the data strategy. Of course, the legislative provisions are within the data strategy. It is very much the case that the publication of that document, I think, is the right moment for that reset where we have more intensified engagement with the public and we really step up the narrative around how health data is used. As one of your colleagues said, the real detail comes in regulations, if there are any regulations around that; and of course there would need to be consultation before the regulations were put in place.
Alex Norris
Q
Simon Madden: Obviously, interoperability is absolutely key. The information standards piece that I spoke about is part of that, but also, outside the legislative piece, work is going on to create a unified data architecture. This is not about driving or having everything from the centre, so that everybody uses the same things, but about making sure that the architecture enables that interoperability so that the systems can speak to each other. There is certainly a degree of levelling up to do in terms of digital maturity, which is another area in which NHSX is involved, supporting the Department and NHS England. But yes, interoperability is key. We are not there yet; we have some way to go to make sure that everything will flow as it should and the systems speak to each other.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Q
Simon Madden: The best example is something that I have already cited to a certain degree, which is the shared care record. To some degree, that would happen irrespective of whether ICSs and the Bill were in place, because health and social care need to come together; that is something that needs to happen in any event. But what the Bill does is create the proper framework of integration and collaboration. There are other powers in the Bill, for instance the duty to co-operate and collaborate, that I think are going to be absolutely crucial. From a public perspective, they see the NHS and see one organisation, whereas we all know that it is a confederation of organisations, each sometimes with different aims, pulling together. The ICS structure set out in the Bill, plus the data provisions that support that broader approach, will help provide that free flow of information so that clinicians and care professionals have access to the information they need to be able to treat patients in the most effective way.
The Chair
Anyone else? I will assume there are no more questions. Mr Madden, I thank you very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Saffron Cordery and Matthew Taylor gave evidence.
The Chair
This panel is mixed. We have Saffron Cordery, the deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, who is joining us remotely via a video link, and Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, who is appearing in person. Can you hear us okay, Saffron?
Saffron Cordery indicated assent.
The Chair
In that case, Saffron first, then Mr Taylor, can you introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Saffron Cordery: Yes. I am Saffron Cordery and I am deputy chief executive at NHS Providers.
Matthew Taylor: I am Matthew Taylor and I am chief executive of the NHS Confederation.
Karin Smyth
Good to see you both. Thank you for coming. I want to talk about accountability. I asked NHS England this morning about how accountability works in the new system and it was clear that local accountability lies with the integrated care board—the chief executive and the finance director, in the first instance. We were then taken through the system up to NHS England and Ms Pritchard then said “through Parliament”, which she corrected to “through the Secretary of State through Parliament”. I asked at what stage the Secretary of State becomes involved in the accountability, a question that she did not answer and which I would like you both to answer for me.
We have also heard that the Bill is something the NHS asked for. I have not met a single person working at any level in the NHS who says that the powers given to the Secretary of State directly, added to the Bill after conversations with the NHS, are a good thing and are clearly workable. That is my pretext.
Perhaps I can give the example of a constituent who came to me about ear wax removal, which was a subject that concerned him greatly. Will I write to the Secretary of State as a Member of Parliament to ask him about the lack of ear wax removal services in my integrated care board area, or will the chief executive be the final arbiter of such decisions? Mr Taylor, do you want to go first on behalf of the confederation?
Matthew Taylor: Yes. There are two points here. The first is around the structure of accountability at the centre and while that is important, ultimately, it is a less important consideration for health service leaders than the relationship between central accountability and local accountability. That is the focus of the major concern we have about the Bill: the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to reconfiguration, which we think is a mistake. We think the system, as it is, is not perfect but works pretty well. For the Secretary of State potentially to be embroiled in making decisions not just about major reconfigurations, but really relatively minor reconfigurations runs the risk not only of delaying necessary changes in the system, but of putting less emphasis on the views of local people and of clinical advice.
Representing my members, while the question of the relationship between the Secretary of State, Parliament and NHS England is one that we take an interest in, the issue of the relationship between the centre and local accountability is stronger. Where constituents write to their MPs, the Secretary of State or wherever when they have a problem, they will continue to do so, but I hope in such a system that the first thing to happen to such a letter is that it would be sent back to people locally who could address that issue in a local way. It would be ill-advised for a Secretary of State to try to involve themselves in a question like that.
Saffron Cordery: I agree with Matthew’s point. It is this central-local relationship that is absolutely critical to those who are working on the frontline—trust leaders from my perspective, and from NHS Providers’ perspective. Coming back to some of your points about the NHS supporting the legislation, I think that is absolutely right. The NHS has come together to support the direction of travel of this legislation, but I think it is worth saying that that agreement was based around an August 2019 set of proposals, when the whole NHS came together on the basis of some recommendations from the Health Committee. It is important to remember that the legislation has changed somewhat since then. We have had a number of elements added to the Bill that sit around the central bit that the NHS agreed with, which probably changed the context somewhat. It is worth remembering that the local reconfigurations issue that Matthew Taylor raised is a very important one.
There are elements as well in the nature of the relationship between the Secretary of State and NHS England in terms of the operating context and its ability to intervene in what goes on nationally, and the knock-on effect locally on trusts. There are some really big issues there, which come together.
The other thing to say is that, often, Secretary of State powers may seem like small elements, but taken together, the cumulative impact can be seen to erode that local accountability. We would hope, whatever happens, that if someone has an issue with ear wax removal, they speak to someone at the most appropriate level to get something done. That is what subsidiarity is about: the delegation of powers to the most appropriate level, and it is really important. It is also important for accountability, because you cannot have a Secretary of State saddled with taking a thousand tiny decisions in an organisation and a system as complex as the NHS. That is one of the challenges of this local reconfiguration issue that is arising.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Q
Saffron Cordery: The experience of the pandemic, which is a seismic and far-reaching event, really put the frontline of the NHS and other local public services in the frame for delivering for their local communities, and for supporting each other and helping each other out with mutual aid. What we saw there was one very good and important example of how local partnership working, local collaboration and local integration was working in very different ways up and down the country.
We had some common features of all integration, something you would expect at a time of crisis, where there is a lot of command and control and procedures that go on in a state of civil crisis such as this one. We also saw different communities responding in different ways. That is one of the most important points that I want to make about this legislation. In terms of collaboration, we have to see a piece of legislation that is as enabling and permissive as possible. Obviously, legislation has choices. You go down different routes. Really prescriptive legislation will not help in this situation, though. We have to reflect the progress made in some areas and the need for encouragement and support in other areas to get where we want all ICSs to be: that is, really effective and delivering what local populations need. A permissive framework is critical. Going back to your question, it is right that the pandemic has shone a light on both the potential of ICSs and collaboration in particular and the challenges we face right now in implementing any new proposals due to the operational pressures facing the NHS, local government and other public services.
Matthew Taylor: I agree with Saffron. There have been some very good examples of local collaboration, such as the vaccination programme and reaching out to communities where initial take-up may not have been what we had hoped. There is some really impressive work there. That work presages the wider commitment within the health service to a strategy of population health, which addresses not only those people who express demand but those who do not. We wish that they would, because that is one of the things driving health inequality.
I have been at the confederation only three months, so I look at the legislation from the perspective of a wider interest in public policy over 30 years in government and outside it. This is a very interesting and innovative example of policy making. We have these integrated care systems in large parts of the country, so the policy has already been enacted ahead of the legislation. Though that may raise democratic issues, it enables us to see in practice how people are taking the principles of service integration and focusing them on population health. Despite the challenges of covid, a challenging funding context, and the issues around social care—which are hopefully being addressed in one way or another—we see across the country that there has been a whole array of interesting bits of innovative, collaborative work around issues of population health, prevention and addressing health inequalities.
I want to emphasise a point Saffron made. If you look around the country, you see some systems that are well advanced in their collaboration and other systems that are not. This is for a variety of reasons; in some cases there are issues to do with boundaries and such. Like Saffron, I think it is really important we have a permissive regime that allows these systems to evolve at a pace that is right for them and the places in which they operate. Over time, the systems will move forward, but it is actually a really effective way of working. It would be a mistake to try to impose exactly the same way of working on every part of the country. It would mean those who were ahead will be pulled back and those who are not quite ready to make integration work will be compelled to tick boxes, as it were, rather than work on the development of the relationships that we need.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Matthew Taylor: That is an important point. Let me be completely open about the conversation within the confederation about this issue, for example. We have a mental health network representing mental health providers. Their preference would be to specify the need to have a mental health leader on the board. We as a confederation recognise that view and represented it, but that is not our view overall. Our view is that, partly because configurations differ from place to place—in some places, mental healthcare and community are together, for example—but for a variety of reasons, we would not want to specify further the membership of those boards. Again, that is to maximise local flexibility.
If people feel their voice is not being heard, then that is something they are going to say. We will have to see how this system evolves, but let us start with—going back to a word used earlier—the permissive regime and see how that goes, because after all it is in the interests of everybody in the local health system that they hear the voices they need to hear.
Saffron Cordery: I agree. This is a thorny issue but I suppose it is one of either, depending on how you look at it, the opportunities or the casualties of creating another level of governance in a local system. When you are thinking about putting collaboration on a statutory footing, you have to surround it with some kind of governance to ensure the effective operation of that body.
It is a tricky issue. You cannot have an integrated care board—the board that will govern how funding flows through and how priorities are agreed, decided and implemented—that is so enormous that it becomes unworkable, but there has to be a clear balance between making sure it is not only the big and the powerful who are represented there, but also all the rights and appropriate interests. There are a number of positions specified in the ICB board arrangements, and it will be interesting and important to see how different ICSs use those roles, particularly the non-executive or wider partnership roles that are specified, in order to have a broad range of voices around the table.
It is worth remembering that many other organisations and structures will be taking part in the ICS arrangements. You will have things like provider collaboratives, which are not in the Bill but feature heavily in the guidance that comes from NHS England and NHS Improvement, which are precisely about organisations working together to deliver on local priorities. Many of those are led by mental health organisations focusing on what they need to deliver.
There are other structures within these arrangements, but no one would say it is ideal. It is not the most ideal solution, but it is very difficult to get to a final configuration that is both workable in terms of numbers and reflects the multiplicity of voices in a locality. It is important to have the right engagement at every single level and the right channels feeding up information and priorities, and to understand what is really important in a system.
Matthew Taylor: Today the Government have been talking about the importance of integration in the context of its announcement on health and social care. One of the big questions is going to be about the powers that are devolved within systems to places, and I think it will be at the place level that we will see service integration. The evolution of place level forms of accountability is an important part of that, and again a reason why it is really important to allow these structures to evolve locally. I suspect that in some areas more power will be held at the system level and less at the place level. In other places, it will be the reverse, with most of the action taking place at place level. That reflects the nature of places, the legacy of those places and the relationships that have built up.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
Matthew Taylor: My area of expertise before coming to the NHS Confederation was work and the future of work, on which I advised the Government, and one of the things I know from that work is how quickly the world of work is changing. It is impacted by a whole variety of things—not least, of course, substantial technological change. In a world where work is evolving very quickly and population needs are evolving, five years is simply far too long. If it were one year, we would be happy. We have fastened on to two years. That would be the minimum that we would want as a gap between assessments of workforce need.
It is also—to emphasise the point that I think you are making—important that this review gathers evidence from a whole variety of bodies, because an enormous amount of extremely good work is taking place around work. Predictions of workforce need are imprecise, so hearing from a variety of voices is important. This should be an independent process, in which independent expertise is brought to bear; there should be wide consultation with those who think about these issues; and a two-year plan would, I think, be an improvement on what is in the Bill.
Saffron Cordery: We also support this amendment and the work that has been done by the confederation and others on this. There is one other element that I would add to this that supports this perspective. It has been really hard, across NHS workforce planning, to light upon one version of the truth, in terms of workforce numbers. Anything that starts to move towards a collective perspective on workforce needs and workforce planning will be absolutely critical.
Getting an agreed perspective on how we create that figure will be fundamental. In my time working across the health service, there have been many different perspectives on workforce—on the gaps, the numbers who are in roles, and what those roles need to be. It is important to have lots of views, but I think this is also important. Although, as Matthew says, it is not a precise science, we need to light upon a version that is independently agreed, but that we all sign up to as the numbers we are working to.
Karin Smyth
Q
The Bill falls apart because of the governance arrangements and the accountability, which does not follow the logic of place-based commissioning. My solution for the Government, should they wish to take it, is something around a good governance commission, based on the previous appointments commission-type process. It would bring in skilled people, with clear role descriptions, clear skills and a degree of independence. It would have the trust of local people, and would bring these very powerful chief executives together with local leaders to explain why, in Bristol, you cannot have ear wax removal, or why you are closing certain provision and opening it in Derbyshire or wherever. Have you had an opportunity to look at my proposal for a good governance commission and locally accountable chairs—perhaps elected, or appointed? What do you think of that as a solution that would bring power and accountability closer to local people?
Saffron Cordery: The issue of accountability is absolutely fundamental. One of the things we have not talked about much in this sitting, and which is not talked about that much, is the presence of two bodies in the system. We have the ICB, but also this partnership body that brings together a number of wider partners—particularly local government—with democratic accountability, which I think is really important.
I am wary of adding too much into the structures in the Bill. I understand your perspective on permissiveness, and we need to make sure that there are checks and balances across the whole system, but I would be wary of adding in another structure alongside everything we have. One of the features of this legislation, as I have said throughout the process—we have met the Department of Health and Social Care and talked to their Bill team, who have been very open and helpful—is that it does not really streamline in the way that it thinks it might. It adds to existing structures and processes, rather than starting from a clean sheet of paper and building something that might be deemed to be a good enough model; we will never get to the perfect model.
Right now, what we do not need is a root-and-branch dismantling of NHS structures and something wholly new put in their place, but I think there has been a missed opportunity to look at where we could streamline more. On that basis, I think it is important not to add more in, and it is fundamentally important that we look at the different roles and structures that already exist. From a trust provider perspective, working both at place and within provider collaboratives, and looking at the governance of unitary boards with non-executives and in some places also with governors and members, we see that there is that element of engagement with the community that you perhaps do not see in other places. I do not think it speaks entirely to your cartel point, but it is a step along the way that is well established and well used in many places.
This is a thorny and tricky issue. Using existing structures of accountability will be really important, as well as using the new ones, but I would not want to see anything new added in there.
Matthew Taylor: I largely agree with that, but another point is that if there is a broad policy thrust in this legislation, it is away from a medical model of health towards one that focuses more on social determinants. In the best partnerships—we talk often about West Yorkshire and Harrogate, for example—there is an incredibly strong relationship between health service leaders and local authority leaders. That will be a critical factor in the success of the system. When I look at the best practice emerging in the integrated care systems on issues such as prevention and population health, I see leaders starting to talk about issues such as housing, employment and public space, recognising their importance to health. In one way, that is a progressive move, and one that will probably lead to a louder voice for a variety of local interests, if we understand health much more in these socially determined terms, rather than simply through the medical model.
We had a big announcement today about social care reform, and there is a set of issues that are not in this Bill—issues around health and social care integration, how it will work and how accountability will work. It remains to be seen how the Government address that question.
Dr Whitford
Q
Matthew Taylor: It is a challenge.
Dr Whitford
Q
Matthew Taylor: Whenever Government are faced with issues of boundaries, there is no solution that will not upset a lot of people, and this of course has been a vexed issue. I go back to the need for local flexibility. I will not name particular systems, because I do not want to speak for them, but I am thinking of two systems. In one, there have been many years of integration and collaboration, and an enormous amount of collaborative work. There, boundaries are probably much less important than they were in the past. In the other, an ICS is being established that will oversee two places—a city and a county that do not have an enormous amount in common. There, the ICS will have to develop its own proposition about the value that it will add. It would be a mistake for that system to want to draw up an enormous amount of power from two places that are working pretty effectively and would not benefit a great deal from deep integration.
The pattern is different from place to place. That is why we need to allow things to evolve in the light of local circumstances. It is always difficult when boundaries are not coterminous or shift. All I can say is that health services are used to these kinds of challenges, and most who have reached the top have probably worked through at least one of these challenges in the past, and know how to go about it as best they can.
Dr Whitford
Q
Matthew Taylor: That is a fascinating question. My view, which goes back many years, is that you need the right combination of strategy from the centre and identification of the right thing to do, where there is clearly one best thing to do, although Whitehall has a slight tendency to exaggerate the number of areas in which there is one best thing to do. Then you need peer-to-peer, or horizontal, learning. Providers and the confederation do a lot of work with our members to share best practice. A week will not pass without one of us publishing something around good practice, and bringing our members together to share that. This is another reason why it is important to have local difference. It is in a system of local difference that you will get more innovation. As long as you have innovation coming through, really strong organisations spreading good practice and a centre that focuses on where it can add value, you have the capacity for a self-improving system.
Dr Whitford
I was going to ask Matthew all my questions, and then go to Saffron with them all.
The Chair
Well, you only have about two minutes.
Matthew Taylor: By the way, I think it is important for us to learn from Scotland. We have been having a conversation in the confederation about the importance of recognising that we have different health systems now across the UK, and that there is an opportunity here for good learning.
Dr Whitford
Saffron?
Saffron Cordery: In the interests of time, I will say that I do not have a huge amount to add. Peer learning, peer challenge and peer support are absolutely critical. Variation, in its broadest sense, is important, and you can call that innovation or whatever you want. How you respond to local circumstances is critical. That is why cookie-cutter mode does not really work. Going back to your point on boundaries, they are, of course, a vexed issue. I know from my time in local government how vexed an issue it is there. Any kind of local government reorganisation can tie you up for years and years. It is worth remembering that boundaries were challenging at the start of this process. A number of STPs, which were the forerunners to ICSs, had boundaries imposed on them, rather than choosing those boundaries.
There have been a few policy developments that perhaps have not been as widely discussed as they might have been, including the fact that coterminosity with local government, although not necessarily the wrong step, was brought in relatively late in the day and did lead to some of the later boundary changes, as we have seen. I am not saying that that is wrong, but it demonstrates the need for wider discussion, consultation and engagement with the NHS and local government system as a whole before the decisions are made to help understand how best to do it. Sometimes just saying that it must happen and decreeing that is not the best way of making something a smooth operation that gets the best out of local systems. On occasions, there is something in the process of policy-making that could be looked at.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Taylor: I defer to Saffron on that one.
Saffron Cordery: I think this is one of those elements that we have seen quite a lot of throughout the legislation in terms of where is the recourse—that is not the right word, but I cannot think of another one right now—if things go wrong. Collaboration by its very nature is a positive process where willing parties come together to reach agreement. Everyone’s hope and aspiration is that that is how ICSs will work overall, and that is how the ICB and ICP will work together. It is not currently clear how there will be recourse to arbitration or dispute resolution, if you like, in the process of this legislation. We have seen an optimistic approach to how this legislation has been brought together—rightly in some senses—and of course we do not want a situation where we are anticipating that the evolution of a new way of working will not be functional. At the same time, the role of legislation is to anticipate what can go wrong, as well as to support what needs to be done. It is not yet clear how some of this will shake out in terms of where ICBs and ICPs need to turn to should there be challenges, issues and disagreements. We have to remember that those bodies, once they have their independent chairs and accountable officers and chief executives, sit within the NHS system, so they sit within the regional NHS England system and within the overall NHS system. Routes will be pursued, but at the moment it is not clear to me how disputes, for want of a better word, will be resolved.
Matthew Taylor: The only thing I would want to add is that during covid, we have understood the scale of health inequalities. The evidence has been that those inequalities are growing. That has demonstrated that we need a conversation between the health service in relation to how it deals with the demand that is presented to it and the wider question about how we address population health. In some cases, that might mean that you have some creative tension between those two levels. As Saffron said, it will come down to the quality of relationships, and if those relationships break down, I am sure that the centre will need to intervene to address that because the system cannot work if it breaks down. But the fact that those two bodies might have a slightly different emphasis and focus is probably a good thing because this debate about how we best use our health resources to address population health and health inequalities is an important debate for us to be having nationally and locally. Let us face it, we have not got this right up till now.
Justin Madders
Q
Matthew Taylor: Yes, unfortunately that is our understanding, and we think that it would be a retrograde step. It is not a power that I would want if I were a Secretary of State and I wanted to focus on strategic policy questions. I would not have advised the Secretary of State to want those powers.
Our view would be that we should remove the extension of the Secretary of State’s power entirely, but, failing that, we should put some guard rails on in relation to hearing the views of local health overview and scrutiny committees, getting local clinical advice on what is best and having a public interest test that should be passed. If those guard rails were in place, we could cope with this.
What we do not want is a chilling effect on the capacity of local leaders to make the decisions that they need to make to use their resources effectively. The third element of the triple mandate is the effective use of resources, and that involves making decisions at a whole variety of levels around how you configure services. If you feel you are going to go through that process and potentially engage local populations in difficult conversations, and then at the end of the day a local MP, for whatever reason, is going to kibosh that by appealing to the Secretary of State, why would you embark on the process in the first place? That is why, while we are very supportive of the Bill, as you have heard from both Saffron and me, we do think that the powers of reconfiguration are the Achilles heel. I appeal to you to recognise that that is unnecessary and goes against the spirit of the Bill.
Saffron Cordery: I wholeheartedly support what Matthew says, and it speaks to a point I made earlier about adding to existing structures in a way that really is not necessary. I notice that you have representatives from the Local Government Association as witnesses later on. I am pretty sure that they will have some strong views about what these measures do for the powers of local health overview and scrutiny committees, because they already have the power to refer to the Secretary of State should they need that to happen. The powers that are currently in place are a really effective way of doing it. People getting something past a local health overview and scrutiny committee is a really important hurdle for any service change. It is already well respected, well used and very effective. This is one of those elements that at best is redundant and at worst is going to create a lot of work and a lot of unnecessary tension and friction where we already have challenge.
Edward Argar
Q
Saffron Cordery: As we see a change in the system, obviously the nature of how we have procured services in the past does have to change. It is obviously a complex area, but one of the things that we really need to look at is the effectiveness of the current contracting regime, which for certain parts of the provider sector in particular is incredibly burdensome. If you sit in a mental health or a community trust, you are subject to a whole host of retendering, which can have a potentially far-reaching impact on your trust’s sustainability or the future operation of key services. For many bits of the system, that will be very important.
The procurement regime is fundamental. It underpins how this will operate. We need to make sure that the elements of fairness are upheld and that it does not disproportionately put a burden on any one part of the system in particular.
Edward Argar
Matthew?
Matthew Taylor: I agree with that. It is important to remember that one of the goals of the Bill is to reduce the weight of bureaucracy in the system. If we can reduce the weight of bureaucracy as it applies to procurement, that is only a good thing.
Edward Argar
Q
Matthew Taylor: Of course, one of the most challenging questions in all parts of central Government is to get that balance right. The one point that I want to make is about the nature of system leadership. If you lead an organisation—I lead an organisation—the parameters of what you do are reasonably well defined and you lead that organisation as best you can, and you can be regulated as an organisation in relation to its objectives. The thing about system leadership is that it involves developing a concrete and specific account of how you want to add value in a particular local circumstance—how is it that, working as a system, you will make a difference?
By looking towards population health and engaging local people, that proposition will vary from place to place. It is important that, when we look at how systems work, we allow them to develop a value proposition that is specific to their local circumstances and their local needs. That is why, for example, we would be very resistant to any kind of Ofsted inspection regime for systems, because systems are not the same as hospitals or as schools; they are very different and their aspirations will be very different.
When you look at the Bill, the reality of central-local relations is that rules are set out in legislation, but then there is the custom and practice of how Departments and other bodies actually work. Sadly and inevitably, the drift of custom and practice tends to be towards centralisation. That is why it is important to avoid things in the Bill that create an opening—this is why we can have our concerns about reconfiguration—which can get ever wider and thus undermine the key principles that lie at the heart of the Bill. So we are happy with the intentions of the Bill, but we are worried that there are certain elements of it and certain elements that might be involved in the operationalising of it that could undermine its intentions.
Edward Argar
Thank you. Saffron?
Saffron Cordery: I go back to a point that I made earlier in this session, which is that this balance between permissiveness and prescriptiveness is critical. The August 2019 agreement, when all the stakeholders came together to look at how we might legislate for an integrated care system that got that balance right, I think is there. You have to remember that what sits around a set of proposals will have a massive impact on it, so the Secretary of State’s powers as we have seen them, and the operating environment overall, will have an impact on how these proposals will be implemented, and how effectively they will be implemented.
We cannot forget covid in this. We cannot forget the extreme financial pressures that we are seeing. We cannot forget demand. We cannot forget an incredibly tired workforce. That is not going to change any time soon; that is going to be for the next few years, so we are implementing something against that backdrop. But if we go back to the slightly lighter touch of the August 2019 proposals, we will probably get to a place that would hit the spot, as it were. I reiterate that we support collaboration in systems and the direction of travel.
The Chair
Given the time, we will leave it there. I thank our witnesses, Saffron Cordery and Matthew Taylor.
Examination of Witnesses
Ian Trenholm and Keith Conradi gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Ian Trenholm, the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, and Keith Conradi, the chief investigator at the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, both of whom are appearing in person. We have until 4 o’clock for this session. May I ask you both to introduce yourselves for the record?
Ian Trenholm: Good afternoon. My name is Ian Trenholm and I am the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission.
Keith Conradi: I am Keith Conradi, the chief investigator for the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Q
Ian Trenholm: The Bill will add value to patients in a number of different ways. There are four areas that we have particular interest in. The first is around the work we expect the Government to ask us to do on oversight of the individual ICSs. Building on the comments that have just been made, our contributing to the assurance around ICSs will be an important part of how we can add value. We will do that by drawing to the attention of local communities both the good work that is going on in a particular place, and areas where there are some challenges. We will also be able to look across the country, demonstrate where things are going well and help with improvement, as we do with the regulation of individual providers.
The Bill also contains a provision for us to provide assurance regarding the way local authorities discharge their Care Act 2014 duties. Again, that gives local people the certainty that local authorities are discharging their responsibilities. If you bring those two things together and connect local authority duties around the Care Act and social care with what is going on in healthcare, you get a whole-system view, and we are able to give an independent overview of that, which we report to Parliament and the public.
There is also a provision in the Bill relating to food standards in hospital. It is well known that people’s recovery is aided by good-quality hydration and nutrition that is appropriate for the social and cultural needs of that particular place. As part of our work, we will be asked to look at that.
Finally, building on the comments Mr Madden made a couple of witnesses ago, the miscellaneous provisions within the Bill on data sharing and the requirement to co-operate are also powerful and enable us to do our job as an intelligence-driven regulator. From the point of view of reducing bureaucracy, they mean that we collect data once and then we can share it among the many partners involved in regulating different parts of the health and care system. Those are four particular points where I think the public would see value in the work we do.
Keith Conradi: From our perspective at the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, we welcome the introduction of this part of the legislation. We have been working in shadow form for the past five years, without any real powers, and the things we have missed there are likely to be introduced in the Bill, such as power of entry, so that we can access people quickly in an investigation. Any investigator will tell you that the quality of the investigation evidence, particularly interviews, degrades quickly over time, so the ability to go in quickly is hugely important. Also, not being able to access data that we know people hold has been quite frustrating in our current guise. We have sometimes had to wait for months and months for data in order to be able to complete an investigation.
The other thing that we are particularly keen on is being able to properly protect information that people give us in a protected environment, so that we can ask them to be as candid as possible with their experiences. We want to be able to protect that information from being released more publicly.
The Chair
I am not being flooded with a whole array of hands, so why not? On you go. I will come to you in a second, Edward.
Jo Gideon
Q
Ian Trenholm: We will be inspecting against the hospital food standards—is that what you mean? We are not going to be setting individual nutritional standards; we will be inspecting against the NHS’s food standards. We are going to deliberately make sure that our work does not overlap with organisations such as the Food Standards Agency, for example. To be very specific about it, we are not going to be inspecting vending machines or taste-testing food in canteens. What we are going to be doing is looking at the hydration and nutrition strategies that, say, a board in a hospital has set for its particular area. As we go around the hospital, we will be looking at whether that strategy is being enacted for the cultural and social needs, in particular, of the people in that hospital. Does that answer the question?
The Chair
Do you have anything to add to that, Mr Conradi?
Keith Conradi: I think that is outside the HSIB’s experience.
Edward Timpson
Q
Keith Conradi: Having come from the air accident investigation branch as my background, the whole idea of these investigations is that we do not apportion any blame or liability, and that we are really looking at why an event took place when somebody came into work planning to do a good job, and what the circumstances around the environment were that allowed a tragedy to occur. We use a lot of investigation science methodology to ask those why questions, really looking at systems-type thinking, so we do not mention anybody’s names in the reports. We do not, at the moment, mention where the actual occurrence took place, because in our view that is almost irrelevant. It is the system that we are trying to change, and the safety recommendations that we make are, by and large, to the national bodies—often the regulators—because we think they are best placed to make the changes that we think are necessary.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Could I also ask about the regulatory role? With regard to whistleblowers who raise these issues—we are talking about safety and the best interests of patients here—will this enhance the powers and abilities that you have, or is more needed still.
Keith Conradi: One of the clauses actually will require people to speak to us, so there is a compulsion on people to provide evidence. In a way, that might help some people who are undecided about what they should be doing. But to balance that, it is very important to be able to protect the evidence that is given, and there are protections within the clauses. I think they could be improved. But the whole idea is that we create this space, where really the only safety valve is the High Court, and I believe that is appropriate as the only place where that information can actually be released.
I think it is worth saying, however, that when people talk to us and use this sort of safe space, the whole idea is that it is not a place where they are going to unload stuff that will never see the light of day again; we use that information, either in our final reports or to help us further the investigation. It is just that it is non-attributable, so we do not mention people’s names. The idea is that we use it to further patient safety.
My concern about the way the Bill is currently written is that there is a provision for coroners—some coroners—to be able to see this information. I think that will inhibit some people from speaking to us—and the whole point is that people are uninhibited from doing so. Having that potential release of information into that sphere will, I think, degrade the ability of the investigation to do its job.
Ian Trenholm: Building on what Keith has just said, I think we would see the Bill as giving an opportunity to create a safe space. It creates an opportunity for people to talk about things that they may not otherwise have wished to talk about. What Keith’s team can then do is look at that information. We need to make sure that we have the right data-sharing protocols in place. Keith’s team can then talk to my team about what is happening on the ground. They can do whatever anonymisation is necessary. So we might get to hear about things that we perhaps would not otherwise get to hear about.
That is a real positive at provider level, but if you click up a level, you quite often find that, from a safety and quality point of view, people’s poor experiences are driven as much by their experience of it as a system and the way they transit between different providers as it is about the experience in an individual provider. So if you have a person who perhaps is working between providers or in some kind of community provision, they will see multiple providers and they will become, if you like, better whistleblowers. Our work on systems and our assurance on systems will help as well, I think. Of course, Keith’s team make recommendations to us as a regulator, in the way they do to other people. So I think this is generally a move in the right direction.
Karin Smyth
Q
Keith Conradi: We currently have a maternity programme that investigates about 1,000 cases a year, based on quite specific criteria. At the moment, the Department is deciding what it wants to do with that programme—where its future lies. As far as we know, it will stay with us, certainly until the HSSIB—the health service safety investigations body—starts, but I think a decision has yet to be made on whether it will actually just fall into the work that the HSSIB does, or whether it will do something separately with it, so I am not aware of that at the moment.
On the second point, I am aware that the ombudsman would like the same power to access the statements that we take under safe space. I think that is a major concern. Over the last five years, the ombudsman has been able to investigate any complaint brought against us in our current guise. It has not seen fit to do so, so I would suggest that on the rare occasion that might be necessary, the provision for the High Court to carry out the balancing test and decide whether to disclose information or not is the appropriate way ahead.
Dr Davies
Q
Ian Trenholm: Can we not call it a CQC-style rating? There are two separate things. The Bill currently contains an explicit provision about providing assurance on how a local authority is discharging its responsibilities in relation to the Care Act. That is important because the way in which care is commissioned is as important for outcomes as the way in which it is delivered. That is one part and that is a discrete piece of work. There is a broader piece of work that we are expecting Government to ask us to bring forward on assurance on ICSs. It will look at the ICS partnership board, how that works, the ICS strategy and so forth. They are two complementary pieces of work, but they are separate, as you describe.
Dr Whitford
Q
Keith Conradi: I totally agree with you. I think it will have a major impact on people’s wish to speak to us. It is not just me that thinks that; the medical unions have said that their members are concerned. The whole idea is that you want people to talk about, as you say, the “soft” things. They tend to be things like the culture of an organisation and the pressures that are brought upon them to do various pieces of work. In the past that has been a bit of an Achilles heel in terms of safety in the NHS. People have often been blamed for these things. They have been disciplined for speaking out—we talked about whistleblowers earlier.
Anything that we can do to bring that information up to an investigation body, which is not about blame and liability, is going to help patient safety in the long run. They will find their way into our final reports—that is the whole idea of getting this information. We want to encourage that as much as possible. I do not think this helps. I think a previous Joint Committee looked at a similar piece of legislation, and that came to exactly the same conclusion. As you say, what is the problem with other bodies such as coroners conducting their own interviews to get the same piece of information or any information they require?
Dr Whitford
Q
Keith Conradi: Yes. In a way, the powers are so sweeping that they go well beyond what we think we would need, and well beyond what is used in other sectors—the transport sectors. We know that parallel investigations will take place into many of the things that we look at, and that is fine. The problem is that if we have these sweeping powers, which pretty much say that anything we touch or come across we then have to protect, and that we can then unwind and release some of them with a fairly bureaucratic process, that will be difficult in terms of transparency and our ability to share the information with others who have a legitimate need. The key things that we absolutely want to protect are statements given to us by witnesses and any draft notes, opinions and reports that we generate from doing the investigation. It is the final report that is our piece of work that we want to produce at the end of the day, and that is it.
Dr Whitford
Thank you. In the interests of time, I am happy with that.
Ian Trenholm: If I could make just one point, I think you are absolutely right: the broader responsibilities of an individual provider, particularly around such things as duty of candour, would still stand. Therefore, at an institutional level, people will still need to do the things that they always needed to do, but there is a very specific set of circumstances that Keith was describing where safe space may apply.
Justin Madders
Q
Ian Trenholm: I do not think that there is at an individual provider level. What you have just described is our normal registration regulation process at an individual provider level. As we start to look across individual places and ICSs, we might be able to talk to individual partnership boards about people who are operating locally, but I do not think the Bill explicitly gives us more powers to look at individual providers in any more detail than we already would as part of our normal registration process.
Justin Madders
Q
Ian Trenholm: Not yet. Obviously, as the Bill goes through Parliament the breadth and size of what we will be asked to do will become clear. We are talking to a range of different stakeholders at the moment. The NHS Confederation and NHS Providers are on our list, as are the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and, of course, various representative groups that represent people who use services, so we are having those conversations now around what they would expect from good-quality assurance at a system level—but no, we have not really got to the point of assessing this in any detail.
Justin Madders
Q
Keith Conradi: We see ourselves as very much an independent and impartial investigation body that can sit outside the system and look into it. We would not want to have any barriers really on where we might look to see where patient safety could be improved. As I mentioned earlier, we tend not to dwell on the incident at the trust level, but try to work our way up through the system. Ultimately, we end up making recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the future I would like to ensure that we have that complete freedom to be able to make recommendations wherever we think that they most fit. That independence of the system is crucial for the success and the credibility of the organisation.
Justin Madders
Q
Keith Conradi: At the moment, they are monitored fairly informally. There is a part of NHSEI—a patient safety team—that looks at whether the actions that were promised in the response to the safety recommendation have actually been carried out. We believe that that might sit more appropriately with this body in the future—NHSEI receive a rather large number of our safety recommendations, so I do not know whether they are the right body to monitor the actions that are taking place, whereas I think that could sit with us. It is important that that is just monitoring the actions, not judging the outcome, and I think that there needs to be a separate, probably pan-regulation-type body that looks at whether the outcome at the end of the day mitigated the patient safety risk that we first went out to investigate.
Justin Madders
Q
Keith Conradi: Informally, we have a good working relationship, so we are interested. We get the response to the safety recommendation and we internally look at that and consider whether we are happy with it. If we are not, we would send out letters to say that we would like further information. We want to put this on a more formal footing to see that in the future.
Edward Argar
Q
You will have heard in the evidence just before, Mr Trenholm, the comments by Matthew Taylor about the difference between assessing a system versus a provision. How do you see how the CQC would square that circle, because he highlighted the very different approaches and his reservations about some of that? How do you see that issue being resolved, or what would you like to see in that space?
Ian Trenholm: If I compare one large hospital with another large hospital as a comparison in terms of what we do now, one would argue that they are quite different enterprises, differently run and serving different communities. There are some common themes, but equally there are some differences. We built a methodology that was able to be applied to both of those very separate entities and to provide a common rating at the end of it.
I would see a version of that at a system level: there would be things that we would want to see that would be common and necessary— decent quality governance, for example—as well as a lot of things that many of you were raising as questions and concerns. But equally we want to see some evidence that the partnership board was cognisant of its local community and it was genuinely delivering a suite of services that its local community genuinely wanted and that was consistent with the needs of that community.
Over the next 18 months or so, we will be building our methodology in collaboration with the people who are also building the ICS boards and frameworks. I am hopeful that we can get to a point where we have a methodology that gives you, as parliamentarians, and local people the assurance that things are working well locally. However, it is not just about what is not working, but about looking for really good practice and looking to accelerate that. Previous people have made the point that doing things differently often leads to good practice and innovation, so how can we help accelerate that innovation through the work that we do. That is broadly how I see it working.
Edward Argar
Q
Keith Conradi: Absolutely.
Edward Argar
Q
Keith Conradi: I certainly think so. My previous experience in aviation is that we had a similar space, and only the High Court could overturn or order disclosure. It was used on a handful of occasions, and it produced very interesting debate. The balancing test—testing whether the benefits of the disclosure outweighed the adverse reaction that there might be to future investigations—was well argued in each of the cases. I think that is the appropriate place to do it.
Edward Argar
Q
Ian Trenholm: We do work at the moment in terms of registering and regulating individual providers, and we do that right across the country, so we have a picture of health and social care right across England. Part of the Bill will give us enhanced powers looking at the way in which individual systems and individual ICSs work. Our view is, if you like, a broad and moderately shallow view, whereas I think Keith’s team do more in the way of specific investigations. I am sure Keith can talk to that.
Keith Conradi: I would characterise the relationship as a healthy tension. We make very few recommendations to the CQC, but the vast majority of recommendations we make will, we hope, have an impact on the work that is going on across the system. The ideal people to have a look and see whether that is having an effect will be the CQC, from time to time, as it comes across things that have changed as a result of what we have done. I think the relationship works very well, in that respect.
Mary Robinson
Q
Keith Conradi: I would probably need a lawyer to give you the proper answer, but I do not think any of this would trump anything else. We would still need to acquiesce and accept those disclosures as they happened, so I do not think that would be an issue for us.
The Chair
Anyone else? It does not look like it. I thank both our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor James Jamieson and Professor Maggie Rae gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to our sixth panel of witnesses. We will hear from Councillor James Jamieson, chair of the Local Government Association and Professor Maggie Rae, president of the Faculty of Public Health, both of whom are joining us remotely. Could both witnesses introduce themselves for the record, please?
Professor Maggie Rae: Good afternoon. It is a great pleasure to be able to join you today. My name is Maggie Rae and I am currently president of the Faculty of Public Health.
Cllr James Jamieson: It is a great pleasure to be with you today. Thank you very much for inviting me. I am James Jamieson and I am chairman of the Local Government Association. Until January, I was leader of Central Bedfordshire for nearly 10 years.
Dr James Davies
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: Certainly, we are very pleased that we have repealed some of the legislation, which basically made people focus on targets rather than what is best for the patient. Focusing on discharge to assess at hospital led to some at times frankly perverse incentives just to get people out, often into care homes, when the right solution was to assess after they had left hospital, in their normal setting, not in the setting where they were in maximum need. That change has given much better solutions and outcomes for our residents, which is what we want.
Dr Davies
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: Obviously, from my position as president of faculty, I want more emphasis on prevention, so I am very pleased to see that focus on it, but I do not think it is quite enough yet. I think we would all recognise that part of the reason why we seemed to take the biggest hit on covid in terms of deaths and the effects of the virus was the ill health of our population. We are recognised as having one of the most unhealthy populations in Europe now, and that was not always the case. Yes, it is very pleasing to see the measures on obesity, but we need to recognise that most of the influence could come from the very local level.
I am sorry to say to colleagues and this eminent Committee that we could probably spend the whole meeting talking about fluoridation. I recognise the attempt to tackle the problems of oral health. Children’s teeth being extracted under general anaesthetic is a national disgrace; that money is so wasted in the NHS when we desperately need it to be spent on other health matters, and the time it takes for that operation is so dangerous for children. It is good to have this recognised, but I think it will be quite a slow burn, even with the legislation.
Some areas have tried to implement fluoridation. It has taken them years and they still have not succeeded. Could we perhaps persuade people? As well as focusing on fluoridation, could we have just a small investment in other methods to tackle oral health? One that is really effective, which I used myself as DPH, is simple toothbrushes and toothpaste. Sometimes we think public health measures take a long time, but I can guarantee that if that measure were implemented effectively you could see the changes within 12 months and would also end up saving the NHS a lot of money. I work closely with Councillor Jamieson in his role at the LGA and I hope that he would agree with me.
Cllr James Jamieson: I am going to agree with Maggie. I think that that is a general point we would make. Better healthcare does not start in a hospital; it starts in the community and it starts before you are born. It is about prevention, early intervention, public health, good food and all those things. We welcome measures to support that.
On the point about obesity, I would particularly say that although, yes, it is nice to be able to produce advertising, there is so much more we would like to do. This is not necessarily within the scope of the Bill, so I am not suggesting that, but, for instance, in licensing legislation, being able to take account of public health, which at the moment is specifically excluded, as well as being able to do so in planning legislation as regards where fast food places are and so forth, would be immensely helpful. This is a start; it is a small but positive step.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Even more remarkable as regards reducing health inequalities is the absence of any detail, duty or provision to tackle alcohol harm and tobacco control, which of course are the greatest factor in determining a person’s life expectancy—and further down the line they have the greatest impact on local authorities’ social care bills. Do you think they should be included in more detail in the Bill, with a duty to reduce health inequalities rather than just having “regard” to reducing them?
Cllr James Jamieson: I think we need to be cognisant of the fact that this is a Bill providing a framework. I completely agree with the comments made about health inequalities, good housing, green space and all those things—absolutely. I am a full advocate of the idea that health is three quarters determined by somebody’s environment and choices, and probably only a quarter by what the NHS does. That is really important. My slight concern is that if we get very prescriptive in legislation, it limits the ability to do the right thing.
The really important thing about this legislation is all the guidance and so forth that will come out of it, and where the funding goes. Our preference is to say, “Try not be too prescriptive in the legislation, but really engage with local government and public health on the guidance that comes out of this legislation.” A real priority has to be better places, better communities, better jobs, less pollution and all those things, but I do not think that that is something for legislation; I think it is very much about getting the guidelines right, and they will be different in different parts of the country. The issues that might be faced in a rural area are very different from those faced in an urban area. I do worry that if legislation is too prescriptive, it hampers rather than helps.
Professor Maggie Rae: Would you mind if I added some comments please, Chair?
The Chair
Please do.
Professor Maggie Rae: Just building on those comments from Councillor Jamieson on what I think is a very important question, there is a line in the Bill saying that the ICSs have to take note of advice from directors of public health. If we want ICSs to be population health organisations, we have to make sure that the legislation is strong enough to ensure that the advice is acted on. Our directors of public health have been highly trained and are able professionally to identify the needs of the population, identify where the health inequalities are and make sure that they can provide the ICSs, in terms of both the NHS-side board and the partnership board, with all the evidence they need about what will make a difference. It is the action that will make a difference and improve those outcomes that we all want. It would be very helpful to ensure that the Bill, if possible, is more explicit about that advice and which source it is coming from. We have worked very closely with the legislative team and the Bill team. I do not think anyone could fault the amount of hours they have spent discussing with stakeholders the details of the Bill, and Councillor Jamieson is also right that we cannot have everything in the Bill, but we want a true population-focused organisation.
That has to be the change that this legislation brings; it has to be an enabling legislative framework. We then need to ensure that the guidance, and, most importantly, the assurance process, allow some of the public health expertise to determine whether it is fit for purpose. It is possible that these organisations, and the excitement of the changes, could result in our having a more place-based population focus, but that will only be the case if we get it right and take account of those wider determinants such as education and housing—all the things that contribute to good health.
Edward Timpson
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: Looking at the current situation with health and wellbeing boards and so forth, that has worked well in some places and not so well in others. That is largely down to local factors, relationships and the willingness of the NHS to participate in a place-based approach. Our hope and expectation is that this formalises it, not in absolute terms, but in emphasising the role of local government and other partners that the NHS has to take account of. In essence, it is strengthening our ability to influence the NHS.
Why is that so important? I come back to the comment that I made earlier about how much health outcomes for an individual are based on non-NHS factors. I have forgotten who raised the question of health inequalities, environment and so forth, but those are all place-based factors. Getting more investment in public health, less pollution, better community health care, a better GP service and better occupational therapists will make huge differences to people.
At the end of the day, nobody wants to go to a hospital; they would far rather be healthy and not need to. Therefore, empowering local councils and partners to have a greater say in how we improve the health outcomes of our whole population has to be a good thing.
Professor Maggie Rae: To add to what Councillor Jamieson has said—he is making some excellent points on that agenda—it is important to get the balance right. In England, we had the legislation on health and wellbeing boards. One of the principles should be not to ride roughshod over legislation we already have just because we like the new bright and shiny legislation. On the commitment to stakeholder engagement, we managed to get the Bill team to understand that we have legislation already.
Some of that legislation is still there—we still have directors of public health and the powers in local government—and those things are important, but we also know that if we do not get this legislation right, we will not be able to get right the ambitions on health inequalities and on improving health either. The detail of this is really important. As I think was indicated in what Councillor Jamieson was saying, we know that legislation alone does not always fix problems. I do not know how we can get good relationships just through legislation. We can enable things to happen, but we need to ensure that the legislation is enabling and that there is some holding to account for the standards that the legislation is trying to set.
We cannot afford for the health of our populations to be affected by unhelpful variations. I am very supportive of place-based—action happens at the local level and it can be effective at the local level. We need good national legislation, but if we want to do justice to the population in this country, we cannot have unhelpful variation, because that is what will undermine this legislation. We have to make sure that everyone is working for the same aims and that at the heart of everything is the commitment to reducing health inequalities and improving health outcomes, regardless of where you are. Whatever your own organisation, whether a hospital, a local authority or a mental health trust, we have to have something that overrides loyalty to the organisation—to put the population first.
Karin Smyth
Q
My point to Councillor Jamieson, which I made to earlier witnesses, is about the integrated care boards, which are the decision-making and accountability bodies locally—the ICPs are essentially a committee of these boards. The accountability, responsibility and decision making lie very clearly with the integrated care boards, which are essentially, as I have called them, a cartel of local healthcare providers—largely the acute sector trusts, which are responsible for vast sums of money. Councillor Jamieson, you have gone to the effort of putting your name on a ballot paper and persuading local people to put their cross by your name. Should you fall foul of them, or make decisions that they do not agree with, you will soon no longer be Councillor Jamieson. That is very clear accountability. With that hat on, can you talk us through your understanding of the role of local government status wise—beyond “Let’s all work together in partnership”—when we reach that real decision-making, push-comes-to-shove crunch about where accountability to local people could lie for decisions if we improve this Bill?
Cllr James Jamieson: In the ideal world, one would probably like one board. However, that would mean that all members of that board had equal status and so forth. Obviously, the NHS partnership would have budgetary responsibility for hospitals, and there is a technical issue with, “Can you have a bunch of non-NHS people having budgetary responsibilities for the NHS?” We understood the difficulty, and that is why there is the need for two boards. The clear point here is that this legislation provides us with a framework that enables that to have real traction.
But I come back to my earlier point, which is that this is a framework; this is not a solution in itself. Legislation does not solve all the problems. This is about how budgets are managed; it is about all the guidelines and regulations that come out. One of the big requests that we have as local government—I am sure Maggie will have it as well—is that we are deeply involved in those guidelines to make sure that they work. I have to say that, so far, we have been, but many more bits of guidelines will come out. That is the crucial bit.
There are some changes we would like to the legislation, but they are not that great—I will come to them later, because they do not refer to this point. We want statutory and non-statutory guidance around things such as the implementation of the Bill, a comprehensive list of guidance that will be issued and clarity about the flexibility. We want some statutory guidance on health and wellbeing boards to ensure that they are at the heart of this. So there is a lot going on, and I am pleased to say that we have been involved in some of the guidance that has already been issued, such as “Thriving places”. As Professor Rae said earlier, engagement has been very good so far, and we would like that to continue, because this is our chance to get this right. We will do that through getting the statutory and non-statutory guidance correct and making some changes, no doubt, to the Bill. But I do not think that this Bill can accomplish everything, so the LGA would certainly not be in favour of significant change to the Bill.
The Chair
Actually, in view of the time, I am going to ask you not to, Karin. I am sorry, but if we are going to hear from Professor Rae and give Chris Skidmore a chance, we had better just move on.
Professor Maggie Rae: Again, it is good that you have asked for some specifics and related this to governance, because it is very important that we understand how the legislation will be implemented and that the governance is right.
The concerns that members of the faculty would have are quite broad based. While people might be genuinely pleased that we are moving away from a market economy on health, some are very concerned about opening the door to further privatisation. I want to give you some detail on specific public issues on which you said you would like more information. The legislation includes some public health hooks that will make it easier for us to ensure that we have good public health, but I question whether they are explicit enough.
The issue of taking advice on the needs of your population is a fundamental skill of public health. Whether nationally, regionally or locally, the professional job of directors of public health is to assess the needs of the population and provide organisations with the evidence about what will make the biggest difference—cost-effectively, of course. The idea of “taking advice” is a little vague, but strengthening the need for that advice to come from the statutorily appointed directors of public health—the regional directors of public health have been trained to do that and put the needs of population first—might give some strength to the Bill.
In my day job I do a lot of ICS development for the organisation I work for so I have experience of working with ICSs, and many current ICS leaders—I know there has to be an appointment process—are passionate about health inequalities and public health. We have to make sure, as we said earlier, that we have something substantive that guarantees that public health is not down to individuals and personalities, and that we have a framework. We cannot expect Cornwall to be the same as Newcastle, but we cannot have the population suffering from unwarranted variation. If I had a bit more confidence that the role of directors of public health—and the regional directors of public health—would be instrumental in the legislation, the guidance and the assurance process, I would be able to give you more guarantees that things will be better in the future. At the moment, it is a little vague.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: Again, that is an excellent question. I strive for excellence in our country in relation to all matters covered by the Bill. It is with great sadness that I see that health outcomes have plummeted since the start of my career. Early in my career we had the best health outcomes for cancer in the whole of Europe. I am sorry to say that that is not the case now, and ensuring that the scientific underpinning of this is seen as essential will make us more leading edge.
There are many examples in the covid pandemic in which we have been leading the world, and that is certainly true of the vaccination programme. I heard in a meeting this morning about some amazing research that is just about to start.
There are lots of areas of cancer where we have not progressed in the last five years. I could name the different cancers; we do not have time to go into them. If this research was going to test people’s blood early to get earlier diagnosis, as Councillor Jamieson said, it does not all have to be high-tech, high-cost NHS services. Lots of interventions are low cost. You will not find anything more cost-effective than getting people to give up smoking. That is a classic low-cost intervention. We want our country to be leading, and we want to put everything behind these new organisations and ensure that there is that scientific underpinning and that we do not fall behind other countries. I tend to side with your view that we may need to strengthen that.
The problem with this sort of legislation is that you want to be very enabling, but then you are very dependent on what the biggest problem is in the NHS today. Many of these organisations are trying to balance the books. We have tried to say that it is not all about targets. We can hit the targets and miss the point. The thing is, we are not hitting the targets at the moment either. Thank you for speaking up about the scientific underpinning. I would like us to remain where we are, and do better on science.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: That is right at the heart of health inequalities. If we did not know that before covid, we certainly know it now. An area where we could strengthen the legislation is in having that responsibility for all the people in your population. I led on health inequalities in the only time we have narrowed the gap, so health inequalities are not something that are just there and that we cannot do anything about except talk and say how sympathetic we are to them. We can deliver these changes. If we get the legislation and the organisational functionality, we will not change this unless we engage with communities. That is absolutely right, and we must engage with the local authorities.
Unless we target every intervention that we apply to the most disadvantaged and ensure that they have a good opportunity for uptake, we are widening health inequalities. I could take you to any health intervention, whether it is the covid vaccine, the flu vaccine, any uptake on health programmes or cancer screenings. They are all skewed to the most affluent population. In our country we want general population services, because we need everyone to be healthier, but we have to try to ensure that these organisations understand population need and know where the deprived populations are.
I have never met an MP or councillor who did not know where their deprived populations were, so we need those organisations to know that, but just knowing it is not enough. You have to then see the pattern of services and service delivery change to give a better chance to the people who need to take up these services. We have all understood that it is not that those people are hard to reach; it is just that we do not run the services to suit them and get a better uptake. I would like to see us concentrate on that. We probably cannot mention every single intervention, but for me it would not be enough to concentrate on obesity and fluoridation and think that the job is done on health. We have higher drug deaths than the rest of Europe—Scotland, as you know, is probably one of the worst in the world, if not the worst—and alcohol and all the other issues there, but I believe we can make a difference, and it will not take us 25 years if we focus on the right things, having the right interventions and making them readily available for people, and have a nice balance with what the NHS can do.
The NHS is the greatest service in the world and it can really help with health inequalities, but it cannot do it all. I am not an either/or person; we need the wider determinants and everything we can do that is place based through the local authorities, but we need the NHS to do that too.
Dr Whitford
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: This is where the legislation is helpful, because it is enabling. The more we can move away from the NHS pound, the local government pound, the health pound or the DEFRA pound, and towards, “This is the pound for Newcastle or Cornwall; how can we achieve the best outcome for it?”, the better. I know that is difficult and, as you say, things such as housing, getting someone into a job or promoting active travel can make a massive difference to people’s health. They can make big differences, and having that forum and the opportunity to have those discussions is very helpful. A forum where we can start moving from investment in, as you rightly say, curing someone to preventing them from getting ill or, as Maggie said earlier, getting early cancer diagnoses is critical.
This Bill does provide a framework, but the important stuff will be the statutory and non-statutory guidelines and where the money is spent. That is very important, and we hope to see more spending on preventing and less on fixing a problem that need not happen.
Alex Norris
Q
“appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State”.
Under paragraph 5, only NHS England can remove a chair if they are unpopular and not doing the job, and there is nothing that you can write into your local decision making to get around that. Are you comfortable with not having any say over your chair when they are appointed or whether they carry on in the job?
Cllr James Jamieson: Clearly, there are two chairs in this scenario, and one of them, as you say, is NHS appointed in effect and the other one could be anybody—it could be a councillor, a local government representative, or a local director of public health. There is a role. I think this is a difficult area, but that is the reality, because ultimately that chairman will be the person who is financially responsible for the NHS trusts in his or her area. I have some sympathy with it; if I could find a better solution, I would seek to find one.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: I am still a fan of the fact that you need public health and local government. I started my career there and moved to the NHS; I moved back to local government; and now I am moving back to the NHS. What we need is flexibility, so professional groups can work there. I would highly recommend all my public health colleagues and public health registrars to get experience nationally, regionally and locally. That makes you a much better, capable public health practitioner. However, you cannot deny that you can do the same for half the money.
I know that when the announcement was made about public health moving into local government, I did do the rounds saying that it would be a really good thing. I have to say that some very experienced people from councils were saying to me, “Well, I know what will happen. We will get the responsibility, and then they will take the money from us.” I said, “No, no, that won’t happen because public health has always been ring-fenced.” When we were in the NHS, the public health funding was ring-fenced. I have to confess that I was naive, wasn’t I, because actually the grant was cut. I do believe that every pound you spend at the local level in that local government setting you will get back tenfold because of all the social capital you can get from it. That is the reality. If your plans are ambitious, you do not need a lot of money. Lots of the interventions on obesity, smoking and all the other things do not take a huge cost in comparison with some of the high-tech NHS ones. If you have the ambition, you need to follow it through with the necessary resources to do it.
I have been public in saying—I am probably with Councillor Jamieson—that in the ideal world, and I have been a director of adult social care, as well as a director of public health, we are not in camps with our bags of cash. We actually put all of our money together for the resources of the population. I would like to see the ICSs mandated to spend so much on prevention and health inequalities wherever the money comes from, because if we continue with what we are doing at the moment—waiting too long to intervene—none of us will be able to afford the mountain of the problem that you will build up. There is no money available in the world to do that.
There have been some early positive signs that we mean business this time with prevention and health inequalities, but we have to deliver. Having just looked at the social care paper today, I struggle to find prevention. I know from being a director of adult social care that if we do not intervene early and get people to be ageing well and healthy, we will not have the carers in the world who can look after them. Again, I make the plea for the resources. It does not take a lot—I am not asking for billions—but a small amount of resource could make a huge difference. If we continue to cut the public health grant, well, we will continue to have poor health, I think.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: My experience is that there are some things you can legislate for—seatbelts would be the classic example, or smoke-free places—that work really well, but for most things, if you really want to get action, you need to take the public with you. Certainly, if you fluoridate the water, you will have some very direct oral health benefits. Dental decay, for example, is a classic. However, you probably will not fix every little problem you have got, because it takes more than just fluoridation. Most people’s teeth fall out because of gum disease, so you have to have a wider educational programme with the public.
I also know from my work as the director of public health at the local level and my early days work in Scotland that I could take you to lots of families where they do not drink water, so it is not that obvious to me that that is just going to fix the problem as easily as we think it will. I think you need an all-encompassing programme. While we wait for any implementation of the fluoridation, today children will be having their teeth taken out—children of four or five. That is unacceptable because, alongside that, we should be ensuring that there are the educational programmes and the supply if people cannot afford toothbrushes and toothpaste. That would be a nice easy fix for something to do.
We obviously have a huge population who have already lost their teeth, and one of the biggest problems of the elderly is pure nutrition because they simply cannot eat. It is a problem that sometimes you think legislation will fix it top-down, but I think in everything you do it is much better to see public health people as being responsible to the population. In my experience, you really have to take the population with you to have any chance of implementation, whether you have legislation from the Secretary of State or not.
Edward Argar
Q
Back in the day, I served as a councillor and cabinet member for public health, adult social care and health, and worked very closely with my then local PCT, which probably shows you my vintage. One of the things that I found was that the structures were important, but the relationships and how it worked on the ground, and the ability to be flexible and build up the trust between the two organisations was more effective in getting better outcomes. We have heard from previous witnesses about the importance of local flexibility to adapt to local work arrangements and conditions. Do you think we are striking the right balance between being permissive in allowing that flexibility and not being too prescriptive, or do we need to go a little more in a different direction?
Professor Maggie Rae: In my experience, with the way that the ICS has been set up, we very much hope that we will not start from scratch again, because those organisations have been working on this agenda for quite some time. I think there would be cries of horror if we said, “We are going to throw out the work you’ve already done.” Many of them have been on this journey for a while, and the leaders in those systems have indeed made some good progress. I think it is a delicate balance.
I will not repeat the points I have already made about strengthening the links to public health and making sure that is not forgotten. We will have 600 public health people going back into the NHS, but we very specifically have not changed the legislation that put directors of public health in England into local government. Of course, directors of public health in the three devolved nations are currently in the NHS. If you do not give people flexibility, you run the risk of your system not working. If we ensure that the framework and assurance process are right, the legislation takes us part of the way, but we want some checks and balances in relation to those freedoms, to make sure that there is a basic minimum standard across the country. If you have an ICS that is not working with its local authority, that is not a level where the ICS should be signed off. The ICS should be asked to go and demonstrate the commitment that the flexibility has allowed them. There is a statement in the framework that was released a couple of months ago, which said that the directors of public health will have an official role on both boards. I found that a pretty good statement to have, but it is only a statement that is effective if there is some assurance that that can be delivered on, and there need to be some checks and balances in order to make sure that those kinds of things are not ignored. Because of the variety—some ICSs cater for 2 million or 3 million people, and some for 1 million—you need the flexibility. If you want them to own and deal with the problems of their population, having a little bit of flexibility is the right approach, provided that the minimum standards are met across the whole country.
Edward Argar
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: From a legislative perspective, largely yes. I reiterate the point that I have made a couple of times already: the statutory and non-statutory guidelines will be critical in this area. We need to get them right and ensure that there is real embedded consultation. There are a couple of things that we are concerned about. I have not mentioned them yet, so I will use this opportunity to do so. One is the increase in the powers of the Secretary of State to call in NHS reconfiguration proposals and so forth, and the risk that that would undermine the existing local government influence, overview and scrutiny, so we would ask for a change to schedule 6 of the Bill in order to ensure that there is consultation at a local level before those powers are enacted.
The second area—it is probably not what you are asking about, but it is important that we raise it—is assurance around social care. It is good to have assurance around social care, but we need to make sure that that assurance is proportionate and is in context. Bearing in mind how stretched social care is from a financial perspective, it would be unreasonable to expect social care to do more than its budget allows it to do. In the same way, social care is also very dependent on the performance of the NHS, community care and so forth. We have some concerns around that assurance framework, which needs some work.
Edward Argar
Thank you, both. Mr McCabe, I am conscious of time and our programme motion, so I will pause there.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. I thank both our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Eluned Morgan, Lyn Summers and Mari Williams gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Eluned Morgan, who is the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Government. I hope that I have pronounced your name properly. We will also hear from Lyn Summers, head of health and social services central legislation team, and Mari Williams, senior lawyer (health)—both from the Welsh Government. All witnesses are remote, and we have until 5.15 pm for the session.
Dr James Davies
Q
Eluned Morgan: Thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence this afternoon. Obviously the Bill mainly relates to England, but I want to say that I understand what the Bill is trying to do and achieve and I am pleased that it represents some moves towards removing market competition from health and care. I am very pleased to say that we have never had that in Wales because we have our system of unitary health authorities.
There are a number of areas of the Bill that impact Wales. I have set out the significant concerns I have in a letter to Minister Argar. I would be very pleased to present the letter if that is helpful to the Committee. To summarise that letter, there are nine areas of the Bill that I think require the legislative consent of the Senedd. I have set out these areas in a legislative consent memorandum, which has been laid before the Senedd. We are currently in a disagreement with the Department of Health and Social Care UK regarding some of the clauses that the Welsh Government consider to fall into the areas that require the legislative consent of the Senedd. There are a few where we both agree that legislative consent is needed.
In response to your question, Dr Davies, the aspects of the Bill will impact Wales are special health authorities; accounts and auditing; clause 78 on hospital patients with care and support needs—that is the one you referred to, I think, with the border issue; clause 85 on a UK-wide medicine information system; clauses 86 to 92 on transfer of functions between arm’s length bodies; clause 120 on international healthcare agreements; clause 123 on regulation of healthcare and associated professions; and clause 127 on food information for consumers. We consider clause 125 on advertising of less healthy food and drink an important point for us. Clause 130 is also really important to us. The power to make consequential provision also falls within the legislative competence of the Senedd. I think that is something that is worth looking at. I am happy to go through some of the detail on those if that would be helpful to you. Should I continue with that, Dr Davies?
Dr Davies
Q
Eluned Morgan: Interesting. We do not necessarily have an issue with the policy of some of them, but we are very concerned with some aspects of the constitutional shift and power grab that is happening here from the UK Government’s point of view. For example, the provision on arm’s length bodies is going to impact Wales in several ways. The UK Government are suggesting a requirement to consult the devolved Administrations before those powers are exercised. Frankly, that is just not good enough, because that memorandum of understanding, which the UK Government offered to present to alleviate some of our concerns, is a passing thing. It cannot be enforced by law and it does not bind future Governments, so we are very keen to see all the areas that impinge on our powers move from a duty to consult to a duty to get the support of the Senedd. There is a fundamental shift that we would like to see because we feel that our powers are impinged on.
The other point, which is quite interesting in the context of what is happening with Brexit, is that a number of clauses contain powers that enable the UK Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to provisions in a Senedd law. That is absolutely constitutionally unacceptable. It is fascinating when you think that part of the reason for the UK leaving the EU was to remove an outside institution’s ability to legislate in relation to the UK, yet the irony seems to be completely lost on the UK Government when the same consideration is not applied to legislation in the devolved Administrations in areas where it is absolutely clear where the power should lie. Those are the two fundamental issues that I am concerned about.
Dr Davies
Q
Eluned Morgan: There is clearly merit in having a system where data can be shared. We do not have a fundamental objection in principle to that and we would be very keen to set up systems that can speak to each other. I guess our objection would be where we are forced to share information that we do not necessarily feel should be shared. Why is that information needed and for what purposes? We would have to be very clear on that. It is not an objection in principle. In our discussion, I was very clear that I think it makes perfect sense for us to get those systems to be able to speak to each other. Again, it is more about the constitutional issues that have been thrown up and the UK Government’s ability to work in our NHS system and to gain information that is not theirs to have. If we want to give it, we are more than willing to do that.
The Chair
Before I move on, do Ms Williams or Ms Summers want to add anything to the questions that have been asked so far?
Eluned Morgan: I do not think they have got anything to add.
Karin Smyth
Q
Eluned Morgan: We are all very aware that the care system is under incredible pressure at the moment. In Wales, we have been able to introduce new systems through legislation that give our health services the power to co-operate and work, within a legal framework, with the care services and local authorities. That has made a significant difference already. We have a long way to go, and this is only the beginning of the process, but that is an example of where a close working relationship, and providing the framework that allows that to happen, is working well. It needs to go a lot further, though.
The Chair
Thank you. Do either of you wish to add anything to that?
Eluned Morgan: Lyn or Mari, do you have anything to add?
Mari Williams: No, thank you.
Dr Whitford
Q
Eluned Morgan: To be fair, my officials have had regular meetings with the Bill and policy teams, and I have met once with Minister Argar to discuss the Bill. However, I am afraid that that did not lead to our key concerns being addressed before the Bill’s introduction.
I concur with you that we were really disappointed at the lateness of the notification of this Bill, and the absence of engagement with the Welsh Government in terms of the practicalities of the outcomes of discussions. For example, we received sight of the White Paper statement on the Bill only on the afternoon before it was published. We had sight of all the Bill’s clauses only the day before introduction. With the best will in the world, we have some brilliant officials in the Welsh Government, but even they cannot work at that supersonic speed. We did not have the opportunity to look at all the final clauses and to respond to them before the Bill was introduced.
The point is that if the UK Government are serious about saying that we will be consulted, this is not a good model for them to show us that we have been consulted. Their stated aim was, “In your areas, where the power is rightly yours, you will be consulted.” If this is the model that they are going to use, we are in for a really tough time. That is why I would concur with you that the real issue is that we want consent on areas that are rightfully and constitutionally ours.
Dr Whitford
Q
May I ask you a short, specific question? The healthcare services safety investigation body is England-only at the moment, but it is described that investigations could be requested in Welsh cases due to people coming over the border. Is that something that the Welsh Government are considering? At what level would such a decision be made? Would that be a local request, or would it go up through your central structures?
Eluned Morgan: Lyn or Mari may want to come in here. The key thing to remember—Dr James Davies will be aware of this—is that a huge amount of cross-border working happens between Wales and England, so it is important that we understand each system. I do not think that we would have an objection in principle to working in the way that you suggest, but where, for example, there is a body that is “England and Wales”, it is rightly written in our legislation that we cannot be told what to do. It is not about the policy itself. For example, if there is an auditing issue, we will not go to war or have a fight about how something is audited; it is the process that we are concerned with. It is not that we would object, but it is rightfully in our power to determine whether we want to do something.
Dr Whitford
Q
Eluned Morgan: Absolutely, and we are developing our own systems in relation to those things, of course. It is our patient information, and we should be deciding who has access to it and when.
Alex Norris
Q
Eluned Morgan: I am more than happy to send the correspondence that I have sent to Minister Argar to the Committee, so you can see it. It sets out all the issues that we are concerned with in relation to the Bill.
Alex Norris
Q
Eluned Morgan: I am not aware that we have seen an impact assessment. Lyn and Mari may have more to add.
Lyn Summers: No, we have not.
Alex Norris
Q
Eluned Morgan: This is in relation to nursing. We have a law on safe staffing levels in nursing. Not only has it been implemented, but it has been extended since we brought in that Bill. It is something that the Royal College of Nursing is hugely appreciative of, and something that we are keeping an eye on. It has made a difference to patient safety, and we in the Welsh Government take it very seriously.
Edward Argar
Q
I want to pick up on something that colleagues have touched on and which you have highlighted around the model of integration in Wales—the unitary model, for want of a better way of putting it. I acknowledge that you said it was early days, but I would like to get a sense of how you feel that model is delivering a national system but allowing local flexibility, and of the extent to which it is delivering, even in its early days, improved health outcomes for patients in Wales. As we look at ICSs and closer working between local authorities and the NHS in England, it may be instructive for us to learn from your experience, even if it is not a direct parallel, and from what you are seeing, even in these early days.
Eluned Morgan: We had a parliamentary review that looked at our NHS and care system, and went into a lot of detail about what we could change. A lot of it was about the need to integrate—[Inaudible.] What we have done as a result is take an interim step towards better integration. We not only set up the legislative framework for that, but put significant funding into driving these health and care systems to work together. We had an integrated care fund and a transformation fund. We found that both the health service and the care service really liked the new approach. They really have engaged. We have kind of allowed a thousand flowers to bloom here, and there have been some really innovative ideas and work. How do we get people out of hospital quicker? How do we drive that change? There have been some great examples.
What we are still struggling with, if I am honest, is that we are still finding difficulty getting both the health service and the care service to understand that what they have changed and what works well now needs to be mainstreamed. There cannot be additional funding forever. The purpose of that additional funding was to give the confidence to do it in the mainstream. We are finding that they have pocketed that money, saying, “This is great. Can we have more, please?” We have tried to make it clear to them that that was never the idea. The idea was for them to have that transformation funding to drive change.
That is our next challenge, and that is what we are working on now, but there are ways of doing that. Clearly, this is a difficult time to be doing it, but some health boards are frankly being driven into closer working relationships, because there are so many examples of delayed transfer of care given the infrastructure at the local government level. Do not forget that in Wales we have not seen anything like the cuts that have happened in England, but even we are feeling the pressure in quite a significant way, and we are having some real issues in relation to recruitment to the care workforce in particular. That is the biggest challenge for us at the moment.
Edward Argar
Q
Eluned Morgan: It has been quite interesting. With care, for example, we have found that a lot of competition was going, such as between the independent care providers and the local authority—they were poaching from each other. All of that was damaging to the public purse and to the provision that we could give. Now we are in the process of developing an all-Wales framework within which people who want to provide care in Wales will work. That is what we are working on—a new legislative framework that will provide the infrastructure and give the minimal standards that they will have to meet. It is also making sure that we are driving quality through the system.
Edward Argar
Q
Eluned Morgan: What is difficult is that we started this process pre-pandemic but, clearly, with the pandemic we are in a very different situation. It is difficult to say what the model would look like in normal times, because we have had 18 months of something very different. It is hard for us to assess that evidence in the light of our circumstances at the moment, if I am honest.
The Chair
No one else? As there are no further questions, I thank you, Minister Morgan, and your officials for the evidence that you have provided today.
Eluned Morgan: Diolch yn fawr.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 9th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 September 2021 - (9 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings of the Committee. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate only electronically with Ministers. If everyone is agreed, we will go into private sitting to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
All our witnesses are appearing in person. It is helpful if Members direct their questions to specific witnesses.
Before calling the first panel of witnesses, I first remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order the Committee has agreed. For the first panel, we have until 12.15 pm.
Secondly, do any members of the Committee wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill?
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Chair, I am still a member of the British Medical Association.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I remain a member of the BMA.
The Chair
Welcome Sara and Chaand. Will you kindly introduce yourselves, please?
Sara Gorton: Good morning. I am Sara—it is pronounced as if it is spelled with an h at the end. I am head of health at the trade union Unison.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: My name is Dr Chaand Nagpaul. I am a GP in north London. I have been a GP for more than 30 years. I am chair of the BMA UK council. We represent doctors across the UK—more than 160,000. I represent all doctors of all types, working in hospitals, public health, general practice—you name it.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Sara Gorton: I hope you have had our Bill submission, which makes clear the areas where we feel the new Bill needs some amending. You are right that Unison was a signatory, along with the BMA and other colleagues, to the letter in 2019, so it is a matter of concern that, after all this time and with such broad consensus, we are still awaiting the legislation.
The Select Committee process that followed that letter clearly identified that the changes that have been added would be contentious, so that is adding further delay. There are a variety of elements that stray outside the clear consensus that was set out in the 2019 proposals. However, we are committed to seeing an end to a system that holds lots of unnecessary cost implications for the NHS. There is an urgent need to stabilise and give clarity of employment, particularly for the 27,000-plus people who are currently in a state of flux, moving between the clinical commissioning groups and the proposed new ICSs.
There are some clear areas where we would like to talk to you about amending, improving and strengthening what is in the legislation at the moment. There is very, very clear support for following through on the commitments in that 2019 letter, to strip away the unnecessary procurement and competition regime.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: The BMA was very opposed, and I believe rightly so, to the changes in 2012. We felt they introduced unnecessary competition in the NHS that did not work, has not worked, was not good for the taxpayer, fragmented the service and increased private sector involvement, which we can talk about later. We were very supportive of any changes that would reverse that legislation and have a duty of collaboration. In fact, I led a piece of work at the BMA called “Caring, supportive, collaborative: a future vision for the NHS”, where we spelled out the sort of arrangements we believe would be right, in keeping with the principles of the national health service, and be right for patients, right for the workforce and right for the taxpayer.
In principle, the idea that the Government were relooking at or reversing the 2012 Act was something we supported. In one way, you could say that the repealing of section 75 is an element that we are supportive of. However, in doing so there are not sufficient safeguards and we believe there are many consequences that would actually do the reverse, in particular with regards to a lack of assuredness around national health service providers being supported, in terms of the continuation—we can talk about this later—of unequal arrangements for the private sector provision of care compared to the NHS, and in terms of the lack of clinical engagement that would ensue. Of course, we are getting rid of a whole tier of local commissioning organisations, CCGs, and moving them at a more distant level, called ICSs. We are very concerned about that.
We are also concerned about some of the Secretary of State’s powers and the balance between political accountability and political influence. There is a range of issues here that we think need to be addressed.
The other thing I should say is that we are in the midst of a pandemic. It is by no means over. It is hard to grasp the scale of the backlog of care. These changes have occurred when the profession has not been able to engage. I have not had the time to properly be involved in the input. With the BMA I have, but my colleagues have not. We believe that this is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. We should really address what the NHS needs and get the right Bill at the right time, in due course.
Edward Timpson
Q
Sara Gorton: When we set out our support along with other parties in 2019, we saw huge benefits from not wasting unnecessary time, process, money and oversight on unnecessary competition, particularly where no provider other than the NHS was capable of providing the service. We support the removal of the role, as set out in that consensus letter, and that has travelled through to the legislation.
Where we think this could be more robust is the so-called provider selection regime that backs up exactly how the process will be carried out. We think that needs to be extended to make it absolutely explicit that the NHS is the preferred provider where there is an NHS service, that there need to be limits placed on roll-over without scrutiny from external providers and that that provision should be extended to cover non-clinical services. I think that earlier in the week you heard from employers how important the whole-team—the one-team—approach had been during the pandemic and how crucial that had been to tackling the spread of the virus and the work that the NHS had done. We think that principle should be extended and placed in the provider selection regime as well.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: We absolutely agree that repealing section 75 is something the BMA has called for since 2012. It has been a nonsense that every single contract up to this point has to be put out to tender: huge amounts of waste of taxpayers’ money and of time. As a GP, we were not even able to provide our own phlebotomy services without it going through a process, so in that sense, that is a good thing. However, just repealing section 75 without complementing it with the right tools to ensure collaboration will not work. In fact, the current arrangements repeal section 75 but do not provide any safeguards, or rather structural processes, that will, in our view, allow the NHS to work as a collaborative system.
The example I will give is that we believe the NHS should be the preferred provider of care wherever it is capable and wherever it is available to do so. There is so much evidence. People say: “Does it matter who provides?” Well, it does matter, and all the evidence in the last few years has shown repeated examples. Some of you will remember Circle taking over Hinchingbrooke Hospital. It is very easy for the private sector to say: “You know what? We will really run the NHS efficiently. We will use all the market skills we have.” The NHS does not work like that. We forget at our peril the added value, the accountability, the loyalty and the good will that the NHS provides. We really do.
We only have to look back at the last year. Compare the vaccination programme run by the NHS and delivered by NHS staff to Test and Trace. Even with Test and Trace, compare the £400 million that Public Health England had to the billions that went to the private sector, and local public health teams reached 97% of contacts compared to 60% for the others. I am saying that it does matter. Your local acute trust is not there on a 10-year contract, willing to walk away after two years. It is there for your population; it cannot walk away. I think that given those things, we need to make sure the NHS is the preferred provider.
The Chair
Could I just ask you to keep your answers to within the scope of the Bill, please? Also, I ask if we could perhaps have more succinct answers. I still have several people who want to ask questions and we do not have a lot of time to get them in. I intend to call the Front Bench spokespeople at about 10 minutes to 12. I now move to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), but if we could keep to the confines of the Bill, that would be good.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Sara Gorton: This is a matter of no small significance to organisations such as my own that have membership across the UK. That ability to understand and translate the statistics that we get from one environment in the UK to another, and understand how that feeds through and get a whole picture of it, is really difficult at the moment. That is not just for the basic nuts and bolts of who is in the workforce at the moment, doing what job—the training plans, the workforce planning, and other aspects of workforce are really difficult to compare.
The short answer is that we would like to be involved in the interpretation, assuming that we do get that amendment through and the workforce reporting is on a more frequent basis than five years. We would like to be involved in the conversation about what that looks like, and how it can answer some of the issues that you have raised about feeding into a UK-wide perspective as well.
Hywel Williams
Q
Sara Gorton: That is not something we have considered in the passage of the legislation so far, but we are certainly willing to talk about it in future.
Hywel Williams
Q
Sara Gorton: There are all sorts of workforce aspects that are very relevant to the England and Wales environment. The joint systems we have for pay and pensions, and workforce planning as well, all need to be factored in, but lots of work on the detail of the workforce reporting is needed.
Dr James Davies
Q
Sara Gorton: That is not an area of the Bill that we focused on. Our main focus is on extending the provisions of the provider selection regime—the procurement. I can do some more work and send in something.
Dr Davies
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: I can tell you, just from the personal experience of being a GP over 30 years and speaking to doctors and representing doctors, that clinical engagement is vital. None of us can have any workplace that functions well until those who work within it feel engaged—feel that their voice is heard and their experience is understood. One of my biggest concerns about the current arrangements is that at the moment, for example, we have clinical commissioning groups. We have had seven GPs in my local area representing me and my colleagues. That is going to whittle down to no one, except one primary care doctor—we think—on an ICS board, which will be more remote, so we are diluting that local accountability. We vote for those doctors who sit on the CCG boards; we will not have any voting, so you are reducing the numbers who are influencing.
The second point is that we believe that those who sit on ICS boards should be facing the reality of the clinicians they represent. In the medical profession, we have two statutory bodies—the local medical committees and the local negotiating committees—that represent hospital doctors and GPs, and we believe that they should be there because of their motive: they will be clinicians representing clinicians, as opposed to what sometimes happens, which is doctors becoming managers. We know that that just disconnects, and if you have a disconnect, you will not be able to deliver your aims as a health service.
The other notable omission in the Bill, we believe, is the lack of public health presence. There is no place for a public health doctor. Again, I know that it is not in the scope of the Bill, but I think we have to learn from the past year. Public health is vital.
The Chair
We should stick to within the scope of the Bill.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: The scope of the Bill should include a public health doctor who is independent, who should be an advocate. Those of you who were present in the 1990s will know that is exactly what we had. An independent public health voice on ICS boards can provide proper independent advice on population health. These are meant to be population commissioning bodies, in the interests of the public. Those are the things that we think should be changed.
The Chair
Would anybody else like to ask a question from the Back Benches before I move to the Front-Bench spokespeople? Okay, that means that the SNP and Labour spokespeople have around 10 minutes. If they could keep it between nine and 10 minutes, that would be appreciated. I call Dr Philippa Whitford.
Dr Whitford
Q
I will ask each of you the same question. Obviously, the aim of the Committee is to improve the Bill and bring in voices. Sara, if you could amend only one part of the Bill, what would it be, and what change do you think would improve it to the greatest degree? I know that you may have three or four—your submissions are here—but what do you want us to do that would have the biggest impact in improving what actually happens to health and social care?
Sara Gorton: I am going to choose something that I think none of the other people you hear from, except staff representative bodies, will pick up on. We would like to see the principle set out in the NHS constitution: to involve staff in decision making about how the service that they work in is set up and run, and in decisions that could affect the way they work. That principle is very clear in the NHS constitution; at the moment, with the system set up the way it is, that is transacted through the relationships that staff have with their employers at a provider level. If the system proposed in the Bill comes in, one of the risks is that that may be undercut by decisions made at ICS level. I think trade unions and staff would feel as though they had a stake and would be reassured that they had involvement in future decisions with workforce implications made by those new bits of the system if that pledge were placed in the legislation and were the underpinning principle.
Dr Whitford
Thank you very much. Certainly, for some of the projects in Scotland around quality improvement or patient safety, the involvement of staff has actually made that work. Dr Nagpaul, I am pinning you down to one area and one change that you think will make a big difference.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: The area would be around collaboration. We would want the section 75 regulations to be amended to make the NHS the preferred provider where it is able to do that. As part of that, there would be legislative changes on the duties of foundation trusts and other NHS providers to collaborate. We believe that at the moment, the changes for section 75 do not tally with any such duty, and we find that providers are focused on their own budgets and balance sheets, so you are talking about collaboration but not enabling it. We would want both those changes.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: Can I come back on that? At the moment, we are seeing foundation trusts thinking about their budgets, community providers thinking about theirs, and general practice as well. There is not even collaboration between the community and the hospital. No foundation trust currently has the ability to say, for example, “We will go beyond our budget and invest in the community—it may actually reduce our hospital admissions.” At the moment there is no structure of processes to enable collaboration even within the NHS.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: It is only looking at it—like sitting around the table. We have had a lot of these arrangements in the past. Until you actually change the duty of a foundation trust to collaborate, so that its board meetings are no longer focused purely on its own balance sheet but actually look at the good of the local community as a statutory change, we do not think this will work. It will just be aspirational.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: We are supportive of the concept of the HSIB. We know that the NHS is riddled with a fear culture and a targeting of individuals for systemic failures. Based upon the aviation industry, it is absolutely right to have arrangements whereby you can learn from serious incidents, and healthcare staff, doctors and patients have a safe place where they are free, without fear, to contribute and learn from such incidents.
What is important—this is something we learned from a previous episode involving a doctor called Doctor Bawa-Garba, where there were a lot of issues around her information being disclosed—is that safe places should be safe places. They should be legally privileged. That will allow us to make the NHS safer, because I think that openness will allow us to address the systemic issues that actually make up the majority of medical errors in our health service.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sara Gorton: The HSSIB is not an area that we have covered and focused on in our response, but like the BMA we are strongly supportive of attempts to drive a just and learning culture across the NHS. We have participated, through the social partnership forum in the NHS, in trying to spread that culture, and we are strongly supportive of the Freedom To Speak Up Guardian programme that is in operation in the NHS in England and its interaction with staff and their representative bodies.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sara Gorton: Yes, indeed—certainly no opposition to that.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: Yes. If you repeal section 75 but do not allow the NHS to be a preferred provider, we believe that opens the door for contracts to be handed out to the private sector and undermines the NHS.
Although it may fall out of scope, the point is that there is every reason for the NHS to be a preferred provider. The point I am making is that the NHS really is effective and cost-effective, and allows for a population approach from providers that have accountability to local populations.
The other problem we have at the moment, unless you put in legislation to make the NHS the preferred provider, is that at the moment a lot of contracts are going out to the private sector and are affecting workforce training. In some areas, cataract operations have been moved en bloc into the private sector, meaning that ophthalmology trainees are not even seeing them, and the providers that are providing cataract operations are being paid the same sum of money but not providing the full service.
Another problem we have at the moment is cherry-picking. It has been there since 2012 and nothing in this Bill is legislatively addressing that. It means that you pay the same amount to a hospital—I am a GP and there is a list of exclusion criteria for any patient who has co-morbidities or complex conditions, so I cannot refer them there—but when something goes wrong in the middle of the night or on a weekend, they end up in the A&E of our local hospital.
That is why we believe it is really important that the Bill is amended to make the NHS the preferred provider; that is what we are referring to. We believe it will allow for a much more co-ordinated, accountable, locally focused and population-approach health service.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: If we have a Bill that is designed to support the NHS, we just feel that it does not make sense to then allow a private provider to sit on a commissioning board. We believe that there is an inherent conflict of interest. It is really important to understand that there is a difference between the private provider and the NHS. The private provider is ultimately driven by its financial motives, and to be sitting on a board influencing the spend of money where it may have an interest is a conflict of interest. That does not apply to the NHS. A doctor from a hospital does not have any financial gain to be made. I come back to the fact that we need to support the NHS, not as an ideological principle, but because it actually works.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: No, I do not. If the NHS cannot provide a service—if it does not have the capacity—and there is a private sector contract, the private provider needs to be held to account to deliver. As I say, I think the same rules should be applied, so that if there is a complication, they need to be accountable for that complication, rather than the patient going back to the NHS, which picks up the pieces. There is a need to hold private providers to account where they are contracted to provide care, but we do not approve of them sitting on the commissioning board, which is about the use of public resources in the interests of local populations. That should be a commissioning decision, and commissioners who are accountable to the NHS and providers of the NHS should be sitting as part of that arrangement.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: Sure. One is the NHS mandate, which spells out how the NHS functions. At the moment, the powers allow the Secretary of State to amend the mandate. We would like that to be affirmative. We would like it to be approved by Parliament, and therefore Parliament would vote to agree changes to the mandate. That is one area.
The other concern is about the local reconfigurations. We know how politically sensitive these things can be. We would not want the Secretary of State to have disproportionate powers in those arrangements, which will often be more susceptible to political influence. We think that those need to be safeguarded by mandated clinician involvement, so that we make the right decisions about local services. It is a counterbalance: we want a health service that has local clinician leadership, but on the other hand the Secretary of State can intervene. We think that is an amendment that needs to be made.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: There are a couple of points to raise here. First, we would like to see in the legislation confirmation of what we have been given assurances of in guidance and conversation—that there is no intention for any new parts of the system to undermine the existing collective arrangements and that, for the workforce I represent, the collective agenda for change agreement would apply for their staff. There is a very clear amendment that could be supported to ensure the new bodies are listed as what are called annex 1 employers in the relevant terms and conditions documents. That is one aspect.
The other aspect is the role that the provider selection regime can play—sorry, not the provider selection regime; what are called the people responsibilities, which are set out in some of the guidance materials that have only been recently published to support the legislation. They set out 10 areas relating to workforce over which the new bodies may have scope. We would like to see those areas of scope clearly defined within the legislation. That is why what I said earlier about the commitment to involve staff through the constitution promise is so important. We want to ensure that, if decisions are made at system level that undercut the role that staff have in making decisions within providers—if there are overarching decisions made about workforce—staff have an opportunity, through their representatives, to understand what the impact might be and to influence that conversation.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: We are supposed to stick to polite language in here, aren’t we? You can all probably imagine what most of our members feel. Sticking within the scope of the Bill, as we have been asked to, the relevant segue is to go back to the extension of the provider selection regime to the non-clinical services. We are strongly supportive of the measures that have been put in place to ensure that service sustainability and social value are taken into account. Clearly, however, extending those provisions to non-clinical services would create a culture of in-sourcing, of valuing all members of the healthcare team equally, and place those on an equal footing.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: As you have hopefully seen in our briefing, we are calling for that to be either explained in much more detail in the guidance, or dropped from the legislation. We are already seeing concerns from regulated occupations that this could lead to a sort of “regulation-lite” scenario, and there are concerns that, without it being clear exactly what the proposals would entail, this could be a hostage to fortune. We would very much like to see some clarity on that, or have it taken out at this stage.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: What we are more concerned about is the potential risk that, if involved in the ICBs and in the partnerships, they could exert influence over the exploratory stage of discussions, which could tilt the balance their way. That seems out of kilter when we do not have clarity that staff of the NHS will have the opportunity to be involved at the same sort of level. We are very keen to ensure that we support amendments making any of the processes, and the way that the boards meet, more transparent, and, clearly, subject to the freedom of information process.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: At the moment, there is no explicit route through. What is set out in the published guidance documents is that the route for trade unions to be involved will be through the regional structures of NHS England and NHS Improvement. That is at a distance, and potentially after decisions have been made. Putting in a clear link, through that staff pledge in the NHS constitution and having that underpinning in the legislation, would really make clear the principle of staff involvement and engagement at the earliest stage of decisions.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Q
To both of you, do you think that now is the right time? I know that Chand has answered that, but this second part might apply to him: if it is not, when is the right time?
Sara Gorton: We were strong opponents of the 2012 legislation, so, in our view, the right time to do this would have been to not put that legislation through. However, we have been waiting for this batch of changes for some time. It has been evident, from 2013-14, and certainly since the “Five Year Forward View” was published, that what we were doing was having a structural workaround with people tacitly agreeing to almost ignore legislation. That is just not acceptable in the system.
Certainly, for my members who have been moved into new arm’s length bodies, moved around those bodies, and are now subject to another change, they want the security of knowing who is going to be employing them this time next year. In our view, the changes, both to the competition and procurement regime, and to clarifying how the new bodies will operate and what powers they will have, cannot wait. There are lots of other aspects that, as you can see from our briefing, we suggest could wait for future debate.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: I want to be clear: we do not support the status quo. There is a pressing need to repeal much of the 2012 Act. However, I cannot overestimate how much the pandemic has affected us. We have not been able to be engaged, so it has to be asked: why do we need the Bill at this moment in time, when we are all absolutely overwhelmed? We know that any reorganisation of the health service means that people get distracted from their core work. The process of reorganisation takes human resource time. We have not been able to engage with this as we should, so we do not think that this is the right time.
The right time would be decided by two factors: first, when we are through the worst of what we are going through at the moment, and secondly, when the legitimate concerns we have are addressed, and there are the amendments that we would like to see. This Bill can shape the future of our health service. Get the right Bill, at the right time.
Edward Argar
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: I am afraid I will have to let you know later, as I do not, off the top of my head, know exactly what those Bills contained.
Edward Argar
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: First, the rules at the moment do not factor in that the NHS provides, in addition to the service, a complete, full body of care for patients. The same money would go on a hip replacement in the private sector. Secondly, there is the training element that I mentioned earlier. Thirdly, no acute NHS trust can walk away after two years—it is there to provide care to its population—but Serco was able to walk away after two years. We have many examples of private companies that have ended their GP contracts. Serco left an out-of-hours contract in Cornwall; that does not happen in the NHS. My local hospital has been there for as long as I can remember—it cannot walk away. The NHS provides accountability and duty, but more importantly, it is actually cost-effective. The staff have national terms and conditions; they provide huge amounts of good will and work above their contracts. It just makes sense to be resourcing our NHS.
Every time you take a contract away from the NHS, it is defunding the local system. We want taxpayers’ money to bolster an NHS that is co-ordinated, because we also want changes in the legislative requirements for foundation trusts and other NHS bodies to collaborate.
Edward Argar
Q
Sara Gorton: What the legislation sets out is a proposal for system working. Therefore, having something that disrupts that system is potentially counterproductive. I strongly support putting the NHS first—the NHS default—into the provider selection regime that is listed in clause 68.
Justin Madders
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. On the Minister’s question to the BMA witness about previous Acts that the BMA may have endorsed, that would clearly be out of scope as evidence. I would not want Dr Nagpaul to waste time researching an answer that the Committee could not take into account.
Edward Argar
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray. Would it help if I set out the context in which I believe that question relates directly to the content of the Bill? Much of what is discussed in the Bill relates to previous legislation that has grown up over time; understanding which pieces of legislation the BMA supports will help us to better understand the evidence it has put forward on this legislation, and its context.
The Chair
Mr Madders, I think that the Minister has taken on board your point of order and paid attention to it. Thank you, Minister.
As there are no further questions, because we are out of time, I thank our witnesses very much for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Martin Marshall, Pat Cullen and Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Professor Martin Marshall, the chair of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners; Pat Cullen, the general secretary and chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing; and Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, the chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges—all of whom are appearing in person. Starting with Pat Cullen, could I ask you to introduce yourselves for the record?
Pat Cullen: I am Pat Cullen. Thank you for inviting me along. I am the recently appointed chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. We are a trade union and a professional organisation, and we represent more than 480,000 nurses.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: Hi! I am Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, and I am chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. The Academy is the umbrella body for all the medical royal colleges in the UK and Ireland; we also cover the independent medical faculties.
Professor Martin Marshall: Good afternoon, everybody. I am Martin Marshall, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners and a practising GP in Newham in east London.
The Chair
Thank you. We have until 1 pm for this session, so I propose the same timings as for the last one. I call on Back-Bench Members to indicate if they have any questions.
Dr James Davies
Q
Pat Cullen: We have yet to submit our evidence in relation to the Bill—we are currently doing that. It is very clear to us and our members that the Bill does not go far enough on accountability for the workforce. We are very clear that the workforce shortages in nursing are not addressed properly through the Bill.
The Chair
Could you speak up a little bit, please? We are finding it quite difficult to hear you.
Pat Cullen: That is not normal, mind you, for a woman from Northern Ireland! I will try again. Principally, our response to the Bill is that the accountability issues do not go far enough in the Bill. We are asking for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to not only clearly have full accountability and responsibility for the assessment of workforce planning, but ensure accountability for the delivery of the workforce. It is not just about the assessment. We are all clear about and know about—it has been played out well—the shortages of nursing staff. We had 40,000 vacancies heading into the pandemic. We make up 26% of the workforce. Everywhere you see a patient, you see a nurse, and we need nurses. That is the only way to provide the best care for our patients. We say that the legislator at the highest level must have that accountability and responsibility for the assessment and the delivery of the workforce shortages in nursing.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has worked very closely with the Government on the development of the Bill, and we have been very grateful for the opportunity to collaborate so far. We have been largely supportive of the direction of travel, but the workforce, in clause 33 particularly, is the one area where we probably still have the greatest concern. We feel that it needs to go further. That builds on exactly what Pat has said. Along with other organisations such as the RCN, we have co-signed an amendment that goes further on that.
We feel that workforce planning needs to be very transparent and collaborative across multiple organisations and agencies, but ultimately owned by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. It needs to take on board both the projected supply of workforce already in the pipeline and projected demand. We anticipate that the line representing workforce supply going upwards, and the line representing the demand for need and care climbing even more steeply. There is a gap between them that, at the moment, we cannot quantify. It needs to be quantified and made transparent. Even if the state does not feel it can fund for that gap, we should not be afraid of knowledge. Without knowledge, we run into the risk of repeating historical cycles of boom and bust when it comes to workforce planning. That would be our big plea to you: try to strengthen that, and please do not fear knowledge—it will help us in the end.
Professor Martin Marshall: The Royal College of General Practitioners, as members of the Academy, are completely in line with Helen’s position. There is a marked workforce crisis relating to general practitioners and other health professionals who work in general practice. Without an adequate workforce, it will be very difficult to deliver any of the ambitions of the Bill, so we are absolutely in favour of a much stronger emphasis on workforce. I think workforce planning is an oxymoron and has been for many years in the NHS. This is an opportunity to do something about it.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: We have thought about this seriously—what would be a sensible interval? Having discussed this extensively with colleagues right across the health and care landscape, we have come to the conclusion that two-yearly feels about right. Annually just feels too intense, and it would be too labour-intensive to get meaningful data out in that period; you would run the risk of fatigue in the system. If we go much longer than two years, we run the risk of fundamental change coming into the system—another pandemic or some other national thing happening that needs to be factored in, and of which we need to be made aware. We have come down on two years, and that is the proposal that we put forward.
Every time, the work needs to look five, 10 and 20 years ahead. We need that longer-term projection. It takes so long to train doctors—that is the agency that I represent—from their entry to medical school to consultant independent practice that you need to have that time lag built into the system. That way, you can look at the totality of the workforce and ensure that you have the right interim solutions for the needs of the population.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Pat Cullen: Yes, we would certainly agree. We believe that annual plans are too short-term for the reasons that Helen has laid out—training nurses takes three years, and when you think about the added training for clinical specialist nurses and other advanced nurses in practice, it absolutely needs to be at least two years.
Professor Martin Marshall: We agree that two years is the right interval. I think the request of HEE to produce a high-level framework is a good start—that is correct—but it is just a start, and a high-level framework does not help workforce planning on the ground. It is right that most workforce planning should happen at a local level, but some elements need to be managed nationally. Basically, this is such an important issue for the NHS that it needs to be absolutely top priority in the Bill.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I am conscious that I did not answer the second part of your question about who should be involved. We propose that this be led by Health Education England, but it has to be done in collaboration with NHS England. We cannot look at the needs of the population without involving them. There are other bodies, too. For doctors in particular, we would argue that the Medical Schools Council and the GMC have to be involved. I am sure Pat will have similar views.
In terms of population needs, we need to look at the Office for Budget Responsibility and use the resources of the Office for National Statistics. We need to go widely on this; it is not about saying, “That is one person’s problem to sort, and then the Secretary of State signs it off.” This is a truly collaborative effort, and we need to legislate for and enable collaboration in the greatest possible sense.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: Universities have an enormous amount to offer. If we look at the way that universities have operated in academic health science networks in the current structures, in many parts they have played a really significant role. I absolutely think that ICSs give us an opportunity to bring universities into the debate.
Education is particularly important here. If the Bill is to achieve its potential of better population health, there are some massive training leads for all the workforce, and universities clearly need to be involved in that process.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: To supplement what Martin has said, we have not criticised what the Bill says at the moment. For us, this is where the Bill is an enabler, and we hope it is a greater enabler that what we have currently. In that sense, the logical thing to do next is greater collaboration. The challenge with legislation is that although it can remove barriers and enable, it does not actually change culture. We need to engage with the individuals who are establishing this and ensure that the frontline educators and clinicians are on board with it to make it a reality.
Clearly, I support what Martin said about the vital need for education right across the piece. I think you will find that the universities are very much up for that and keen. It has been difficult to expand training places across nursing and medicine in short order, but it is something the universities are really stepping up to do. I think we would all argue that we want to go further and faster to deliver the best possible care for the public.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We have about 10 minutes, and three people have indicated that they want to ask questions, so if we could direct our questions to one person and keep questions and answers brief, that would be very helpful, because I would like to include everybody.
Hywel Williams
Q
Pat Cullen: We have had some thoughts about this across the countries—and we can learn from all of the countries, really. Of course, you will know from my accent that I come from Northern Ireland, and our regulator is a four-country regulator. In relation to the standards that are referred to within the Bill, I think our royal college will play an important role in terms of working with our regulator to look at some of the devolved responsibilities and the role that we can play in setting standards for our profession, and assisting and supporting our regulator in the setting of those standards right across the country, and obviously the other countries as well.
More recently, we have just brought out our nursing workforce standards, which apply across the four countries, and we had significant engagement in those right across the four countries. If you look at those standards being aligned in the new Bill and reading across to the new Bill, working across with our regulator and having more powers devolved to a royal college will enhance the regulator’s response to standards and the applicability of those standards, and their implementation across the countries.
Edward Timpson
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: We have pushed very hard for clinical representation on the board, and I think that the acknowledgement that a primary care representative is required is absolutely right. Of course, one representative is not going to change the world, but there is something symbolic about it, and there is something about having a primary care voice that is really important. The nature of that primary care voice is interesting, because of course, general practice is a multi-disciplinary specialty, and we work very closely with our nursing colleagues, our pharmacy colleagues and a whole range of different clinical disciplines. I think that in most localities, it is likely that a GP will be the representative of primary care, most obviously because general practice has a long track record of being involved in the management of the NHS, and the onus will then be on that general practitioner to represent all of the primary care voices. As a college, just last week we had a very productive workshop involving all the different specialties in primary care, and a strong sense of consensus that we must and will work together to drive this forward.
I have a particular focus on the primary care voice—I guess that is my job; Helen might refer to other clinical voices—but it is particularly important for primary care, for the simple reason that in primary care, we deal with about 90% of the presentations that come to the NHS every day. We live in, and are closest to, the communities that we serve. We are trained to address the broader determinants of health. We are trained as doctors, as GPs, for example, but we are trained to understand the social determinants of health and health inequalities. Everything that is important about this Bill is stuff that general practice is expert in, so we feel the general practice voice is really important.
One of our biggest concerns—not so much with the legislation, but the way that this is likely to play out on the ground—is that the general practice voice threatens to be diminished as a consequence of the change in legislation around CCGs. If you look at what the boards will look like, we know that the acute trusts will still have their governance arrangements and their budgets. CCGs are going to disappear. We are not necessarily saying that that is the wrong thing, but it means that a lot of the experienced clinical leaders in CCGs risk getting lost, and we know that that is not happening in some of the ICSs around the country, but it is happening in others. The CCG staff are just being transferred into the ICSs, but there is a real risk that the leaders who have been around for a decade or two decades, who understand the nature of organisational change and understand what the Bill is trying to achieve, will get lost. We know from the evidence that the most successful integrated care organisations around the world are the ones that are primary care led, so if primary care does not have a dominant voice, the ICSs are much less likely to achieve their potential.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Q
I would like to ask this to everybody. Personally, I think this issue of clinical representation is a backwards step in this Bill. You may or may not want to say whether you think that is true, but given that you have said that successful organisations are primary care-led, and none of these organisations will be clinically-led, let alone primary care-led, that is not rectifiable in the Bill through an amendment, I suspect. How will we ensure that these organisations are successful from a clinical leadership perspective, given the current state of the legislation, or would you be putting forward suggestions for amendments? I am sorry, but I do not think I have time to ask all three of you. Currently, CCGs are GP-led, so—
The Chair
We have about three minutes, so could you keep your answers to one minute each?
Professor Martin Marshall: I speak very rapidly.
“How?” is an interesting question. Can it be done in legislation? I think there have to be some legislative levers to ensure that this happens properly on the ground. There are some examples—one in Surrey and one in Gloucestershire—where there is already a very strong commitment to a robust primary care voice, so there is something about shining a light on those examples, which others can learn from. That is not a legislative responsibility, but it is a really important one. There is certainly something about holding localities to account and understanding what is happening on the ground at regular intervals, in terms of whether those voices are present and whether they are being heard.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I would strongly advocate that everyone takes a look at the very excellent document that NHS England put out just a few days ago, which is about implementation guidance for ICSs on clinical leadership. I have to say that whoever put it together absolutely nailed it, in terms of what to do and how. There is a how-to guide there. I had no input into it, so I feel I can shamelessly give you that, because there are a lot of answers in there.
The legislation as it stands on clinical leadership does not prevent any of those things, as I understand it. That goes back to my other point about ensuring that the legislation removes barriers and is a facilitative enabler of these things. Clearly, my colleagues have more specific things about it. I just want to draw to your attention to the fact that it says that clinicians who get involved in leadership need to be supported, protected and resourced to do so, because unfortunately clinician time is expensive. That comes back to the original conversation about workforce, but we have to factor it in. The evidence is quite clear that better clinical input in all disciplines helps systems run better and be safer. It is more cost-effective, but that needs support factored in from the outside.
Pat Cullen: You will not be surprised to hear me say that the Bill does not go far enough, and we will be looking for an amendment. There absolutely needs to be a director of nursing at the top table if you are to prevent what has happened and what has gone before, where the financial balancing of books significantly impacts the decisions of that table. The only way to ensure patient safety and quality of care, and that the workforce that we deserve and need for our patients are paramount and the centre of those discussions, is to have our clinical leaders at the top table. That must be a director of nursing, not only to bring evidence on the clinical care that needs to be delivered to the table to shape each strategic decision, but to hold that person to account for our workforce and ensure that the workforce is available to provide care for our patients.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We now turn to the SNP spokesperson, Dr Philippa Whitford. You have about seven minutes.
Dr Whitford
Q
Pat Cullen: No surprise, it is the accountability for workforce planning sitting and resting with the Secretary of State. I do not think any legislator or politician should have any issue with that. It is not about accountability being forced and pushed to the frontline. Of course, frontline clinical staff will have accountability and responsibility for the delivery of care, but that needs to be enshrined in legislation, and the Secretary of State needs to hold full accountability for workforce assessment and planning, and for ensuring that we have the workforce to deliver the best care for our patients. We owe that to every single nurse in the services today.
Dr Whitford
Q
Pat Cullen: Absolutely, and of course we look with envy at Wales and Scotland, although Scotland is lagging behind our Welsh colleagues in terms of safe staffing legislation. We will certainly push for safe staffing legislation to be brought forward in England as well. Of course, it is no surprise to anyone that our wonderful nurses moved to industrial action in Northern Ireland to push not for pay, but for safe nurse staffing legislation. That is what is important to every single nurse who is trying to care for their patients today.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: My one place is the same: the workforce issue and clause 33. It is about looking at both the supply of the workforce and the needs of the population—I think it has to be both those things. The responsibility rests with the Secretary of State.
Professor Martin Marshall: I have stated mine already: the strong general practice voice is what will make a difference. That is what will turn a currently fragmented service into an integrated one, and a service that is focused on treating diseases into one focused on preventing them.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: Considerably tighter than it is at the moment. I am absolutely in support of safe spaces. A culture change needs to happen here, and legislation seems to be one of the ways of trying to promote that to get us into a much happier space than at the moment.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: I am not sure I know enough about it to be able to answer that question, I am afraid.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: The academy’s position is that we support the proposals as they are worded—we have not suggested any amendments to them. We certainly believe that putting HSIB on a more formal footing is the right thing to do. On what Martin said about safe spaces being the right thing going forward, there may be detail and finessing in the implementation of that, but no concerns have been raised with us as an organisation representing royal colleges.
The Chair
Pat, before you speak, could I ask you to swivel the microphone to your left towards you a bit? We are still having difficulty hearing you.
Pat Cullen: Can you hear me now? I do not know whether it is my accent or my voice.
It is no surprise to us that the Royal College of Nursing opposes—
Dr Whitford
Could you speak a wee bit louder? I am from Northern Ireland as well and we can definitely speak loudly when we want to.
Pat Cullen: We fundamentally oppose the power of the Secretary of State to authorise disclosure, and we will be looking for amendments. We believe that we must protect whistleblowers. They must come forward. That is the only way that we can learn lessons and make sure that our services are fit for purpose, and that we learn from that, so we will be looking for amendments.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Pat Cullen: Where do I start? They feel exhausted, demoralised; they are tired to say the least, and they are very concerned about the future. Why is that? Because they do not have the workforce to deliver.
The Chair
Could I just remind the shadow Minister to stick within the scope of the Bill, please?
Alex Norris
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. How our staff are at the moment is within the scope of a Bill about the NHS, I would have thought.
The Chair
Okay, but can we just make sure that we stay within the scope of the Bill?
Pat Cullen: I will try and answer in relation to the Bill. All the issues that I have just spoken about in relation to that exhaustion, the tiredness and the fact that they are not able to provide the care for their patients—there are opportunities in the Bill to correct some of those things. Again, going back—I hate to harp back to it in my Northern Ireland words—but the fact is that if we ensure that accountability sits with the legislator and with the Secretary of State, to ensure that we do not find ourselves back in this place again, with 40,000 vacancies going into a pandemic or at any other emergency situation we find our nurses in, that will absolutely assist and support. However, there are opportunities for the workforce in the Bill that we do not believe are being grasped at the minute, and that is further adding to the demoralisation that they are feeling.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I will keep it succinct. I completely agree that the clinical workforce—doctors—are demoralised, and I think anxiety would be the greatest feedback that we get: anxiety and fear of the amount of risk that is being held in the system at the moment. We are in the grip of a third wave of this pandemic, which many in the media seem to have completely forgotten about. People are dying by their hundreds on a daily basis still. This is a huge challenge. It goes back to exactly the point in the Bill about workforce planning for the future, so that we never find ourselves in a similar situation again. While we cannot predict when the next pandemic will hit, we can certainly be assured that another pandemic will come. The challenges around the climate and the global problems are going to impact on our health and wellbeing hugely, and we can plan for them now if we choose to. So, fearful and anxious, but we can do something about it. We have a unique moment in time to grasp this, and this legislation is one part of that unique moment in time.
Professor Martin Marshall: You will not be surprised to hear that morale in general practice is at rock bottom. We read about it in the newspapers every day. Surveys that we have conducted of our members suggest that 60% of GPs say that their mental health has deteriorated significantly over the last year. Anxiety, depression, suicide, ideation—33% of GPs say that at least once a week they find it almost impossible—
The Chair
Order. Could we keep to referring to what is in the Bill, please?
Professor Martin Marshall: Yes, and I am going to do so. The issue here is that if you speak to GPs, because of the stats that I have just described to you, nobody is talking about the Bill.
The Chair
But we are here to talk about the Bill.
Professor Martin Marshall: And almost nobody is talking about the implications of the Bill, because I guess our job is to engage clinicians with the potential of the Bill.
The Chair
I am just saying from the Chair that we are here to talk about what is in the Bill and to take evidence on the Bill, so we should stay within the confines of what is in the Bill.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: There could not be a worse time for general practice to introduce the Bill, but I do not think that means it should not happen. It has to happen now. The NHS is ready for it, so it has to happen. The fact that general practice does not have the capacity or capability to engage fully with the implications of the Bill will mean that the Bill will not realise its full potential.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: From my point of view, there is never an ideal time to introduce legislation and, certainly, in the midst of a global pandemic is on nobody’s agenda as a good time to do anything legislatively. However, the consequences of not doing it are that the integrated care systems, which are in a really vital part of their evolution and formation, will stall and therefore are far more likely to fail. So my view and the view of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is that we absolutely must go ahead with this legislation in the timeframe. There is never a good time to have a baby or move house, but you still need to crack on and do these things at bad times.
Pat Cullen: Same here: never a right time. If you were to ask nurses on the ground today, carrying out patient care in frontline services, they would say that anything that might improve where things are at the minute will be a bonus. But the issue is how it plays out and whether we are listened to. The professional royal colleges do represent nurses. I am here representing 480,000 nurses today. It is really important that we get this right. There is never a right time, but it is actually a great time if we do get it right.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: I cited earlier the example in Gloucestershire. It has very purposefully built a primary care subgroup of the board in order to provide that clinical expertise and that clinical sounding board to everything that goes on at board level. That seems to me to be a really good way of moving on from a single GP on the board—which will be helpful but will have limited impact—to actually making a real difference on the ground. The real change, of course, will not happen at ICS level anyway. It will happen at local level; it will happen at the place level. That is where real change in integrated care, from the patient perspective, will be enacted and will be felt.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: To build on what Martin has said, there are great examples of clinical panels, which is essentially what we will be talking about. That is a model that works extremely well and which can be broadly based and covering a huge range: primary and secondary care—the whole range of specialities. But in the same way, citizen panels have become something that can be hugely helpful as well. I am very anxious that we also hear the patient voice in the decision making at community level.
There has been a covid culture of creativity. When there was less top-down insistence on following direct process at the start of the pandemic, a lot of creativity was allowed to flourish. I feel we need to capitalise on that culture of creativity. These kinds of panels are exactly the sort of output that has come and they have been hugely beneficial. And, of course, the move to greater digital working has meant that we have been able to reach people that we have not otherwise been able to get. Clinicians leaving the clinical environment to participate has become easier when they can do so remotely. There is a dividend that we should build on.
Pat Cullen: To add to that, I fundamentally believe that the patient voice must be heard in those structures beneath the board. That is how we will really influence and move forward in terms of what is required, and those voices will feed into the population needs assessment at local level. But there needs to be a nurse involved in each one of those structures that feeds right in through to the director of nursing that sits on the board, and that is how you will hold the accountability line up and down.
Edward Argar
Q
Welcome and thank you very much for your evidence this morning and your frank answers to the questions posed. I want to ask a question in the context of what a number of you have raised about the different voices and the extent to which they need to be represented at the different decision-making levels of the new structure. We heard from previous witnesses, for example in the context of public health voices also, about the value that they add. The principle behind this legislation is that it is permissive rather than prescriptive. Therefore it is possible to have a lot more voices; there is only a de minimis level specified as prescribed. What is your view as to whether the appropriate balance between permissive and prescriptive has been struck in the Bill? If you think it has not been, where do you think the balance between permissive and prescriptive has been missed? Shall we start with Pat and then work our way along?
Pat Cullen: I have said very clearly that I believe the nurse needs to be represented at the board, and that needs to be an executive director of nursing. That needs to be prescriptive; it is not good enough to have it placed within mandatory guidance, it needs to be within the Bill. That is a red line for our nurses, and it will remain a red line, and we will be putting it forward as a red line.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I am going to be slightly subtler with what I say about this. I think the legislation, as drafted at the moment, is very enabling, and the implementation of it is where the great improvement in how we deliver care will come. I do think it is permissive, and I do think that it is enabling, and I completely understand my colleague’s desire to include specific words relating to nurses, GPs and whoever. What is vital for me is that the clinical voice is loud, clear, and can be influential. That is about implementation, culture and behaviour at a local level. Once we have the words for the final legislation, it is a question of how on earth we deliver it and support people to do it well, and how we learn from the best practice that is out there. That would be my—and our—view.
Professor Martin Marshall: In my 30 years as a GP, I cannot think of a single piece of legislation that has directly changed my practice on the ground. What I can see is the extent that legislation sets a tone and a culture within which clinical care is provided. I think this Bill is appropriately permissive, but, given the variation in all the challenges that we have identified, it needs to be permissive with really good oversight to ensure that the consequences of implementation do not lead to dramatic variation across the country.
Edward Argar
Q
Going back to Pat’s evidence, but also to all of you: we have heard in our evidence today, and we heard it on Tuesday, a lot of different, vital parts of the system arguing the case for why they should be represented in a prescriptive way. Equally, we will have others arguing that a committee beyond a certain size becomes less effective. In terms of numbers, we have set a minimum. You are entirely entitled to say that you do not have a view on this, but how would you see the balance being struck between different groups making the case for representation, but, equally, having an effectively sized decision-making body? We will start with Martin, and then work backwards.
Professor Martin Marshall: I am glad to say that I do not have a view, but I do think that the boards should be small in order to be effective. They need to listen to advisory groups and sub-boards below them; it is the structures below the board level that will really make the difference.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: Formally, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges does not have a view. Personally, I have chaired boards from as few as five people, through to boards of 70 people, all of which can be hugely effective if managed well. However, the larger the board gets, the tighter the management has to be, because it is harder to get voices heard and for everyone to feel represented. Essentially, I am saying the same as Martin: smaller boards are generally more effective at getting through the agenda, but there has to be a high degree of trust in those that are actually on the board, and strong lines to sub-groups, for them to function with maximum effectiveness.
Pat Cullen: The board needs to comprise the right people. It is not about numbers; it needs to have the right people with clinical focus and patient care driving the outcomes for patients, and it needs to make sure that it does not develop a financially focused agenda. As director of nursing I have been there too many times: the table loses focus on the patient’s voice and needs. There needs to be a clinical focus and the right people at the table.
The Chair
Thank you very much. As there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of our morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 o’clock this afternoon to take further evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 9th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 September 2021 - (9 Sep 2021)
The Chair
We are going to hear from Richard Murray, chief executive of the King’s Fund, Nick Timmins, senior fellow, policy, at the King’s Fund, and Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust. Thank you very much for coming. Could I ask each of you in turn to introduce yourself for the record?
Nigel Edwards: I am Nigel Edwards. As previously stated, I am the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust.
Nick Timmins: I am Nick Timmins, a senior fellow at the King’s Fund.
Richard Murray: I am Richard Murray, chief executive of the King’s Fund.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: There is obviously a risk with any large-scale transformations, and particularly ones in the NHS, that they will cause too much disruption, and they distract people from the day job. I think that is the clear case against. If I may, I will just say a few words, though, on the case for. The existing system already causes disruption, so there are complicated workarounds; there are procurements being done that do not really need to be done. I would not underestimate the fact that there is a headwind in the system from trying to apply the 2012 legislation. There was a real head of steam, coming through covid, of people working together, trying to make this system work, still having to deal with some of those workarounds and still having to deal, sometimes, with doing things in an emergency that you probably would not be able to do in peacetime, so to speak.
The key thing is to try to keep the disruption to a minimum—wherever possible, and particularly for staff, to keep that degree of unnecessary churn down. I have to say, unfortunately, the NHS is quite good at doing large-scale churn without too much benefit. But I think on balance that as these changes are already under way and there are problems with the previous system, stopping now would be more disruptive than simply carrying on.
Nick Timmins: I do not want to take up a lot of time. I particularly agree with that last remark: stopping now would be worse than carrying on. A lot of this is already happening. We have been merging clinical commissioning groups ever since the new system came in in 2012. It is sort of completing a journey. You may not be entirely happy about all the arrangements around the different sorts of board and what have you, but to stop now, I think, would be not sensible.
Edward Timpson
Q
Nick Timmins: In large measure.
Nigel Edwards: I do not have anything to add, given the time. I agree with everything that has been said.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: I am afraid that is not an area we have focused on—sorry.
Nigel Edwards: Likewise.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Q
Secondly, there is the treatment of capital in the system and how local communities, healthcare systems and trusts will be able to develop estates and capital planning. The third obsession has completely eluded me for the moment. It is generally about the tariff—that may be your subject, Mr Edwards—and how the vague nod to a new tariff framework in the Bill is working out. You may be more privy than the Committee to the details on how that might work out; it is about the flow of money within the system. Would you like to start, Mr Edwards, on governance, tariff and capital?
Nigel Edwards: Richard may be able to give a more up-to-date account on capital. You will be aware that the mechanisms for the allocation of capital in the NHS are a little arcane and somewhat out of date. There have been various attempts to update the mechanisms. Richard has been looking at this and can perhaps tell us more, but my impression is that it will flow following the allocation formula for revenue. There will still need to be a tariff. Despite the fact that there is integration, a tariff allows you do to a number of useful things. Certainly, patients will flow between different ICSs, so there will need to be a mechanism to account for that. It is also quite a useful budgetary tool, so in terms of financial control, it is probably quite important that the tariff is maintained.
We have been promised guidance on the flow of funds more locally, but we have not yet seen it. My presumption is that there will be a negotiated process rather than just a straight use of the tariff in the way that we have seen up until now, with variations on block contracts, maybe using the tariff—or, more likely, the historical budgets—as the starting point. The business-as-usual capital, as opposed to major capital projects, remains as it always has been. Although it is subject to some review, at the moment I do not think a major change is proposed for it, but Richard probably knows better.
Nick Timmins: I have nothing particular to say about capital. I do think you need to retain a tariff—not for everything, because in some areas of healthcare it just does not work, but for electives and those sorts of procedures. That has two advantages: it means you need to understand your costs to construct the tariff in the first place so it is a driver of efficiency, and, equally importantly, it gives you a benchmark price with which to negotiate with the private sector whenever you do outsource some operations and procedures. You are able to say, “This is what is costs us, so this is what we’ll pay you.” If you do not have that, you are subject to a seller’s market and can be charged what you like because you do not know what your own costs are.
Richard Murray: On the flow of money, we are expecting revenue allocation to ICSs based on the current formula, trying to reflect need, inequalities, deprivation and age. The uncertainty is then how much those ICBs will allocate down to place level on a local government footprint. The expectation is that quite a large proportion of that funding—general practice, community services, quite a lot of mental health, and some acute services, too—will go down to that level, but none of that is in the Bill. The allocation to ICSs stops at that point, and as has been said, you need a payment mechanism to get the money off what are, effectively, commissioners and over into providers.
The changes to tariff are mostly about flexibility, so it should still be transparent; you should still be able to work out what people are being paid, which I think is important, and you should be able to benchmark between different providers, but instead of paying for each operation and each widget bit by bit, you can have formulas that try to reflect fixed costs. You can do it in a different way that adds some flexibility into the system, which I think is important when you are trying to bring providers and commissioners into common alignment over where the money is going. Tariffs had the problem of setting them at each other’s throats sometimes, because every time someone was admitted to a hospital you would get another payment, so commissioners wanted to keep it down and providers wanted to keep it up. There is the chance to try to align some of those incentives, but there is still a lot of gap around what actually will go down to place and what will determine it; of course, again, the budgets need to be equitable.
Nigel Edwards: Richard, if I may, I think a very important point that ought to be made here is that because the allocations will now shift from 100-plus clinical commissioning groups to 42 ICSs, the variations between them will be evened out. There will need to be some way of recognising the fact that within an ICS, you have very different patterns of need, which at the moment are recognised by the allocation formula, but in the future will not be. The money will be received by the ICS, so I think there is a question there. I know that local authorities—and, indeed, GPs and primary care networks—will want to say, “If we are in a particularly deprived area and we have historically had higher funding to recognise that, we would expect that to continue.” There ought to be a line of sight from the national allocation formula based on need to the money that is received by our locality.
Sorry, Richard. I thought you made a really good point.
Richard Murray: That is absolutely all right. On capital, the Bill does not really change the way that capital works in this system. The only difference is the ability of the Department, through NHS England, to cap the spending of foundation trusts, which they have not been able to do in the past. There are some limits around them being able to do that, but it gives an additional lever at national level. Having said that, the way that capital is working in the system has changed fundamentally already: some capital goes through an allocation system, a bit like the revenue funding, and I am leading a review for NHS England now on how that money flows.
The bit that I think is really uncertain is how the big hospital schemes get picked. That is the bit that looks very different. Obviously, there is a manifesto commitment. There used to be a process by which it was determined whether providers could afford to repay—if they could do it through loans, or if there was a need system. That is now going off in a completely different place, and I think that is the bit that is not quite clear. How does that work within this system? Who gets to choose how those projects get picked, so to speak? That is the big change but, again, it is not actually in the Bill; it is being done under the existing rules.
The Chair
I am really sorry, Karin, but I think we have to move on, because we have about seven minutes left for Back Benchers, and three indicating. Jo Gideon.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: It will certainly make it easier. You remove some of the unnecessary impediments that have got in people’s way and pushed them into complex workarounds. It creates a structure through ICBs and integrated care providers to bring people together, so in that sense, it enables these things and makes them easier. However, if I am honest, you could still have NHS England and the Department deciding to run everything through ICBs and making them behave an awful lot like NHS bodies of the past. It enables those things, but the legislation by itself cannot prevent some of the older behaviours from living on. That is why implementation and what happens afterwards is critical, to try to ensure that it delivers on the things that I genuinely think it is trying to do. There is a heavy weight from the past of very centralised control that focuses very much on the independent republic of the NHS. That is the cultural issue that the people who will have to implement this will have to work against.
Jo Gideon
Q
Richard Murray: I would really ensure that local government is part of this. It is an independent voice, and has already been a useful counterweight to some of those centralising forces, as local government comes closer to the NHS. Ensure that people from the voluntary sector are there. They do not follow the orders that come out of NHS England, so you are putting people directly into the system who carry some of that independence and are looking out fundamentally to their local communities. That really is the strength of some of the ICP structures—that you have those people round the table and, indeed, some of them on the ICB itself. Really invest in that place-level work. That is where a lot of the excitement will come from working with local government, and again with the voluntary sector and primary care. Do not get too focused on the ICS as this interim middle step, because it is quite distant from where a lot of the action goes on.
Nigel Edwards: It is not just upper tier local authorities that have an important voice in this. I think that Richard is right: a lot of the most interesting and bigger changes are likely to happen at the place level. It is probably the case that quite a lot of legislation has not really affected how patients are cared for or how professionals work. In some senses, that is not a bad thing. I think this does remove some of the behavioural oddities of the hybrid market and other systems that we had.
It will introduce some other hazards, in particular—Richard sort of referred to this—the slight danger of ICSs becoming inward looking, and some organisations, and the independent and voluntary sector, being excluded and not feeling that they have a voice. The challenge that local authorities can bring to that will be important, as will behavioural change from NHS England and some of the regulatory machinery, but you cannot legislate for that. That is a cultural change that is probably beyond the scope even of legislators.
Nick Timmins: Yes, and you can see that in evidence that you have already heard about the construction of the board and the partnership. It seems clear to me—you have heard from the Local Government Association—that some local authorities were happy to join a single board and others felt that that was too much of a loss of sovereignty, which is why we have ended up with this slightly complicated system of an NHS board and a partnership board. Probably, in an ideal world, it would have been better if it was one, but you have to live with what people are prepared to do.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Q
Nigel Edwards: The current system dates back to Andrew Lansley, who set up four tests. Do not ask me what they are. I can look them up, but I cannot remember them. However, they were good. They involved local people and clinical support. You had to make an evidence-based case. Then there was a process that involves local stakeholders, and then there was the opportunity for review by the Secretary of State and referral by local authorities and the independent reconfiguration panel, which has been a remarkably longstanding innovation, given the way that NHS organisations are formed and then abolished. It has done, I think, a very good job.
The current system seems to me to work quite well. The Secretary of State still has a say, particularly around controversial decisions, but they do not get sucked into every small reconfiguration and change. You also do not have a point where there is an opportunity for local participants to say, “I’m not going to contribute to this conversation any more. I’m going straight to the top,” and undermine people working together locally. I am of the view that the current system works quite well. I think we said to the previous Secretary of State, “You need to be really careful what you wish for. You may think that your intervention is going to help to move things along and improve innovation. It’s quite likely, from both previous experience and experience in other similar types of systems, to have the opposite effect.”
Richard Murray: I would not disagree with anything that Nigel said. Also, the clauses in the Bill as they stand at the moment are really, really unhelpful. There may be things you could do to make reconfiguration easier, but I think they would be working around the margins of what Nigel said. It would not be wholescale intervention without limit by Ministers in local decisions—that would mean any change, of any service, could go up to the Secretary of State. Also, if you need to make an emergency move for an operational reason, you would need to write to the Secretary of State in advance—you kind of think the clue is in the fact that it is an operational crisis. I think that the legislation as drafted would not give Ministers what they want, so I really think it is not helpful at all.
Nick Timmins: Can I just add to that? I think it is really dangerous for both Ministers and the NHS. Not many people know about the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. It has worked very well. It has dealt with about 80 controversial cases. It quite often suggests some amendment, and the Secretary of State does not have to take its advice, but the Secretary of State almost invariably does take its advice. I think that if we end up with lots and lots of reconfigurations hitting Ministers’ desks, Ministers will come to regret that. If you listen to the views of previous Secretaries of State, they almost always say, “It’s ludicrous we ended up having to make a decision about what was going to happen”—in Nether Wallop or wherever—which was the case before the Independent Reconfiguration Panel was around.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: There are a couple of things around competition. Probably the most obvious one is that it never really worked. A lot of care, particularly urgent or emergency care, is not an area for choice in the first place, so you are already dealing with a fairly specific part of the health service and drawing an awful lot of attention into that one element of the service when a lot of the interest is in care for people with long-term conditions and how you stop overuse of A&E and emergency services. There are lots of examples of things, particularly uncertainty around competitive procurement. Commissioners were anxious about where they stood in law so they used, and probably overused, competitive procurement.
I know from speaking to some commissioners that they sometimes felt slightly powerless to influence the provider side so they would put it out to procurement instead. There was very little sign that all the effort and bureaucracy that went into that really did any good at all. Let us step away from that and enable more co-operative working, to try to get the kind of change that we need for long-term conditions, for the real health conditions that this country faces. I should say that a lot of the academic evidence has found no benefits of competition, so not only was it not a helpful thing, it just did not seem to work—probably reflecting the fact that we have such shortages in this country. Competition works only when there is a meaningful choice.
On the triple aim, you would not want the system to get tied up in a new round of bureaucracy, form filling and ticking boxes, to show that it has duly considered the triple aim. I think it is also important to make sure you do not lose the issue of inequalities from the triple aim. I would not want to exaggerate: does legislating a grand vision make people do things differently on the ground? I think it is helpful to remind NHS providers and others that absolutely they should be thinking about the quality of care; absolutely they should be thinking about value for money and making sure they are efficient. But they also have a duty to the health of the wider population. You can then, through that triple aim, bring the different parties in this system closer together, and I think that for some non-executive directors and for governors, it is quite helpful to know that they are all working in the same direction. So I would not exaggerate the kind of change it would bring, but I think it is a move in the right direction.
Nigel Edwards: Can we just nuance the competition point? Actually, there were two elements to the competition regime. One was the very formal going out to tender and big, bureaucratic procurements—often resulting in the reappointment of the previous provider at significant expense. But the other component was patient choice—for diagnostics, for maternity and for elective surgery. I think that dynamic has benefits. One of the slightly worrying things in some of the plans produced by the ICSs’ predecessors—the STPs or strategic transformation partnerships—was a wish to “repatriate” work, as they called it, which meant to bring work back from providers outside their patch into their own. That was not necessarily a good thing; patients should have the opportunity to have a choice of provider and, particularly in the case of specialised services, one would be concerned about people saying, “Let’s grow our own services locally,” rather than, “Let’s use centres of excellence.”
The maintenance of patient choice, and ensuring that ICSs do not act to limit patient choice, particularly for those patients living on their margins, is quite an important dynamic; almost all ICSs have borders with someone else, and patients naturally flow across them. People want to be able to make choices, because they have an existing relationship with a provider or because they have a relative who lives nearby and could care for them while they are there. There is international evidence that that dynamic has a beneficial effect on providers’ behaviour.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Q
Richard Murray: That is a very fair point; it did create that tension within the system, because more activity was what made you successful and gave you your bank balance. The flexibilities that the Bill gives to step away from those more mechanistic tariffs that pay for activity should enable that, with two caveats. First, much of this will come in guidance from NHS England about exactly how this will work; there is clearly not enough detail in the Bill to do that, and why would there be? That still needs to be worked through.
Secondly, it is quite complicated to get right; this is a very difficult thing to do, and one of the pointers we see in some other countries, such as New Zealand, is a focus on everybody working together and not getting too caught up in trying to divide up the pie between competing parties. Again, that is where things such as the triple aim may help to keep people’s minds focused on the purpose, which is good quality care, value for money and a healthy population. There are more flexibilities in this system to do that, so that we do not get the kind of perverse incentives we have seen in the past.
Dr Whitford
Q
Richard Murray: I think there will need to be a change in culture here; it is almost inevitable that if you look within different ICSs, you will find extremely financially successful institutions next door to some that are deeply troubled and that are facing problems in community services, general practices and other services. There will be a need for a culture change, but one that does not lose sight of the fact that you want organisations to be well run. You do not want to end up with some of the weaker organisations thinking, “I shall now pass this problem on to my big brother down the road who has very deep pockets.”
You need to try to maintain the right incentives and support for institutions to run themselves well, to keep the value-for-money element of the triple aim, while also being able to move money around the system without getting caught in silos such that the acute trust has all the money and mental health does not. We need to be able to begin to move money across those different boundaries, which the old financial system did not help us to do.
Dr Whitford
Q
Richard Murray: You would hope that the ICBs would have that power and the ICPs would try to set the direction. For many of the really tricky pieces between community services, general practice and social care, it is probably more at place; the ICBs are often so big that they are unlikely to get directly involved in those decisions. They can set the framework and try to ensure that in some sense it is working as a whole, but many of those decisions will come down at place level.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nick Timmins: I have little to add. This is really an issue of behaviour, culture and financial flows. It is not something that the Bill can lay down or dictate.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nick Timmins: The tariffs definitely caused some problems. Changing the way the tariff is used is very important, but that does not mean that you should get rid of it entirely.
Dr Whitford
Nigel?
Nigel Edwards: I agree with all of that. This gives a vehicle that will allow many of those perverse incentives to be removed. People found ways of working round them previously, but this simplifies things. Richard made the point that it is definitely the case that some trusts, particularly acute trusts, have done very well out of the tariff. They will find it quite painful to make the adjustment, but that is not a reason for not making the change.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nigel Edwards: I have sat with a number of different geographies and tried to work that out, and it is probably going to be different in different places. Some of the ICSs are quite geographically coherent and have a lot to do with each other. For others, such as Cheshire and Merseyside or BOB—Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West—there is less in common at the strategic level. It will be quite different in different places, particularly where there are powerful upper-tier local authorities within ICSs. They will want to have a strong voice at the place level.
One of the virtues of the legislation as currently formulated is that it allows some flexibility, and it allows people to tailor some of those relationships to fit their local geographies. But I would see the partnership part of this having a very important role in shaping the overall strategy. For quite a lot of people, the risk is having too many meetings and too many partnerships. It is very important that the partnership board sets the agenda and then the places and the ICB get on with it.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nigel Edwards: Yes. The NHS has always had a bit of an obsession with neatness and uniformity. If there is one thing that I have learned from working with these different ICSs, it is that they are very different in terms of their physical, political and psychological geography. Trying to fit a standard model of governance to them would be a mistake. We need to hold them to account for how well they are implementing their plans and how far they are improving outcomes for their population. We need to know whether they are making the best of the money that we are giving them, rather than whether they are conforming to a centrally designed governance model that will work on average, and that will therefore work nowhere.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Nigel Edwards: This took us all somewhat by surprise, I think it is fair to say. Richard may have had a different briefing from the Department of Health and Social Care on yesterday’s announcement. I picked it up on reading the document; it was not pointed out to me. I think I read it slightly differently. It seemed to me that the plan was likely to be a formalisation of all the activities that are currently going on, rather than a new direction of policy, but I am probably the wrong person to be asking about that. If it is not that, it would not be very helpful.
Richard Murray: One of the things the documentation speaks about is the planning of the health and social care workforce. You asked where I think the Bill is deficient. One example is its inability to help with the very poor track record, over quite a long time, in planning the health and social care workforce—hence all the problems that we have with the workforce right now. There is a nod in the White Paper to that. It may only be that the crossover between those two workforces is not the fundamentals of the numbers that go through them.
Otherwise, I really hope that the White Paper is not about further legislative change. It might be about setting out, for example, the outcome measures that would really work for an ICS, meaning that it will cover both critical issues for the NHS and critical issues for health, public health and social care, to make sure that you have that rounded and meaningful measure so you know who is doing well. If it is another round of legislation, I must admit that I would pause before saying whether that is a good idea, with the exception of the workforce issue, which remains the critical factor here.
Justin Madders
Anything to add, Nick?
Nick Timmins: The workforce does need to be tackled—it is just a glaring hole in all this. The NHS has plenty of policy at the moment; it has had an eight-year drive towards better integrated care—that is what the Bill is focused on—and a lot of that will not come through legislation, beyond what is in the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Nigel Edwards: Each ICS is supposed to have a chief finance officer—a director of finance—and an accountable officer. That is the starting point. I think the question to ask them would be to what extent they are spending money in a way that reduces health inequalities and improves outcomes in an equitable fashion—I think they would want to do that. One of the things that has very much struck me in my conversations with ICSs—this is very much influenced by local government, which will be a powerful advocate for this, as will primary care networks—is that quite a lot of people will be scrutinising this. The person to ask who is clearly accountable for answering that question is the accountable officer of the ICS.
Of course, ICSs do not have a legal obligation to distribute money below place level. You might not want to do that, because there is a need to be flexible, and sometimes you might want to spend more in a particular area if there is a sudden strategic priority, but over the long term, the expectation is that those accountable officers should be able to demonstrate that they are spending money in ways that relate to the objectively assessed needs of their populations.
Justin Madders
Q
Nick Timmins: I think that is exactly the right question to ask. What have Ministers not been able to get the NHS to do without the powers of direction that he is seeking? When they were presented, it was as though the NHS was somehow unaccountable when, as I am sure you all know, Ministers can tell the NHS what to do through the mandate. The difference in the current system is that NHS England has to agree that what it is being asked to do is reasonable. If NHS England does not think it is reasonable, resourceful or doable, it can object, and the Minister then has to come to Parliament and explain why he is, in effect, instructing the NHS to do something. A measure comes before you and is subject to a negative resolution. If someone rejects it, it can be debated, so there is a perfectly good mechanism there right now. I think the really, really important question is: what are Ministers not able to get the NHS to do that means that they now feel the need for new powers of direction?
Justin Madders
Does anyone wish to add to that?
Nigel Edwards: I have no answer to that question.
Richard Murray: If the reason is not made clear, you end up starting to get worried and suspicious: “Are they trying to direct money towards one part of the country rather than another and overturning the allocation mechanism? Do they want powers to intervene in procurements?” Those are all the things that you would not want them to do which, to be honest, health Ministers generally have not done anyway. Even when they had the powers, they tried desperately not to get involved, because it is extremely poor governance and extremely poor value for money. However, without that explanation of why they want it, the temptation is to start worrying about what they want the power for.
Some of the behaviours could be governed through the framework agreement, or they should be able to be. You have the mandate that sets direction over the short to medium term, but the framework agreement also sets out the way NHS England should work with other parts of the system, so there are other things that you can use within this system. As it stands, and if it stays as it is now, to provide comfort to people, the temptation is to start listing the things that Secretaries of State should not direct—they should not direct allocations to individual parts of the country; they should not interfere in procurement decisions. You end up with quite a long negative list, but I would probably rather have a negative list than no list.
Nigel Edwards: The problem with negative lists, of course, is that you will forget something.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Q
Nigel Edwards: I think we have shared our anxieties about the reconfiguration and direction powers. In terms of what this does to the organisational architecture, it seems to me to strike the right balance between permissive and directive.
Nick Timmins: I would echo that. I have major reservations about the new powers of direction and, I think, major reservations if you build in reconfiguration service changes. The good thing about this—it has been the good thing about the development of the integrated care system so far—is that it is quite flexible. That is unusual in the NHS’s history: we tend to come up with very prescriptive solutions for what the system should look like everywhere, when in practice the circumstances are different, so I think the balance is pretty good.
Richard Murray: You could easily criticise the degree of permissiveness; you could criticise the degree of direction in there. The question should be, “Can anyone come up with a better one?” We have not been able to do so, so I think it is a balance well drawn. Of course, a lot will then rest on the behaviours that are shown after the Bill is through—whether people live up to that kind of core belief around that permissiveness and the freedoms that have been given.
The Chair
We have time to squeeze in one very quick one, if anyone has something else to ask.
Justin Madders
Q
Richard Murray: I think a longer-term mandate is a better thing. The idea that each year, sometime between December and March, you can set a different expectation on the NHS is operationally unreal for the system. They cannot do it, so I think we want to get back to something where you set out a clearer medium-term objective for the things you want the NHS to achieve, whether that is reduced waiting times or better health, and allow them to try and work towards it.
Budgets on that basis would also be incredibly helpful—if you are working in the service not knowing what capital you might have two years down the line and what revenue you might have. I think there is a real chance to do that in the spending review. That is a move in the right direction; we just have to make sure that if the budgets are still set on an annual basis, you do not get a diversion between what it is you have been asked and the budget then being suddenly moved on that annual basis. I would strongly encourage the Government to also try and set multi-year settlements for the NHS, as used to be done, so that people can plan at local level.
Nick Timmins: If memory serves me right, the original idea of the mandate was a rolling three-year mandate. You set the objectives of the NHS and what you want it to achieve, and you can have a little review of it each year, but it is clear. I probably should have said that if the money was also planned on the same basis, that would help no end.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of our time. I thank our witnesses very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Dame Gill Morgan and Louise Patten gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: I am Dame Gill Morgan. I am chair-designate of Gloucestershire ICS, but I have been involved there for over two years, so I have seen the development of this movement. I am now the elected chair of the terribly titled NHS Confederation advisorate. What is important about that is that it includes all the ICS chairs that have been and all the ICS people who have been acting in as accountable officers for the work that has developed thus far, so I think I bring a perspective on the reality of what people worry about.
I have been involved with health service Bills for well over 20 years. This one is an exemplar of how people can work with a service to develop a Bill that largely has the support of the system. People have engaged, listened, changed things and taken the frontline views seriously into account. We do not agree with everything, but you asked our think-tank group of people about some of the issues and changes and the permissive approach, and all those things are truly endorsed. For me, it has been the best experience in 25 years of involvement in healthcare. I want to have that noted because people worked really hard to do that.
In contextual terms, you have to realise that this is the first time the NHS has tried to do something fundamentally different. We always legislate for things that look the same—they quack the same, they walk the same, they waddle the same—yet systems and communities are fundamentally different. My ICS, which I am proud to be part of, has a population of about 600,000, and 15 other ICSs have populations of under 1 million. They have our characteristics of closeness of community and long-standing trust. On the other hand, there are some very big ICSs. What the Bill has done well thus far is to create a permissive environment that allows us to see how we can flourish as well as the big places. If you try to define it—
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt you. This session is intended for Members to ask you questions rather than for you to make a statement. I would prefer to move to Louise Patten and ask her to introduce herself so that we can get on with the questions.
Louise Patten: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Louise Patten. I head up the ICS network and NHS clinical commissioners at the NHS Confederation. I am also a clinician.
Karin Smyth
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: What is different about this Bill is that it is the first time that local government will be very actively involved in those decisions. It has always been involved in scrutiny and big changes, but it will be heavily represented on our partnership board. We have four local government people, including two elected members on our ICB—integrated care board—so we are bringing in the local government elected people.
We intend our partnership board to meet in public and we are looking at exactly how many of our meetings of the ICB should be in public. Clearly, when talking about quality and clinical stuff, the actual deliberations need a private bit—[Interruption.] When talking about named individuals, yes, they do; but when talking about the quality of the service in general, that is something that needs to be clear and in the public domain. We need to get the balance right between what we need to do publicly and what we need to do privately—as we will, because we will have so much local government involvement, with elected members, as well as Healthwatch and other people like that. They are all intrinsic parts, in a way that they have never been before. It has never felt as engaging to me as it does now, certainly in my patch.
Louise Patten: From my point of view, having experienced health overview and scrutiny committees as an accountable officer, the patients and public certainly feel that there is the voice of that local place. It is important to NHS leaders that that continues—that ability to have local scrutiny at local level, which is very much where patients and service users feel is the right place to do it.
At the strategic level, we must not forget that ICSs comprise both the integrated care board and the partnership. This is a real opportunity to tether the NHS to always thinking about the wider determinants of health, social value, public health and, again, patient experience.
Edward Timpson
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: Our big learning about all of this is that, at the end of the day, many of the structures do not matter; what matters is people being in the same room, having the conversation about common purpose, and getting to know and trust each other. The reflection on that has been why we now have such an emphasis on place. If you have a really large ICS and you are trying to do it all, you are so distant from patients, citizens and clinicians that you will never have the contact. Place, in those bigger systems, has to be where you begin to pull those things together, by getting the right people to engage and developing the right level of trust.
As far as clinical engagement is concerned, the ICS is about three things—the triple aim, which is, basically, how do we get better health services today, which are responsive, high-quality and all those things we want; how in the long term do we create populations that are healthier than they are today, which means thinking about employment and all those bigger things; and, in the middle, how do we take services that we deliver today and transform them to be more community-orientated, better for citizens and delivered where people want them? In each of those three boxes, clinicians are absolutely fundamental.
A lot of our effort—in particular around covid and some of the successes—has been in getting that synergy, with clinicians in the transformation box feeling that they can not only write on what the hospital does, but define what the community does and what the GPs do, because they are all working collectively. That has been transformational. Certainly, we would not have managed covid as effectively as we have without those sorts of relationships running all the way through the system as a thread.
Louise Patten: The clinical leadership has to be multi-layered, right the way through from the strategic level to place. We have to have clinical advice and we must heed it when we are talking about planning clinical services. That is fundamental. I think it will involve different groups of people. If it is a care pathway about cardio-vascular disease or a professional pathway about social care, we must heed clinical and professional advice when we are planning these services, so it is multi-layered.
Edward Timpson
Q
Louise Patten: From strategy right the way down to grassroots implementation.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: It is about multi-layering of advice. We will have a primary care sub-committee partly because managing primary care, and all the things that come through GMS and the opportunities, is expert; we do not want it to be subsumed by a generalist groups. We want it to have proper focus, because if our vision of the future is right, we need better and more engaged primary care at local level that can link its services more effectively with support in the hospital and the community. That is the objective, so we will have that.
We will also have an ICB. GPs will have different views. That is one view, which is about me as a jobbing GP. I go in in the morning, and I do my work and all of those things. I need to be supported to do that, but I also need GPs in the system who are engaged in management. We are very proud of our primary care networks, which are beginning to pull together around our localities, because we are smaller and it is not a big place.
There are models where they are working with second tier local government, where they are beginning to think about housing, and they are working with the voluntary sector, so when they are talking about frailty, it is not a GP or a hospital conversation; it is a system conversation in this place. All of a sudden there are things that can be unlocked. If we leave it in any one box, as we have always done in the past—there is a box for acute, for this and for that—we do not get this. Our task is to make those boundaries semi-permeable, with the expectation that we look at the patient flowing through all those boundaries, rather than pretending that patients sit in an individual box, because they do not.
Louise Patten: Frankly, stakeholders who are anxious about whether they have a place on the partnership board or the integrated care board need support in being helped to co-ordinate their response, so they have a collective voice. The variations for ICSs are huge, from a population of 600,000 right the way through to just upwards of 3 million. Supporting those stakeholders to have a united voice and providing assistance will be really helpful.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: The first thing is that you would try to make sure that you have developed a mechanism for engagement and trust, so that you do not get into those sorts of disagreements. If you get into those disagreements while you are sat around the board, you have failed to do the task of integration and partnership. That is what happens in the conversations about how we solve it. If we ever got into that sort of difficulty, it would have to be resolved at the integrated care board, and we will have local government, public health and social care on our board as full and equal partners.
Alex Norris
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: The more you try to write in legislation, the more it becomes the lowest common denominator and the less you unleash the innovation that you want. I would do something quite different. I would probably write something that requires the different models of ICSs to be formally evaluated over a period of time, so for the first time we could look to structural change and say, “This is what it has demonstrated, not just against the outcome measures measured by the Department of Health and suchlike, but this has been a structural change that has added benefit, or not.” If you are going to do that, it must be done from day one. I think that is more important than trying to put something about solving problems in the Bill. You will never hit the particular strange circumstances of a locality that has problems, because they are always serendipitous.
Alex Norris
Q
Louise Patten: The selection process for chairs and the executive team has got to be about what this integrated care system requires, what sort of leadership, and what are the partners that we have got. No two ICSs are the same. In order to achieve that, it needs to be a local discussion about what it is that this system needs to make sure it has the best leadership to take it forward. That will involve discussion with local people, local stakeholders and potentially the public to sort that, because the leadership will be different in different ICSs.
Alex Norris
Q
Louise Patten: The two will have a very good idea collectively about what leadership is required: one from experience of leaders and the other very much from the grassroots level of, “If this is our system, this is what we need.” It is a combination of the two.
Alex Norris
Q
Louise Patten: It is both/and.
Edward Argar
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: Yes, I think you have got the balance, and that is the joy of working with a Bill team. I think the balance is right. You have tried not to be prescriptive and tie our hands, but you have been clear in the sense of setting a direction and focus that we will all take into account, so you do not have to tell us things to make the NHS do it. We do it because we pick up the runes.
On the issues that we would be more concerned about, I personally am concerned about the ability of the Secretary of State to call in changes. In part that is because the one thing I think the NHS has learnt in the time that I was out and came back is how to do relatively good consultations. We have just finished a massive consultation. Patients have gone with us. The local communities have gone with us, mostly. We have had citizens juries and all sorts of things to reach a consensus about the direction of travel. The worst thing in the world would be that people say, “There is no point in engaging in those mechanisms locally because, at the end of the day, we will just complain to the Secretary of State and it will not happen.” If that becomes the way people manage that part of the Bill, it will take us backwards, not forwards, in terms of proper citizen engagement.
Louise Patten: On balance, it is about the Secretary of State’s powers of reconfiguration, and NHS leaders in general are concerned about that. It is not so much about the Secretary of State having an early understanding of the reconfigurations or the intent, but about the fact that that decision could be taken at a point where all the evidence is not ready to be properly considered.
Building on Gill’s point, patients and the public would be very frustrated if they felt that they had not had an opportunity to be answered, so we are asking, if not for the clause to be removed, for at least the clinical case for change to be considered from the ICB. Coming back to clinical decisions about clinical services, we want that accountability to local communities, not just up to Whitehall, and some transparency about why the decision was made, and on what basis and information it was taken.
Edward Argar
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: I think you are absolutely right: de minimis. What I have argued throughout is that if the centre, if you and then NHS England, which issues guidance, are clear about the principle that we have a proper engagement mechanism with our local authorities and citizens, they need to ask us how we are doing that, and to ensure that our constitution meets that. There are plenty of checks to ensure that it happens without you telling us that we have to have this, this and this.
In our case, we will have mental health and social care around the table, not because we are told to but because we could not imagine how we could do our work at a local level without having those people feeling that they are full partners and sitting around the table. There is a set of concerns about having local government involved in making decisions about the expenditure of large amounts of NHS money. I do not care; they are the local people who need to be involved in the decision making. Actually, if they see the deliberations and challenge first hand we will get better-aligned budgets. At the end of the day, that is to everybody’s benefit.
Louise Patten: There are already five mandated board positions in the legislation. A further five will be in the mandated guidance from NHS England. We are up to 10 already. I think the most important thing here is: where do you stop? There is a risk that there is a perception of two tiers—that those who have a mandated position on the board are of more importance than others. That flies in the face of partnership working.
Edward Argar
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: My view is that we are where we are and we need to progress. Going backwards would be a problem, but actually I am a bit more positive than that. Covid has demonstrated to people that if they think innovatively, out of the box and in partnership ways they can get solutions that are quicker than they would have been before, so in the system as a whole there is a recognition that partnership has offered more. We will all retrench as the world moves on from where we are, but there is real learning from covid on which we can capitalise. Many systems have done reviews of what worked and why, looking for the silver linings in that learning. I think the Bill goes with the analyses that have come out.
Louise Patten: At the NHS Confederation, we have that sort of umbrella view. We must not forget that, on collaboration and integration, people have been working to this for some time. There are some great examples of it, and this legislation moves that opportunity to really accelerate it. People recognise that it is a tight timescale, but they are absolutely committed to doing it.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: There are a couple of statutory sub-groups that we are going to require, like accounts, audit and remuneration. More importantly, over the last few years, systems like ours have developed ways of handling finance and quality that have been about a partnership approach, so you do not have a head of quality covering all the organisations, but you have the heads of quality from all the organisations coming together to problem-solve. The heads of finance come together to work out how to allocate the money. That is a very, very effective way of doing it. It teases out the tensions and gets people who are expert in delivery in those conversations. We will have a number of committees like that. The question is: which ones of those become statutory? Which ones do you do through officers? Where do you build people in? All of them will have primary care build-in, because you cannot do service otherwise.
On the partnership forum, which is a different sort of animal, we had already got into the vehicle whereby the full ICB board took cognisance twice a year, because these outcome measures do not change very rapidly. All we do is talk about those longer-term agendas, so it is not just us saying, “Here’s our plan, over to you.” It is about saying, “What really worries you? How can we help? What is important? How do we do it?” We had a wonderful session on apprenticeships. NHS apprenticeship levy money is being used to support some of the stuff that county councils want to do. That would have never happened in the old days because we were not sat in a room with mutual trust and a single purpose.
At the heart of this, every ICB and every partnership board will have to define, “What’s my purpose? What’s your purpose? What’s our shared purpose?” That managerial trust-developing, partnership-developing work is what will make this a success. I started, and I was rapped across my knuckles by Mr McCabe for saying too much—quite appropriately. At the end of the day, you are not going to get that through legislation. You are going to get it by creating an environment and properly holding us to account for what we are doing in these boxes.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: Indeed. This is guidance, not legislation, so we have to develop a constitution of what we are doing, and we are committed to reviewing it. If today we think that we know what we will need in three years’ time, we are not asking ourselves the right questions, so we need to be reviewing constantly. That is one of the things that we have historically been very bad at in the NHS. We do something, we enshrine it, and then a few years later we throw it all away and start with a new thing. How do we evaluate it? How do we say, “This has been brill, this has been flaky. Let’s get rid of the flaky, and let’s put more of the brill in”? It is that sort of managerial question with us, rather than the very flat, “How do you hit this today?”
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: I personally think that we have to be very careful. I do not know if this is a role for legislation. A joke in the NHS is that pilots are phase 1 implementation. That is an old joke. It is not this Government; it is every Government. We have always said that. We have to be really careful that we build in evaluation across the piece and do not pick two or three metrics that look as if they have gone the bad way to prove what we wanted to argue before. That is done both in favour of things and against things, and we end up with this sort of noise in the system. Let us plan now and get a proper, effective academic unit to build in some evaluation at the end of this time, and then let us all take stock in two and a half years and say, “Hasn’t this been brilliant”—in my opinion, it will be brilliant—or, “It won’t do any harm, but it’ll be nothing”. We have got to do better than nothing.
You will gather that I am in favour of ICSs. [Laughter.]
The Chair
I think we drew that conclusion from your evidence—absolutely.
May I just thank you both very much for giving evidence today? I am sorry that I had to interrupt you, but I am an obsessive timekeeper. Such is life. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Ed Hammond and Andy Bell gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Good afternoon, both. Can you both introduce yourself for the record, starting with Ed?
Ed Hammond: My name is Ed Hammond and I am the deputy chief executive at the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.
Andy Bell: I am Andy Bell and I am also a deputy chief executive, but at the Centre for Mental Health.
Dr James Davies
Q
Andy Bell: It is a really good question and I think that, on its own, the legislation certainly has some potential to assist with that. Of course, there also need to be a number of other things and I can talk about those if that would be helpful.
The first positive thing to say about this legislation is that the idea of integrated care—the practice of providing care that actually links across between mental and physical health, NHS and social care, and prevention and treatment—undoubtedly is the way to go. I think we have a number of areas within the system where we know that people at the moment get very poor support for their mental and physical health, as a result of the lack of integration in the system.
Examples would be people who have both alcohol and mental health difficulties at the same time; people living with long-term physical illnesses, such as diabetes or kidney disease, who get really inadequate and often very poor emotional support, if indeed they have any emotional support at all; and, indeed, people living with long-term mental health conditions, whose physical health is very often very badly neglected, and they have very little support. Integrating care—actually doing that on the ground—and achieving a real change in the way that services are organised around people’s needs would undoubtedly make quite a significant difference and reduce some of those inequalities.
I think the way that the Bill and the various bits of guidance are written gives us some hope that that may happen; it certainly does not answer all of our questions about it. In and of itself, I think it is potentially a step in the right direction, but we need to give some thought to a number of caveats around that.
Dr Davies
Q
Andy Bell: Yes, sure. Again, “integrated care”—we like the words; they are good—but the difficulty in a way is, first of all, the fact that this is very much an NHS-dominated set of proposals. It was written by NHS England for NHS England. I think that if we have a genuinely integrated system, where people will get support across the whole range of services, we need this to be an equal partnership between the NHS, local government, and voluntary and community organisations.
If you look at the proposals, in a sense what they are doing is taking decision making and power within the health and social care system further away from local communities into what are effectively sub-regional groupings. There is not anything very local about integrated care systems in many places, and that gives us some pause for thought. It is very much NHS dominated. If we look at the current health and care system, public health and social care are often the less well-funded and less well-resourced parts of the system. From what we see from the spending plans, it looks like that will become even more the case if you have legislation that, in a sense, reinforces the power of the NHS over other partners. I worry we are not going to get that real shift.
Dr Davies
Q
Ed Hammond: In terms of scrutiny generally, it is a challenging picture, as Andy said. There is a challenge around the need for effective local accountability. That scrutiny is best exerted at a local level. Local scrutiny is much more able to assess and make accurate conclusions about what outcomes have been reached. We do a lot of work as an organisation supporting local councils in their formal health scrutiny functions. The past 20 years of that has demonstrated a significant degree of success in local government being able to lead with local healthwatch in, alongside and on behalf of local people, seeking to understand how local health services design and deliver effective outcomes, challenging, where necessary, through the referral power for substantial variations.
My worries echo Andy’s in that the Bill as it stands moves a lot of decision making, commissioning and direction activity up to system level. Depending on the character, relationships and personalities of the key individuals involved, there is a risk that decision making therefore becomes remote from local accountability, making effective scrutiny of outcomes more challenging to achieve.
Karin Smyth
Q
Ed Hammond: In answer to your first point, I think it is clear. As we become more familiar with what is a complex system—and health governance is complex—some of this confusion will dissipate. As we start to operate practically within these systems, familiarity will breed a degree of confidence in understanding whose roles relate to what. As with all complex systems, it is vital that everybody understands their individual and collective responsibility for governance within those systems and accountability.
It is great when you have a partnership-led framework, in which everybody in the system is working together, and everybody has some stake in the system and in decision making. It is not a hierarchical, dictatorial system; it is one based, hopefully, on dialogue and, to an extent, consensus. The risk of that is that it necessarily dilutes accountability. Where everybody has a stake in decision making, you need some kind of external source of local accountability. That leads on to a second question. I think there is a need for a distinct and separate form of local accountability within these new arrangements at system, place and neighbourhood level. That role is currently performed at a local level in two main places: through local Healthwatch, from whom you will be hearing later, and through local health overview and scrutiny committees.
For me, the risk of these new arrangements is that, first, the removal of the power of referral to the Secretary of State by health overview and scrutiny committees on matters of concern relating to substantial variation of local health services is a worry for us, as it is for NHS colleagues. Also, the focus on system-level decision making will, by definition, make it more challenging for local health overview and scrutiny committees to co-ordinate to form, where necessary, joint committees to effectively oversee, scrutinise and hold to account ICS, ICB and ICP activity at system level.
The Chair
Do you want to add anything to that, Andy?
Andy Bell: Yes. It is a really important question. From the perspective of mental health, we have seen an enormous amount of progress in recent years from local Government really embracing the mental health agenda in many areas and becoming both a partner but also a scrutineer of the NHS through scrutiny committees and through the role of health and wellbeing boards too. The importance of that natural connection through, between the health and wellbeing board with the ICP in particular, the partnership bid, feels like there needs to be a very clear and close relationship and, again, where possible, decisions being made at place level—in the new language—feels really important to allow for that kind of relationship to build and actually become a really positive relationship, because so much of this does come down to relationships. However, clearly, the need for some kind of external scrutiny is incredibly important.
When we think about it from the mental health perspective, where systems or governing bodies—be it the integrated care board or anything else—are allowing mental health to slip through or particular groups of people are being poorly catered for by the system, some kind of external scrutiny and clear accountability is incredibly important. One thing we have said we would like to see in the Bill is an extended and expanded role for the Care Quality Commission to really scrutinise the degree to which integrated care boards and the decisions they are making—and, indeed, partnerships in their strategies—are looking across the board at health inequalities.
At the moment, the Care Quality Commission is very good at inspecting services for whether they are working appropriately with individuals they are seeing, but it has no powers to scrutinise whether the health system as a whole is working fairly and appropriately across all different groups of people. Unfortunately, that means, certainly from what we see in the mental health world, that there are a number of groups of people who get very poor support for their mental health—actually, very little help at all—and there is no current means in the system to address that.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Andy Bell: It is difficult to tell; the Bill is largely silent on mental health. If we had a system where there was genuinely equal regard for both mental and physical health, we would not have to worry about that, because we would know that the system would treat mental health fairly and equally, and there would be no disparity in the way it was thought about. Unfortunately, all our experience tells us that that is not what happens within many health systems at different levels, from very local to national, so we would like to see some assurances in the Bill.
From our point of view, that could happen in one of two ways. Legislation only gets you so far, but it could place specific duties on both NHS England and integrated care boards—I am being very careful in specifying integrated care boards here—that they must take action to ensure that mental and physical health are given equal regard in their decision making, particularly on resource allocation. We feel strongly that there needs to be a voice for mental health within integrated care boards. That is highly likely to happen within integrated care partnerships, but within integrated care boards we do not have confidence that mental health will be properly represented at the top table where important decisions about resource allocation are made.
We think that would help. There are no 100% safeguards in legislation, but one positive thing we have seen with the 2012 Act is that a clause at the very top of the Act talked about mental and physical health as one of the key purposes of the NHS, and that has been used positively and helpfully to make the case for parity in health systems up and down the country. A few simple words can sometimes make quite a big difference.
Edward Timpson
Q
Ed Hammond: For me it starts with an understanding of what decisions are best made at system level and what decisions are best made at place level. Certainly, I would imagine one of the first things that ICBs and ICPs would need to do, once established, would be to determine how to set up a system-wide framework for ensuring equality and equity in terms of how its health and care service is delivered, and then determine how and where it is most appropriate that more detailed decisions come to be made at place level. Otherwise, the system simply becomes too unwieldy.
There are risks that those partners sitting at that system level will draw decision making into those spaces, rather than pushing it back out to localities, because it is the simplest, in many ways the most efficient and apparently the most co-ordinated way of doing it, but in practice it will not serve the interests of local accountability or better outcomes. That raises the prospect of certain services being delivered in different ways in different localities, depending on the political priorities of different councils, but that is local democracy—that is local government bringing its understanding of the demographics of the populations it serves into the conversation.
I think this can all be made to work if there is sufficient transparency in the system, so that those within and those outside it understand how decisions are being made, on what subjects, and by whom. When you have that clarity, it becomes easier to unpick what is happening at place level. Are decisions being made at system level that would be more appropriately made at a lower level? Is there consistency across the entire system? What does the geography mean for decision making and commissioning, and these kinds of things? It provides assurance, and it provides everybody with more confidence that decisions are being made properly in the interests of local people.
Going back to the point I made before, that is also why some external local accountability is so important, because effective local external accountability can challenge the system on whether the right decisions are being made at the right level, and whether they reflect and are responsive to what the local needs are. Local scrutiny committees are, at the moment, anchored at place level within local authorities. They are well able to publicly draw in the voice and concerns of the public about those kinds of issues, and transmit them to health and care partners so that there is a clear way for those concerns and issues to be responded to.
Dr Whitford
Q
Ed Hammond: That is a challenge, because it brings into focus the role that different accountability partners play in the system. We have already heard a little about the CQC and the work it does in assessing and monitoring clinical outcomes. Of course, within ICBs and ICPs there will come to be—one would hope—robust and effective performance management arrangements. Certainly, looking at the Secretary of State’s expectations around the exercise of new powers, one would expect that, for the Secretary of State to understand where he chooses to intervene and direct services, that would be on the basis of evidence that would need to be collected in a consistent and systematic way across England, but also within individual ICBs. Presumably, we can expect some kind of performance framework to be established nationally to provide evidence to support the Secretary of State in the exercise of their powers.
Then at local level, you have, as I mentioned before, local Healthwatch and local health scrutiny communities. Now, local scrutiny committees obviously cannot bring the clinical expertise to bear on issues of concern; the CQC naturally leads on many of those issues. I think what those local partners in local Healthwatch and scrutiny committees can do is understand where there are gaps in the system; where there are concerns about aspects of performance that others have perhaps not picked up on; where there are concerns emerging from conversations within local communities that councillors are hearing about day to day, because they have direct contact with local people; and those concerns that might not otherwise find their way on to a performance scorecard, but might relate to things that are not being monitored, measured or managed particularly well. That local connection is a vital part of what makes health scrutiny work.
Dr Whitford
Q
Ed Hammond: Yes. Where ICBs and ICPs are putting those monitoring arrangements in place, I would certainly expect local clinicians to have a role in assessing, evaluating and analysing that data and evidence. As I have said, committees of local councillors would also be able to do that. I think we have a resource challenge in how that local government scrutiny operates, but as a matter of principle local councillors are increasingly adept at that data analysis, despite the fact that they may not be clinical experts. They are able to carry out some form of analysis. Collectively, we can see that, together, those partners can bring to bear a form of local accountability, primarily at system and place level.
Dr Whitford
Q
Andy Bell: We have hugely underinvested in it, and indeed very poorly appreciated it. What we have seen in recent years, which we hugely welcome, is huge progress on mental health awareness and understanding. That was not there 10 or 15 years ago. It has not been that long since in a debate in the House of Commons the first Member stood up and spoke about their own experience of mental illness; that was hugely powerful, and began quite a significant social movement. However, we do not yet have literacy around that issue, or indeed a real understanding about what we can do to promote the public’s mental health. With the creation of the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities—I must remember to get the name right—there is an opportunity to make public mental health as important as public physical health. How we translate that to local areas will be really interesting.
When I talk to people working in local public health departments, I see a huge enthusiasm for and interest in how they can better support mental support in the communities they serve. We have seen incredibly creative work from around the country, such as in Leeds and Bristol, from public health teams that are leading the way who understand that the things that determine our mental health are very much about the society and environments we live in—the families we come from, the schools we go to, the amount of income we have, and the homes and neighbourhoods that we live in. There is a growing understanding of that. However, we have not yet put that into practice on a large scale, and indeed the resources available to public health departments to do that are very threadbare. Many have to be very creative in how they do that.
We very much welcomed the promotion and prevention fund set up recently by the Government, which gave funding to local authorities in the 40 most deprived local areas in England for mental health promotion activities. We are really looking forward to seeing what that money is used for, and we very much hope that it will be the beginning of something much bigger. Our worry, in relation to the Bill in particular, is the understanding of prevention, and indeed the understanding of prevention that I read in yesterday’s Command Paper on the health and social care plan. It is still based on physical health, and the idea that public health is about telling people how to live their lives and how they should behave, rather than what really determines our mental health: how much money we have coming into our home, how safe we feel, and our position in society. It is really clear that very often the way that economic and social inequalities affect our mental health also affects our physical health. Very often it is poor psychological wellbeing that leads to later physical health problems, so we really have to start taking public mental health as seriously as any other part of public health.
Justin Madders
Q
Ed Hammond: The obvious mechanism is the Secretary of State’s power of intervention. It is all about that referral upwards really to the Secretary of State to act. Ideally, these kinds of things can and should be resolved through dialogue, because the Secretary of State can intervene only so much. One of my worries about the focus in certain elements of the Bill on the new and enhanced powers of the Secretary of State is that it sort of assumes that the Secretary of State will need to have fingers in lots of pies to be aware of where these issues are occurring across England, and be prepared to step in where they are happening, which requires the exercise of a significant watching brief across a wide range of areas in a way that does not currently happen.
Ideally, these kinds of things can and should be thrashed out by the people involved at local level. The Secretary of State can intervene but does that intervention persist if relationships have effectively broken down? What do you do then? You cannot run everything from Whitehall; there has to be some kind of mechanism to rebuild relationships and trust. One would hope that it would not get that bad, but I know of past tensions. There are divergent priorities between local authorities, NHS partners and other partners in respect of health and care issues. The logic of ICPs is that you are aligning those priorities better, but that is not guaranteed.
That is one of the reasons we consider that there should be a role sitting with local health scrutiny committees to escalate matters of particular concern to the Secretary of State, so there is not this assumption that the Secretary of State is exercising a continual watching brief over everything that is going on. There is that formal power of escalation from an external body holding the system to account that can, before that escalation, exert some kind of influence at local level to try to knock heads together and bring some form of agreement in place, so that you are not in a situation where you have a persistent assumption that Whitehall will need to step in in every case where these kinds of issues occur.
Justin Madders
Q
Andy Bell: At the moment, it is really impossible to say. I would like to see the Bill achieving parity of esteem for mental health. As I say, the principles of integrated care could certainly enable that to happen, if combined with a lot of other very significant and important activity to shift the culture in the health service, apart from anything else. The lack of specific provisions in the Bill to ensure that parity is taken seriously is a real worry. I think there are still gaps in the Bill that could be very simply addressed and would help to ensure that system leaders, wherever they are—whether they are on integrated care boards or any other three-letter acronym that gets created—realise that their personal responsibility is to bring about parity for mental health.
I think we are at a point now where there is some recognition in most parts of the system that mental health is important, but very often, outside specific mental health services, there is still an assumption that mental health is something other people and other organisations do, and there is not that shared responsibility for it in quite the way that we think would help to move us forward.
Justin Madders
Q
Andy Bell: This is incredibly difficult. We have some very ambitious plans now—the NHS long-term plan ambitions for mental health. There is, quite rightly, an awful lot of money going into that, because we have a very big gap in our ability to meet people’s needs. The only way that is going to succeed is if we have a very significant expansion in the mental health workforce.
We need to remember that that workforce is not just what people think it is. It is obviously nursing and obviously psychiatry, but it is also social work—a lot of really important mental health provision is in local government under social care. We need to think about the importance of advocacy and the importance of peer support, the importance of employment and housing rights workers, who we know make a big difference to people’s lives. There is also the key role of the voluntary sector in providing forms of support that may not come under traditional clinical headings, but none the less make a huge impact in people’s lives. We need to build the workforce.
The Bill gives some steps forward and summary assurances. In some ways, it is not quite the right place to be dealing with this. This is about whether the various parts of the system—the health education system, the NHS itself and its partners in local government—have the resources and the right ways to encourage people to come and work in mental health. It would be great to see the kind of recruitment campaigns we have had for the NHS as a whole to really help bridge that very big gap in the mental health workforce. At the moment, I think the Bill is probably neutral on it. It would be good to see some stronger assurances, at the very least holding the Secretary of State to account for how they are achieving the workforce ambitions set out in the long-term plan and future policies that will have to come.
Edward Argar
Q
Building on what you have already said about the legislation, what would you identify as the opportunities of the legislation, if properly implemented or interpreted in the right way, for furthering that linkage and that joined-up mental health provision? Obviously, that goes beyond local council services and the NHS. There are a whole wraparound series of services that impact on someone’s mental health. What do you see as the opportunities in the legislation that we either need to draw out further or at least not lose sight of?
Andy Bell: This is about building real, sustainable, long-term partnerships. One of the things I know colleagues in the NHS and local government find very frustrating is that they just find a way of working with each other and then the legislation changes again and they have to start all over, so it is about having a system that actually works and stays working, that builds on the best of what is there already. I think there is some frustration in places where they spent a long time building relationships between clinical commissioning groups and local authority colleagues, sometimes with jointly employed staff, and now they have to start all over again because we are moving to a different thing. That will be immensely frustrating for many folk.
If we take the principle that this is about integrating care and equal partnerships between different players, including the voluntary and community sector, and if we give that time to work, we will enable partnerships to form with a clear voice for people—for example, in the case of mental health, for people living with mental health difficulties—so that decisions are being made with and in partnership with the people who use them rather than remotely by professional experts on their own.
Collaboration is incredibly important too. One thing we really welcome about the Bill is that it is moving us away from a system of competing providers to providers working collaboratively—literally, in providing collaboratives. There is a slight risk that all the power will be vested in one organisation and there will not be that check and balance between commissioner and provider. But some of the early provider collaboratives working in children’s mental health services that we have looked at have made really huge strides really quickly to reduce, for example, the number of children forced to go to hospital outside their local area in a mental health crisis. They have come together, looked at what support is needed for children in a crisis and put community services, in particular, in place to achieve that.
One further thing that will be important is that there is some positive provision in the Bill to ensure that ICBs—I think it is ICBs, yes, it is—have to take into account inequalities in access and outcomes. That is great, but there is not that requirement to pay attention to inequalities in health and to go out and identify which groups of people are experiencing health inequalities and what the system can do to deal with that upstream rather than waiting for people to need formal healthcare. That would be the other part that would really help in the Bill—to build on some of the positive noises and moves in the right direction in collaborating at the level of prevention and on the things that determine our health as well as in the provision of services when things have reached a point where people need care.
Edward Argar
Q
Ed Hammond: Broadly speaking, yes, that is fair. My central point would be that those structures and the opportunity that local government has through this Bill for more direct and active involvement in health and care decision making are good, but there still needs to be that separate independent source of accountability that we feel sits properly at a local level with democratically elected local councillors who have powers through health scrutiny committees to talk to local people about their needs. That needs to be there and needs to be strengthened. In respect of the Secretary of State powers I was talking about, my worry would be that we would see ICBs and ICPs looking over their shoulder at what the Secretary of State might want to do rather than looking down to local communities to understand where local need lies, with decision making being led somewhat by what people think national priorities should be.
Part of the solution to that problem is the things we have proposed around, for example, requiring the Secretary of State to consult with local scrutiny committees before exercising those powers, having the powers for local scrutiny committees formally to escalate things to the Secretary of State to act on, and what we have suggested for more effective joint scrutiny by multiple councils of the ICB at system level as well. Those are all part of that strength and accountability framework. It is about saying, “Okay, we have involved local government in decision making through the ICPs and through continuing the health and wellbeing process, but in doing so we also have to enhance and build on our existing health scrutiny arrangements.” As things stand, the Bill removes elements of those by removing the power of referral. It is about having a balance of accountability arrangements and ensuring that that strong external accountability continues.
The Chair
We had better leave it there. We are out of time. I thank you, Andy and Ed, for your evidence today.
Examination of Witness
Sir Robert Francis QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, Sir Robert. Could I ask you to introduce yourself for the record, please?
Sir Robert Francis: I am Sir Robert Francis. I am chair of Healthwatch England.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We have until 4.30 pm for this session. I call Mary Robinson.
Mary Robinson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: That rather depends on what arrangements are made in the new system. I have seen no guidance issued yet as to how this should work, and I am not surprised at that, because until you know precisely what the structures are and what the accountability and information flows are, it is quite difficult to do that. But I would agree that it is vital in the ICB and the ICP world that sufficient provisions are made for people who have concerns—whether they be staff, patients or the public—to make those concerns known safely to those responsible for doing something about them. In terms of this new world, that means that the ICB and, I suspect, the ICP need to have people who are directly responsible for that. Unless that happens, whistleblowers are going to find themselves in an even more parlous and uncertain place than they are at the moment.
Mary Robinson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Unless there is certainty on guidance, policies and guardians, of which I am a great supporter, people do not know where to go. Clearly, where things are going right in terms of an open culture, there are many people whom others will go to as a matter of ordinary business. But if we are talking about places where, unfortunately, that is not the case—I think they do exist—people do not know who to go to for help. They need to know that they have protection to go to places to provide information of concern, and they need to know that they are going to get support. If there is no guidance and no clear framework, none of that will happen, and secrets will remain at provider level, when they should be sent elsewhere. Existing mechanisms, such as going to the CQC and your local Freedom to Speak Up guardian in your trust, will still exist—I see no reason why those should not—but I suspect there will be areas and subjects where that will not necessarily be the answer to the question the individual wishes to pose.
Jo Gideon
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Healthwatch England welcomes the requirement for Healthwatch and representatives of the public to be “involved”—that is the word—in the strategy, but we would like to see that enhanced, as I am sure many people would, and we just heard that expressed very articulately. In order for these new reforms to work, it is absolutely essential that the public whom the system serves are able to engage with it and participate in the design of the services that they are going to receive. In order to do that, in our view, they need a visible presence on the ICB board and the ICB partnership. Although that can of course be done by local discretion and local arrangement, we think it would be a powerful boost to the importance given to the people’s voice if there was a representative on the ICB—not as a voting member but, in NHS England’s parlance, as a “participant”. It would be a requirement that one of the participants be such a representative, and you will not be surprised to know that we would advocate that person being a representative of Healthwatch.
That can be done through a coalition of local healthwatches—in many places there will be more than one—so that they have a presence on the board and are able to raise things. It is not just a question of the ICS deciding what to ask people about; they need to have a flow of intelligence coming in about what people are actually concerned about, and those two things are often different. It should be someone who is able to question what is happening in a constructive way.
Of course, part of that is done by local government representatives, and this is not a substitute for local democracy, but we consider that Healthwatch has a local and national ability to reach out to groups who do not often get considered, for instance, and that is particularly relevant if you are seeking to tackle health inequalities. Through the relationships that a good local healthwatch has with groups who feel—rightly or wrongly—that they have often been ignored, the questions that they pose can be put and the answers given back to them. That is a two-way process; you need someone who is independent from the system but in the room, and they also need to be able to transmit into the room information from patient services and the public, and transmit information back. They are part of the mechanism for explaining to the world at large this extremely complicated new concept—namely, a system of which the public has no understanding at all at the moment. A lot of professionals do not either.
Edward Timpson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Clearly, patient choice and view include information about people’s experience of the service they have had, where they think the gaps are, and their needs. The less you have a competitive exercise with different organisations coming in and saying, “We can provide this better than X or Y,” the more you need to know what people think about what you are proposing, or indeed the more you need to know to inspire creative thought about how you meet the needs that people are telling you they have.
Our view is that while we actually welcome the removal of the requirement for tendering and all the bureaucracy that, quite often in our healthwatches’ experience, interferes with and delays getting solutions to things, that should not mean that we do not have a concentrated effort to involve patient services and the public in the design of what they are being provided with. In effect, that would include how you commission the service that they are going to be provided with. You then need a constant flow of information and dialogue about whether that is working. Frankly, I do not see a great deal of clarity in the Bill about how performance will be monitored after having commissioned services and worked out your strategy and so on.
Edward Timpson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Definitely, and it would be quite wrong to think that children and young people cannot be fully involved and consulted in the design of the services that are required for their benefit. Many local healthwatches have been very good at doing just that.
Dr James Davies
Q
Sir Robert Francis: I do not think it prevents it, but the extent to which it allows for it will depend, as I understand it, on the strategic decisions being made locally within the system. The answer is that I am not quite sure.
Karin Smyth
Q
Sir Robert Francis: First, there is no ideal person to do the job. I think that past iterations of what is now Healthwatch may have been slightly too full of people who were more interested in constitutional matters than the actual provision of health services. That was the impression I formed during the Stafford inquiry, but I think that is not true of Healthwatch. The presence of a Healthwatch person—by the way, this requires a new level of Healthwatch collaboration and function, but that is not difficult to provide in the Bill—will not produce, in itself, the culture that you talk of. The health service is still an organisation that, in the jargon, is top-down and is delivering things to people, rather than getting their ideas and responding to them. But the presence of the Healthwatch person, or some independent person, is at least a symbol of the need to have such a culture and to develop it. It will be someone whose principal task may be to question whether that culture is being led and developed.
If you have that person, you can back it up if you need to—in regulatory terms—with whatever form of systemic review the Care Quality Commission is tasked with doing. Its reports could certainly be a very valuable tool in relation to this, but you need a channel of communication between the ICB, if that is to be the centre of all this, and the wider world within its constituency. Unless there is someone whose independent role is to oversee whether that is happening, I am not sure it will. All organisations currently in the NHS have directors of engagement and communication. I suspect that, with the best will in the world, most of them see it as their job to defend the organisation. This is not about defending an organisation; it is about welcoming constructive comment from the public and responding to the needs that people communicate to them.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sir Robert Francis: What I am about to say in answer to your question is my personal view. Healthwatch England, for reasons you will understand, does not have a view on that—apart from welcoming the existence of this body and the fact it has a statutory function. I confess to some concern about the safe place provisions, and I said this in part to a parliamentary Committee before. On the one hand, I fully endorse the need to protect people who come forward to give information—sometimes potentially damaging to themselves—so we can learn the relevant lessons of safety. Therefore, I absolutely support the idea that anything said in these circumstances cannot of itself be used to prosecute or discipline them, or indeed be used in civil proceedings.
On that point, as a lawyer, I would be very hesitant on the advice I would give to someone on the basis of the Bill as it stands, because there is no certainty that what goes into the safe space stays there. It is all a matter of discretion, albeit a High Court judge’s discretion or sometimes a coroner’s discretion. That would have to be worked out. It is probably difficult to reinforce more, but if it could be it should be.
However, I think that is different from denying bereaved families and victims of an incident, if they are still alive, knowledge of what has been said to the investigation board. At the very minimum, I would like to see there be discretion to share that information with families. I can see there may be circumstances in which that is not possible, and I can see that it might be necessary for there to be quite stringent conditions around what they personally can do with the information they are given. What worries me about the position at the moment is that it starts from a presumption of dividing the staff from the patient from the families, and you get straight into, I presume, an adversarial situation. That is not necessary the case, and if we work the system and the learning culture properly, everyone will be trying to contribute to learning rather than blaming each other. You are not going to get that if you are denying one half of the incident the information that the other half has.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Yes, or something closer to it. After all, it is rather artificial. The family will often know the people involved in the treatment of their loved one. Where there is already likely to have been a breakdown of trust and confidence, this would be perpetuated and possibly increased if they are not given access to information that it is possible to share responsibly with them. I can see circumstances in which that would not be the case—that is why it would have to be discretionary—but I think many concerns of people I know who would have possibly been settled if only they had seen something more than they get in the report.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Often, if I may say so, things that patients and their relatives have seen for themselves. If I were a relative of someone who died in hospital and I was being told, “This is due to a systematic fault. It was not down to the nurse or the doctor,” I would want to know a bit more about that. I would want, if I could, to talk to those individuals so that they could perhaps learn a little more from the impact of all this on people. I am not saying that it should happen in all circumstances, but in order for the family to have a true understanding of it. It does not necessarily mean they need to know the names in that sort of case that you mentioned, but I do not think it should be automatically assumed that they will be excluded from that information.
Alex Norris
Q
We have spoken quite a bit in these proceedings about the relationship between the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership, the fact that the board has to pay “due regard” to the integrated partnership’s plan, and what that due regard means. You talked about that in your written evidence, and you suggested mechanisms for resolving the situation—or at least making account for a situation where the board sets aside the ICP’s plan. Could you talk a little more about that?
Sir Robert Francis: The first requirement is that there needs to be clarity about what happens in those circumstances, which I am not sure we see in the current legislation or in the guidance that NHS England has produced, which I briefly read. Our suggestion is that there should be a provision inserted into the Bill that, if there is a disagreement, and the board decides to do something that is contrary to the views put forward by the partnership, it should then be obliged to set out their reasons for that. In other words, there should be transparency, which enables accountability, if it is necessary, to be more easily handled.
That would be the major thing we would require, but there also needs to be a better understanding, as far as the public is concerned, about the relationship between the two. I have heard what has been said today, and I must say that I am not clear that the partnership is a sub-committee of the board. That is because the Bill explicitly says that the creation of the partnership is a joint matter between the board—I think, or the NHS—and the local authority. It strikes me that that is not clear.
That is important because, if there is a disagreement, local people are entitled to know why. It would be good if they could also be persuaded that whatever is happening is actually the right thing for them, but they are certainly entitled to be part of the discussion. For that to happen, there need to be reasons given. Another thing that might send a shiver through some spines is that if there is an obligation to give reasons, it might be easier for those who object to the course being taken to challenge it.
Alex Norris
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Yes.
Alex Norris
Q
We will move on to something else that you said in your written evidence. On Tuesday, we had a very good conversation about data, but the whole thing was about quantitative data. In your written evidence, you talk about qualitative data, and it is very easy for us, as Members of Parliament, to conceive of the importance of that, as it is something that we routinely draw on. With your insight from leading Healthwatch, how can we develop systems that properly trap that, use that and prioritise that just as much as the quantitative data?
Sir Robert Francis: Technically, these days, that is no problem at all. You will not expect me to explain that to you, but the qualitative data—comments from the friends and family test, or similar things—is easily mined these days. You can develop a view of the sentiment that comes through it, and you can then dig down more closely into specifics if you need to. That information is extremely valuable to Healthwatch in determining what people think about a particular subject or services, and we feel that there should be a recognition that that data, in that form, should be capable of being shared with a statutory body like Healthwatch, and possibly others.
We also think that—I am sure others might agree—while quantitative data is extremely important, it is informed by qualitative data. The personal impact—good or bad—of things that happen in the service are best described by the people who have received that service. If you just look at figures—I am afraid that this was a problem at Mid Staffs—you lose a great deal, and the trigger for change and improvement is lost.
Edward Argar
Q
We sought with this Bill to be permissive rather than prescriptive; behaviours, and how things work on the ground, are often as, if not more, important than the framework. Notwithstanding your on-the-record comments about Healthwatch participation in ICB levels as a formal member, what else would you draw out as opportunities within the framework to build on patient participation and accountability to those who pay for, and use, the service? Are there other opportunities, that, with a small tweak either in guidance or in the Bill, we could seize more effectively?
Sir Robert Francis: I suspect that there is something around reporting, particularly with the oversight of quality, inequalities and matters of that nature, which would be of assistance. I agree that flexibility of engagement is really important, and Healthwatch claims no monopoly over this. I see it taking place in guidance. If the emphasis is to change culture to one where the service is being responsive to people’s needs, as opposed to providing them with what the service thinks they need, there could be greater emphasis in the Bill on ensuring there is a strategic plan for engagement. There could be more emphasis on how the ICS is going to engage with local people and communities, and an actual requirement that it provides comprehensible information to the community about how people should be able to communicate with it. I know they sound like matters of detail, but if there is an obligation to make such things clear, it does not prevent flexibility, but it does oblige organisations to actually do it—and mean it. There will be lots of other ideas, I am sure.
Edward Argar
Q
Sir Robert Francis: In relation to a decision of whether information should be capable of being used in legal proceedings, there is no better qualified person than a High Court judge—so, absolutely. My advocating that there should be some qualification in relation to the family does not mean, in any way, that I suggest they should then be able to use that for litigation or other purposes. Indeed, some of the conditions you might impose on them in order for them to get the information are that they do not do those sort of things. There will be areas where it can be said that it is too sensitive for that. Of course, there may need to be a balancing of people’s rights of privacy. It is really about ensuring that families feel that they are not being excluded or that something is being hidden from them. We need to build trust. I do not think that that decision needs to be taken by a High Court judge, because it is not about legal proceedings; it is about something really quite private.
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Robert.
Examination of Witnesses
Stephen Chandler and Gerry Nosowska gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Stephen Chandler: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Stephen Chandler. As you said, I am currently the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. ADASS is a small charity that represents directors such as myself. My day job is director of adult services in Oxfordshire—up and down the country. It is probably important to say by way of context that I have only worked in the public sector. I left school and started my training as a nurse. The first 20 years of my career were in the NHS. I reached trust board level via a route of joint commissioning. The second half of my career is in local government, so in a way I am living proof of integration, if there was one.
Gerry Nosowska: I am Gerry Nosowska, and I am the chair of the British Association of Social Workers, which is the professional body for social work in the United Kingdom. We have around 22,000 members. I am here to represent the voice of social work, and our experts by experience who have worked with us.
Edward Timpson
Q
Stephen Chandler: It is a really good question. We see the importance of bringing that collective data together in one place at every level in the stratified system. If you take the integrated care system, at the macro level it is really important for population-based planning. My local integrated care system covers Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire—colloquially, BOB—and for some conditions dealing with it at that footprint is really important. Having data, for example, around cancer care and some of the specialist mental health services is really important.
The first thing that I did this morning was to chair a call looking at urgent care activity in our local system, and it was really important for the staff from the community trust and social care, as well as the acute staff, to be looking at a single view of the citizen—the patient—in that instance. We have done a lot of work to get there already. Again, this is about building on some good foundations, but it is critical for practitioners to do their job to have that data there, flowing readily, as well as for us in the planning and commissioning sense.
Edward Timpson
Q
Gerry Nosowska: Yes, please. The link between health and social care data is obviously essential, because health care impacts on people’s lives and social lives, and social determinants impact on health. Joining those things up will help us to have a much more holistic picture, which is what social workers are interested in. For social workers, what we really want to understand are the trends, the gaps, and the barriers to wellbeing. In practice, having that data and that understanding—ideally a really local understanding—is important.
We would want to see social workers and experts by experience input into the kind of data that is collected, with an understanding in particular of under-met or unmet need, so that we can become more preventative, which is another aim of integration, and we have information about people who might fall outside of statutory responsibilities—self-funders, for example. We know that there is a real need to understand much more about the pressures on carers. This is an opportunity to think about how we can build more fairness locally through understanding the inconsistencies in people’s experiences and outcomes. We also have a need to understand the impact of digital developments on people—how to ensure equity as we move into a wider range of working. Another hope would be that, ultimately, our health and social care leaders will be able to be more proactive using the data, because very often it feels like we are on the back foot.
Karin Smyth
Q
Every project that I have seen or witnessed on integration—joint commissioning; joint collaboration—has fallen apart in the end because of accountability for the money. A finance director in a local authority has to account for its budgets, and the finance director and accountable officer of a health authority ultimately has to account for their budgets. If agreement cannot be held at that point, those projects fall apart.
We heard earlier that we still do not know any detail on the tariff or money flows as a result of changes in the Bill—changes that will come into place in April. We also have the better care fund outwith the Bill, and this week’s announcement of a major change in funding is also outwith it. I wonder, with your ADASS hat on, how can you now help the Government to get around the problem for organisations regarding accountability for the money so that they do not fail?
Stephen Chandler: Again, that is a really good question. To be honest, a real challenge for those of us working in both health and social care is that uncertainty and delay in knowing the financial envelope we are working with. The announcements this week help to provide some clarity of what the future funding arrangement is likely to look like but, of course—from a local government point of view—until the spending review confirms the final settlement later this year, we will not know.
Some practical examples of how to mitigate or manage some of that uncertainty clearly come down to how much you are able to put together—and feel confident to put together. I suspect it was probably there in your day in Oxfordshire, but Oxfordshire has a large pooled budget arrangement—some of it completely risk-shared, but some of it not. That reflects the confidence and experience we have in using that money together. If I were not here providing testimony to you, I would be chairing a joint commissioning executive. In Oxfordshire, across health and social care, we have responsibility for more than £500 million in health and social care expenditure.
We are talking about continuing to build on some really good relationships and experiences that have existed but, rather than allowing them to evolve because individuals—either at a system level or a personal level—believe it is the right thing, it becomes policy and direction. I think that the success for us has to be looking at where systems have been able to resolve some of those challenges. I am still working with my CCG colleagues in Oxfordshire around what we believe the better care fund will look like, having signed the agreement at the beginning of the year. That is about us becoming much more involved and therefore much more confident in each other.
You will appreciate that ADASS members are constantly providing reassurance and at times caution to our elected members on how far we could and should go in relation to sharing and using our resources. Some of the developments in the Bill around the establishment of integrated care partnerships fully provide a vehicle for some of that greater transparency and greater opportunity to look at the problem, the challenge and the opportunity from a place, and then from a system, point of view.
Karin Smyth
Q
Stephen Chandler: Yes, indeed. Without giving away too much personal information, my wife and I have a joint account. We each have our own accounts. She is not here, so I will say that I think I have the authority on the joint account, but if she was here she would probably say that she has.
The point I am trying to make is that a lot of this works on the formal agreement, but as much of it also works on the trust and confidence you build in those relationships. However, you cannot take away the facts, as you said. Equally, my elected members are very clear with me that I am responsible for ensuring that Oxfordshire County Council’s resources are being managed and used in the way that they have approved.
Dr James Davies
Q
Stephen Chandler: The principles that underpin successful discharge are, quite simply, a person-centred, strength-based approach to enabling that individual to get back, preferably and ideally, to their own home, in a timely manner, with the level of support that they need to continue the recovery that will have started in the hospital but will not have finished in the hospital.
Where we have got that process right—I think the discharge to assess arrangements have really helped us in this—is by clarifying that the destination for discharge, for the majority of patients, has to be home. It is pathway 1—“Home First”, as it is often described—with the appropriate reablement support to maximise the recovery. That is good for the patient; it is good for us in local government, because it reduces the level of ongoing care needs in many cases; and it is good for the NHS, in that it frees up acute hospital beds. Those are the principles.
The way you successfully do that is by ensuring that the focus is on the patient and getting the patient—the citizen—to their home, not on the organisational form and who is responsible for it; in fairness, we all are. Discharge to assess has helped us to clarify “Home First” or pathway 1, and it has provided for some of those systems where one of the stumbling blocks was the resources to make that happen.
The challenge we have, though, is that we have introduced “Home First” at a system level nationally at a time when demand, linked to covid and the unintended consequences of covid, has really impacted. I reference my first meeting this morning, looking at acute pressures in Oxfordshire. We pride ourselves on getting people home, and “Home First”, but when I was chairing that call I heard myself saying, “We need to move people into some interim beds”, because I needed to create capacity in the acute system. I am hearing that coming through from director colleagues up and down the country; we are making less than ideal decisions for people because of just how much demand there is in the system. Let us be very clear: good discharge is discharge home, to your bed, with the support to enable you to maximise your recovery.
Dr Davies
Q
Gerry Nosowska: Yes, please. I completely agree with Stephen on the principles behind discharge to assess, and we have good experience within social work of it working when there is clear shared responsibility and the person is kept at the centre of it. We also have evidence from our members of the potential for rapid discharge to assess, without real advocacy and potentially without the involvement of social work, to lead to some undermining of people’s rights around potentially being placed in a more restrictive environment and potentially struggling to have access to their family. It is partly about resourcing, but it is also about the ethos of human rights and people’s right to be heard and to have choice, and then having the practical backing to follow things up well.
I think that people with experience of social care and health want to have a really clear and transparent process. For that to happen well, we still need some safeguards around that transition. It is a complex moment in people’s lives, and I would want to see social work involvement in the guidance around that. But we also need to be thinking, if we want people to have more of their care closer to home, about how we rebalance resources—this relates to the previous question—by making sure that there are incentives for the resource to be put into community and local support and not just into the most urgent matters.
Stephen Chandler: Could I come back in? One thing that I omitted—it was remiss of me—was that we also need to never forget the importance of the support for carers, particularly around hospital discharge. All too often we are focusing on the individual in the hospital bed and the need to get them out, but we also need to ensure that we are not overlooking or not giving due regard to the role of the carer in that. If I could ask you to do anything, it would be this. Can you just ensure that the emphasis on the role of carers and how all of this is going to help the role of carers is brought through? Without carers, the health and care system would disintegrate rapidly.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Stephen Chandler: You are right: discharge to assess and, indeed, the “Home First” model of three pathways is not new. It has been around and used up and down the country for a decade or so now, so there are some well established services that you can draw some really good data from. Before I was in Oxfordshire, I was in Somerset, and we did a lot of work in the Somerset system to develop “Home First”, because our delays were really poor. We saw significant improvement in the outcomes for patients in the first instance. We then saw significant improvements in the flow from the acute hospitals, and I would say we also saw some significant benefits to the local authority in relation to the commitment it had to individuals on an ongoing basis.
I have been out of that system for over two years, but the work that it has done since then to take that even further is phenomenal, and I would encourage you to talk to some of the health and social care professionals in that system. One of the hallmarks of the system is that it does not rely solely on health and social care professionals. It has brought what it refers to as community agents and village agents into the hospital to help with discharge. It has got the voluntary sector as an equal partner. It is helping the individuals beyond the health and care needs that they have in leaving hospital.
I personally believe that discharge to assess is a robust and positive model, and I am hearing nothing to the contrary from director colleagues. What I am hearing from director colleagues, though, is real anxiety about conclusions that might be being drawn from the very point you made, which is that we have tried to evaluate discharge to assess in a very short period of time, and at a time when demand and pressure on the service has been at its most acute. Remember that it is not just the physical demand on those services that we have been experiencing; we have been working on an assumption that there is likely, at any point, to be an immediate surge in the demand for acute services, so we have been working to try to ensure that there is always capacity behind us should a further wave—either a local or a national wave—occur. We have been, up and down the country, operating systems at a pace that I have never seen before, as a result of covid. I would be cautious about drawing out any strong opinions around discharge to assess from an evaluation that was done during that covid period. For me, it is the only model that really helps people leave hospital in a timely manner.
I do not know about any of you, but as I get older and hospital admission becomes more likely, I want that hospital admission to deal with the acute need that requires it, but I want to go back home as quickly as I possibly can and to be able to continue to regain the independence I had. I do not want to become reliant on the local authority for all my support, which is why that reablement support at discharge is so critical.
Gerry probably wants to add to this, but the multidisciplinary approach that has a social worker and the local authority at its heart, building upon not just the professional expertise we bring but the relationships with our communities, our voluntary sector and our social care providers, is critical to that success.
The Chair
Do you want to add anything, Ms Nosowska?
Gerry Nosowska: Yes, please. The issue with getting out of hospital is not about getting out of hospital; it is about getting your life back and getting back to your normal life. We know that reablement can be a really important part of that. The persistence, co-ordination and attention to the impact of a transition from hospital to home is something that social workers can really help with, and I do not think we should underestimate how potentially complex that can be. It is not just a question of somebody going back home and picking up where they left off.
Having really good support rapidly following up is absolutely essential. We have concerns about evidence of either inappropriate support or lack of support, support that has not been there or follow-up that has not happened. I would want us to be careful about checks and balances here.
Dr Whitford
Q
Gerry Nosowska: I think that this can achieve some strengthening of integration if it is not just a reorganisation that sucks in energy and resource, but a change that is absolutely about relationship, trust and understanding of local services, and it leads to a flow of resources and attention to that idea of home and community. There is potential, absolutely, but we have seen efforts to build integration before. What makes them work, certainly from a frontline point of view, is parity of esteem, trust, understanding and recognition of expertise, and relational time together.
One question I have is about how the integrated care partnership and the board have the appropriate input, the right people in there and the right people engaged, so that those relationships can really build, bearing in mind that we might be talking about quite a large area. We also have to make sure that from the point of view of the person who needs help or care, it is about their local community and neighbourhood. If I were going to change something, I would want to make sure that there was lived experience and social work expertise at the heart of those integrated structures.
Dr Whitford
Q
May I ask you the same questions, Stephen? Do you think it will improve integration? What is the one thing you would change?
Stephen Chandler: I do believe that it will improve integration. As I said earlier, anything that helps those people who have yet to be convinced that integration is a good thing or provides them with some of the roadmaps for putting integration into place is great. From a local government point of view, strengthening the role that local government has in relation to the health and wellbeing of its citizens in the way that this does is good. I look forward to the refined guidance around the roles that health and wellbeing boards will have, because when I talk to my leader, I emphasise to her the importance that that gives her, as an elected member who chairs that board.
On whether I would change anything, we risk focusing a lot on either people who are acutely unwell or the elderly. From a local government and social care point of view, we work with people across their life course, including working-age adults, many of whom often have very complex underlying health and care needs. Recognising the need to ensure that health and care systems work well for a 25-year-old with learning disabilities who is trying to achieve his potential, or to help somebody with a severe and enduring mental illness to maintain their employment and therefore their accommodation, is really important.
Unfortunately, those voices are not always as obvious in what we are doing, but they are so important. I have been quoting this a lot of late, but each and every one of us is just one accident or life-changing illness away from needing that. We all recognise that we may need healthcare to deal with it, but very few of us think that we may then need and want the support of social care. In my case, if I had an accident or a significant stroke on the way home, I would need help maintaining my family. All the things we take for granted are only possible for a lot of people through the help that local government and social care provide, but doing that together with our health colleagues offers even greater opportunities.
Dr Whitford
Q
Stephen Chandler: It absolutely is. If you think of a young person with a complex health need associated with a learning disability, we need to work together to ensure that we are allowing them to maximise their potential while managing the risk associated with their health needs. For somebody who is coming out of the criminal justice system, maximising their potential to reintegrate into society, get a job and get a house is only possible if we work together. That is why integration must be much more than just a focus on the frail elderly.
Dr Whitford
Q
Stephen Chandler: I will come back to you on that. I cannot immediately think of a part.
Justin Madders
Q
Gerry Nosowska: It is a genuine concern, yes—partly because, as Stephen was saying, it was rolled out very rapidly, at scale, during an unusual and very pressured time. Social workers have often been involved in those transitions, and very well, to advocate and to ensure that the person’s voice is heard and that people do not get lost somewhere in the system or forgotten, but the concerns are around the potential weakening of that social work role.
Not everybody will need that, but I advocate for a social worker being available to anybody who might need that kind of co-ordination, therapeutic support and advocacy at the point of such a major life transition. We want a review of the model, but we also have concerns about just taking out wholesale all the elements around notification of social care and everything that was in the care Act. A lot will hinge on what the statutory guidance says about this. We must make sure we do not lose people in the system, because there is always an incentive to free up a valuable resource in hospital, but our statutory job is to promote wellbeing.
Justin Madders
Q
Gerry Nosowska: My understanding was that the discharge to assess was due to be reviewed, but I do not know why there has been a delay on that.
Justin Madders
Q
Gerry Nosowska: I am not aware of a large-scale, formal review of it, no.
Justin Madders
Thank you. That is all I have, Chair.
Stephen Chandler: If I could help, I am aware that the Department of Health and Social Care has undertaken a review of some discharge to assess arrangements. It is not a national review, but I think about eight separate systems have been subject to a review. I have not seen the outcome of it, but a review of a limited capacity has taken place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
No, my question was covered earlier. I had assumed that I would be called as a Back Bencher, if you see what I mean, as I am not the lead Minister on this Committee.
The Chair
I apologise for that, but I understood that we had decided to share the time between Back Benchers and Front Benchers, and I counted you among the Front Benchers. There we go. Never mind.
Jo Churchill
Q
Stephen Chandler: The Bill reaffirms and formalises the requirement to plan very carefully for the population at a place level first, and then at a system level. In doing so, it sets up an integrated care partnership with a clear set of objectives, based on the population. Of course, it emphasises the importance of prevention as a way of helping people remain healthy and well for longer.
In Oxfordshire, we have set up our shadow partnership, and one of the areas we are looking at is our out-of-hospital support—particularly how we can avoid the need for hospital admissions. Again—this goes back to a point I made earlier—in doing so, we are looking at how we as a system can contribute individually, and therefore collectively, to reducing crisis and therefore the need for hospital admission. It has changed the tone of the discussion from, “Isn’t that an NHS responsibility, whether primary care or secondary care?” to, “How can we do better for our population?”.
You might say, “Well, hold on. That sounds like a very subtle change.” Let me be clear: some of these subtle changes really do make an impact. Coming back to an earlier question about resources, this also enables us to have the conversation around the prioritisation and impact of those resources. Instead of saying, “Here is the county council’s budget plan and here is the NHS’s”, we can ask how we make best use of that collective resource. The Bill helps by formalising that and providing some additional structures and focus on that.
The Bill is helpful, but it will be interesting to see how it works where, perhaps, systems have not had positive relationships or have had a more adversarial approach. I was really lucky in Somerset, because the emerging ICS there was coterminous with the local authority. It was a single provider. It was perfect in a way. I am in an ICS now where there are three different population groups. We know some ICSs have significantly more.
The opportunity is there to be grasped. This provides a fantastic focus if it can be ensured. In fairness to colleagues, the focus seems to be “start at place and work upwards”, rather than “start at system and work downwards”, in order to make really good differences to people, particularly around hospital admission avoidance. It also gives me, from a local authority point of view, greater leverage to challenge my NHS colleagues around their investment in secondary care and community care resources, because that area has, unfortunately, seen significant reductions over the years.
Jo Churchill
Q
Stephen Chandler: Absolutely.
Jo Churchill
Q
Gerry Nosowska: Prevention is always undermined by the resources moving into urgent and acute needs. In practice, social workers are not able to do therapeutic, restorative support work that they would be able to if they had the time to spend with people who need that. There is a fundamental resource issue that the Bill does not address directly, but it may help with the potential for pooling resources. Again, people in the community do not care whether it is a health or social care resource. If there is a need emerging that can be responded to, and preventive work can be done, it should happen without health and social care arguing about exactly whose purse it comes out of.
There are some really successful examples of reablement and preventing avoidable hospital admissions. We know it is possible. Scarcity does breed competition rather than collaboration, so that is something to think about. As for what the Bill might also do, the partnership strategy ought to have a very strong preventive element to it, and that needs to be dug down into locally—into particular communities, neighbourhoods and streets. That is where you really need lived experiences. I have a question about the regard that the integrated care board would have to that, and the potential for a wonderful, collaborative partnership strategy around prevention to be disregarded because of an acute need. I was listening to Robert Francis, and I think his suggestion that there be a written explanation to a local community if that happens is very good.
Edward Argar
Q
I will turn to Stephen first and then to Gerry. We have sought to be permissive rather than prescriptive in this Bill. Have we struck broadly the right balance, or are there areas where it might need to be tweaked, either in legislation or in guidance?
Stephen Chandler: Your director colleague was absolutely right. I think that you have got the balance right in relation to permissiveness. I worry that the guidance does not prescribe directly how we should develop that culture, but having worked as long as I have, I realise that you cannot prescribe how relationships are formed and how cultures work. You have to create the conditions for success. Some of those conditions are in the Bill. I have talked about some of them in relation to the pooling, the boards and the assurance methodology. What has to be absolutely clear—and I am hearing it clearly, so it is not that I have not heard it—is the importance of seeing this as a vehicle for meaningful change to people’s lives, not a restructuring of health and social care. Rather, this is a vehicle for improving the lives of people in communities and systems, and for allowing health and social care professionals to maximise their individual abilities for that collective good. In a way, there is a duty on me as a leader in the system to create that culture and environment.
You have not gone into the area of assurance, but for me it is really important that when assurance looks at a system, it looks at the leadership and how that leadership translates the freedom, the permissiveness, but also the accountability, clearly. The feedback I am hearing from our members is, “We favour the permissive approach that is taken in this.” We would not say that the tolerance should be changed one way or the other.
Edward Argar
Gerry?
Gerry Nosowska: Apologies, I think I lost my connection for a moment, so I might repeat some of the things that Stephen said. On the balance between permissive and rigid, we have an interest in the consistency of opportunity and outcomes for members of the population. Areas face different challenges, so it is important that locally there is flexibility around how those challenges are met. What will hold those models together are the principles of ensuring transparency around decision making; the involvement of lived experience and clinical expertise in both social care and health; and real local accountability. Certainly, more local community decision making, planning and work, and less centralisation, is much more in tune with responding to the lived needs of people and their day-to-day priorities.
Edward Argar
Thank you, Gerry and Stephen. I have no further questions, Mr McCabe.
The Chair
May I thank our witnesses for their evidence? That brings today’s oral evidence sessions to a close. The Committee will meet again on Tuesday in Committee Room 14, with Mr Peter Bone in the Chair.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 14th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 September 2021 - (14 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when sitting and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. That shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for today. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or a new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
NHS Commissioning Board renamed NHS England
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) The Board of NHS England shall be made up of—
(a) a Chair appointed by the Secretary of State,
(b) five other members so appointed of which—
(i) one shall be appointed to represent Directors of Public Health,
(ii) one shall be appointed to represent the Local Government Association,
(iii) one shall be appointed to represent the interest of patients,
(iv) one shall be appointed to represent the staff employed in the NHS, and
(v) one shall be appointed to represent the Integrated Care Partnership.
(c) one further member shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after being recommended by the Health Committee as a person with appropriate knowledge and experience,
(d) executive members as set out in Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
(1B) In making the appointments in (1A) (a) and (b) above the Secretary of State must have due regard to—
(a) the need to ensure diversity and equality of opportunity and must publish a list of at least 5 persons considered for each appointment and the reasons why the particular individual appointment was made, and
(b) that no person who could be perceived to have a conflict of interest by virtue of their current or recent employment or investment holding in any organisation with any role in the delivery of services to the NHS may be considered for appointment.”
This amendment changes the makeup of the Board to acknowledge its new role in the integrated NHS and bringing representatives as non-executive members on the Board as with integrated care boards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Murray, and to serve on the Bill Committee.
The amendment was moved in my name and that of my hon. Friends. The Minister whom I shadow is helpful—we will see how helpful during the course of proceedings—and we start in a spirit of optimism. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who, between them, contribute some relevant and highly knowledgeable experience. They are all passionate, as we all are, about the national health service and the care system, which are the subject of the legislation.
With your indulgence, Mrs Murray, I take this opportunity to make a few short points about the general context of the legislation. First, this is an important Bill. It could easily have been two or three pieces of separate legislation, so it requires proper consideration. We have a concern about whether enough time has been allocated to deal with everything in the detail that we would like, but we will do our best to get through it. We intend to make our contributions short but relevant and, we hope, persuasive.
Secondly, we share the apparent desire of the Government to repeal the worst aspects of the disastrous Lansley Act. Many of our amendments will be directed at trying to ensure that, in doing so, the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater. Thirdly and finally, as stated by the chair of the British Medical Association in the evidence sessions last week, we remain of the view that the Bill is the wrong Bill at the wrong time.
The amendment seeks to define the composition of the board of NHS England to align better with what we see as the new requirements set out elsewhere in the Bill. In looking at the issue of who should be on the board, we all ought to agree that it should not be open only to the friends and relatives of Ministers. Board members in our view should be subject to more independent assessment of their value and must pass at least some fit and proper test to avoid obvious conflicts of interest.
The amendment would ensure that the key influences on the board come from public health, local government, the patients themselves and the staff, without whom the NHS does not exist. At this point, I take the opportunity to place on the record, as I often do, Labour Members’ thanks to those in the NHS who have been so magnificent, not just over the past couple of years but over many years. They deliver a service that is rightly a source of great national pride. They deserve a seat at the table, as do patients. The Bill does not do enough to amplify the patients’ voice. We will be discussing a number of amendments over the coming weeks by which we will hope to change that.
We also need to look at what NHS England mark 4 will be required to do if the Bill becomes an Act. Other parts of the Bill deal with the powers and duties of this new version of NHS England, originally the NHS Commissioning Board. It is, in many ways, the pinnacle of the reversal of the Lansley position. The new NHS England does not bear much resemblance to what was envisaged under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That is a good start, but one aspect of the Lansley view—that the NHS requires some degree of operational independence—has been shown to have some merit. Every clock is right at least twice a day, and we have found the one piece of the 2012 Act that proved to be correct. We will discuss some amendments later on to limit the power of Ministers to interfere with those who we believe should be operationally independent.
The new NHS England is pretty much in place anyway, as a result of the actions of those managing the NHS over the last few years. They desperately and very innovatively at times tried to find ways to circumvent the edicts of the 2012 Act, while Ministers looked on passively. It has been an unusual and interesting passage of time in the history of the NHS. We have seen legislation simply ignored and Ministers have allowed that to happen. It is little wonder, given the experiences of the 2012 Act, that many of the NHS witnesses we heard from said they wanted as little prescription as possible. They have had their fill of prescription. We would differ, I think, on the level of prescription necessary in the Bill.
New NHS England will be an amalgamation of the old NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority. It will commission some specialist services. It will be the regulator, regulating a market that no longer exists. It will performance manage both commissioning by the integrated care boards, which, for the purpose of brevity, we will refer to as ICBs, and the provision of services by trusts and foundation trusts. I am afraid that how that wide range of responsibilities sits with the role of the Department is as vague as ever. The ability of Ministers and others to interfere and micromanage depends on whether the rest of the Bill survives in its current form.
Above all, the board oversees the operational running of the NHS, shaped by the mandate, which gives the direction of travel. Perhaps the most crucial policy change is that new NHS England sits at the top of the system, based on the integrated care boards as the major commissioner of services. That means who sits on the board is highly relevant.
The explanatory notes and the Government pronouncements about the new integrated bodies strongly assert that the role is to drive the reintegration of the NHS, repairing the worst of the fragmentation caused by Lansley and, I hope, once and for all, ending the obsession with marketisation, which has been shown to be a failure. We need board members on NHS England who might be seen to be more in tune with the new philosophy of partnerships and collaboration—not markets and competition, not business leaders, hedge fund managers, marketing experts.
In the new world, we want the NHS to be bound by its core principles—comprehensive, universal, free and funded from general taxation. That is a topic that we may touch on later; it may also be discussed in other business of the House today. What should be valued in board members is that they have some record of commitment to those principles. They should have some claim to be aligned to the new values, which favour a stronger role for patients; the public to have influence; a view that the NHS is contributing to reducing inequalities, as well as improving wellbeing; and the greater alignment of NHS services with local government.
The current make-up of the board is, put simply, the chair plus five other non-executives, all appointed by the Secretary of State, and then of course the appropriate executive directors. This amendment deals only with the non-executive directors. Given the huge importance of the NHS, it is appropriate that the chair and at least some of the non-executive directors are appointed by the Secretary of State. We will concede that. In another world, perhaps they could be elected in their own right, but we will not be travelling down that road on this occasion. However, we cannot ignore some of the headlines over the last 18 months and the huge media coverage of quite blatant abuse of patronage in appointments in the NHS more generally in recent years. Cronyism, I am afraid to say, has become a default position, and we think that has to be challenged.
To be fair to past Ministers, the NHS itself can also appoint people for the wrong reasons, moving out disgraced leaders if they go quietly, only for them to re-emerge somewhere else in the system. If the NHS is an organisation—it is a stretch to use that term after the mess created by the 2012 Act—appointments should accord with the highest standards of fairness, and inclusion is notably absent, so let us change the approach. Let us set the tone from the very top and enshrine in law the kind of people whom we as a Parliament would like to see—not, of course, specifying individuals but setting out in general terms some of the main interest groups that contribute towards the NHS and that we think should be at the very top table.
The amendment therefore seeks to give some direction to the Secretary of State in making these appointments and to ensure that at least one non-executive director is put on the board through a genuinely independent process and is not simply placed there by the Secretary of State. The kind of representative appointments that we set out in the amendment should, in our opinion, really be the standard. We would hope to see a similar standard adopted for the ICBs. We should appoint people who can really contribute to the future, with direct experience across the board in terms of the integration that the Bill seeks to achieve. The amendment also sets out how the Secretary of State must appoint suitable people and be able to justify their appointments against some sort of standards.
I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge that some of the recent questionable behaviour around appointments needs to be addressed. No doubt he will refute the allegation of cronyism, but he cannot deny that there is at least a very strong perception that that is what has happened with some appointments.
In conclusion, I draw attention to how the NHS has already, effectively, blatantly put up two fingers to this Committee and anything we might decide, because it has already decided for itself how it will appoint people to roles within the new integrated care boards and has appointed some already, with the remaining positions, as we have seen from newspaper headlines, up for advertisement. That does not actually do us any favours, because Parliament has not decided that that is what we want to do, but we will see whether we get to that point later. That is all I have to say on the amendment.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I fear—predict—that there will be occasions when the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and I may not be entirely of the same mind, but it is a pleasure, as always, to serve opposite him on this Committee, because I know that even where we may disagree, the debate will be measured and reasonable. I will address the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister and, in the same speech, clause 1 and schedule 1 stand part if that is appropriate and in order.
As has been the practice on numerous occasions in these Committees, I will start by expressing a view shared by all members of this Committee. It has already been expressed by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and we join with him in expressing our gratitude to those who work in our NHS and in care services and—as he and I have often said in this place—all those, including in local government, who work in this space and have done amazing work over the past year and a half particularly.
As ever, the hon. Gentleman picked his example carefully in citing some of the witnesses whom we heard in oral evidence. As he will know, the overwhelming majority—possibly with only two exceptions—stated that this was the right Bill at the right time, albeit they may have picked up on particular clauses or elements. They did state that this was the right time for this legislation.
As the shadow Minister has set out, amendment 18 in his name and those of his hon. Friends seeks to make changes to the make-up of the board of NHS England, the provisions for which are currently set out in schedule A1 of the National Health Service Act 2006. It also outlines conditions that should be met in relation to the appointment process. I share his view that it is vital that robust governance arrangements are in place for overseeing public appointments. It will not surprise him that I refute his assertion that in the case of NHS England board appointments there is a so-called cronyism or a suggestion that any of those people are appointed on anything other than merit. However, I believe that those strong and robust governance arrangements are already in place for managing appointments to the board of NHS England. Those appointed already are deemed to be fit and proper people to hold those appointments.
The existing provisions, which the shadow Minister alluded to, setting out the membership of the NHS England board in the National Health Service Act 2006, provide the flexibility required for the fully merged NHS England to lead our more integrated health and care system. The clauses we will be addressing this morning in this part of the Bill reflect the evolution of NHS England and NHS Improvement and what has happened on the ground since they were originally formed. With this, we seek to create a legislative framework that catches up with where they are and is permissive, rather than prescriptive. That is something else the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee will have seen from the evidence sessions. Witnesses were clear that the Bill struck the right balance between permissive and prescriptive.
As we look to continue the fight against the covid-19 pandemic and, in parallel, prepare for the recovery of our health and care system, it is imperative that the most suitably experienced and knowledgeable candidates are appointed to the Board. I know the shadow Minister will share that sentiment. Unlike appointments to integrated care boards, the appointment of the chair and non-executive members of NHS England are rightfully public appointments made by the Secretary of State and managed in line with the governance code for public appointments and regulated already by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The appointments are made on merit in a fair, open and transparent manner and in line with that governance code. They also require due regard to ensuring they properly reflect the populations they serve, including a balance of skills and backgrounds, supporting the Government agenda of promoting more diverse public sector organisations and board appointments.
The role of non-executives on public bodies includes helping set the strategic direction for the organisation, ensuring the organisation meets the highest standards of good governance and holding the executive to account for day-to-day business delivery. They come from a variety of backgrounds and bring a valuable range of skills and experience to a board position. It is important to note that they are not routinely or normally appointed to be representative of a particular sector or group. They are on the board in their own right and their independence in that context is paramount.
All public appointees are expected to uphold the standards of conduct set out in the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s seven principles of public life, as included in the code of conduct for board members of public bodies, and they must adhere to that. The code sets out clearly and openly the standards expected from those who serve on the boards of UK public bodies and includes a clear process for managing any conflicts of interest. The Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates those appointments to ensure they are upholding the values of that Government code and works with Government to encourage candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds to consider applying for such public appointments.
Finally, while I share the shadow Minister’s view that it is hugely important to have diverse representation on the board of NHS England and to ensure that diverse voices and viewpoints are reflected, the duty under section 13H of the 2006 Act already requires NHS England to actively
“promote the involvement of patients, and their carers and representatives”
without the specific need for a named non-executive patient representative. It is clear that comprehensive processes and codes are already in place to regulate public appointments such as those we are discussing in the context of clause 1 and amendment 18, as well as schedule 1, including on diversity, conflicts of interest and conduct in office. I emphasise once again that the role of non-executive members is not that of representing a specific or particular sector, which could be at odds with the independent and broad approach they are required to bring to the role.
I now move specifically and briefly to clause 1, which changes the legal name of the NHS Commissioning Board to NHS England, and also to schedule 1, which contains consequential amendments where the changes will take effect in another Act. Since 2013, the NHS Commissioning Board has been operating under the name NHS England, and I think it is fair to say that that is how all of us in this room, and the public, know it, rather than by the slightly clumsy name of NHS Commissioning Board. This move reflects what the public already regard as the body’s name. The organisation, including the new functions provided to it by the Bill, will continue to operate under the name NHS England; this clause aligns the legal and technical name with the operational and publicly used name for clarity, and updates associated primary legislation.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, although disappointed that he does not agree with my amendment; I fear that may be a regular experience over the next few weeks, but we will carry on in hope rather than expectation.
As a final response, I would like to reflect on the kind of people we currently have on the board of NHS England. This is not meant to be a criticism of them at all—they are all very experienced and talented people—but their experience is not in healthcare; it is mainly in things such as retail or finance. They clearly have great qualities, but if hon. Members look at what is in our amendment and the kind of people we say ought to be at the top table, it is clear from the past 18 months how critical a role those people play.
Take, for example, the directors of public health. They have been the unsung heroes of the pandemic. I certainly know my local director of public health much better now than I did at the start of 2020, and he has been absolutely magnificent. He has always been available and, along with just about everyone else in the public sector, the amount of work that he has put in is phenomenal. That breadth of knowledge and experience deserves a seat at the top table.
Similarly, there should be a representative of the Local Government Association. Obviously there is some overlap with directors of public health, but local government has been magnificent, as the Minister noted, during the pandemic. We know that the vaccine roll-out, for example, and the ability to dispense tests quickly have been down to the agility of local authorities working in partnership with the NHS and the voluntary community sector.
There should also be a representative for patients; it seems a little odd that their voice is not at the top table, and I say the same about a representative for the staff. We talk a lot in here about how much we value the efforts of the staff, but we should put that into practice by acknowledging that they deserve a voice at the top table.
Clearly, the Minister will not accept the amendment, so I will seek to withdraw it, but I think we have made our point clearly about the kind of people we think should have a say in how NHS England is run. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
Power to require commissioning of specialised services
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (1), leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.”
This amendment, with Amendment 37, NC20 and NC21, restores the duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of services to that in the National Health Service Act 2006.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 13, line 18, leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
This amendment, with Amendment 36, NC20 and NC21, restores the duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of services to that in the National Health Service Act 2006.
New clause 20—Secretary of State’s duty to promote health service—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 1 (Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service) substitute the following—
“Secretary of State’s duty to promote health service
(1) The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.
(2) The Secretary of State must for that purpose provide or secure the provision of services in accordance with this Act.
(3) The services so provided must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.””
This new clause would restore the wording of section 1 of the NHS Act 2006, concerning the duties of the Secretary of State regarding the promotion of the health service, to its original form, before it was amended by section 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
New clause 21—Duties on the Secretary of State to provide services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must provide, in England, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements—
(a) hospital accommodation,
(b) other accommodation for the purpose of any service provided under this Act,
(c) medical, dental, ophthalmic, nursing and ambulance services,
(d) such other services or facilities for the care of pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding and young children as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(e) such other services or facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(f) such other services or facilities as are required for the diagnosis and treatment of illness.
(2) For the purposes of the duty in subsection (1), services provided under—
(a) section 82A (primary medical services), section 98C (primary dental services) or section 114C (primary ophthalmic services), of the NHS Act 2006, and
(b) a general medical services contract, a general dental services contract or a general ophthalmic services contract,
must be regarded as provided by the Secretary of State.”
Justin Madders
These amendments and new clauses are significant because, if accepted, they will put an end to the seemingly endless arguments that we saw during the passage of the 2011 Health and Social Care Bill. There is a whole shelf of books pointing out the changes in wording in what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and how they marked the end of the NHS as we previously knew and understood it. Allegedly expert barristers—although I have never met a barrister who did not claim to be an expert in something—wrote articles about how that new wording changed everything. On the other hand, the Government explained that they had changed nothing, and had simply put the reality on the ground into words.
David Lock QC, a genuine expert on NHS law, said that this technical change attracted considerable and possibly misguided criticism, but it did not involve any substantial change in practice. However, as reported by the noble Lords, it caused considerable confusion and suspicion. This confusion revolves around what is included in the NHS; what defines the comprehensive NHS; and how services required for the NHS are to be provided. Over time, the NHS has had many different structural solutions for providing these services, and indeed we are on yet another iteration of such a solution—we will see how long this one lasts.
The debate on that change of wording took up days of the Public Bill Committee’s time—or, should I say, the first of those Committees, as they had two goes at it on the last occasion. Let us hope we do not suffer a similar fate. Following that, there were hours of debate in the other place. The issue was then considered by the Constitution Committee, and some sort of compromise emerged, with insertion into the 2012 Act of what became, in the end, section 1(3) of the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended, which said:
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England”—
we hope that that is always the political reality, no matter the wording used in the legislation.
The extra wording proposed in new clause 20 sits within section 1 of the 2006 Act, and states:
“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.”
I will not read out the whole amendment, but I want to compare that section of the wording with that of the founding National Health Service Act 1946, which says:
“it shall be the duty of the Minister of Health to promote the establishment of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services”.
We have this curious word “promote”. To my mind, promoting puts a positive onus on the Secretary of State, but if he has a duty to promote a comprehensive NHS, how exactly should he do that? In 1948, did Nye Bevan drive up and down the street with a megaphone, urging people to go and see their doctor? Today, it would probably mean the Secretary of State sending out a tweet to do the same—although, given what we hear about GPs’ workloads, they would not thank the Secretary of State for that. Or does this duty mean that when we are in the Chamber, and some rogue Member claims that we should abandon the NHS and move to some kind of insurance-based model, the Secretary of State should leap up and promote away?
Over the past few years, even before covid, we have seen more and more people going for private treatment because waiting lists are so long. We know that whatever is decided in the legislation in the main Chamber today, those waiting lists are not going to reduce significantly for some considerable time. Is it in fact the case that the Secretary of State is not complying with his duty to promote the NHS by allowing these waiting lists to grow and grow, thereby forcing people to secure alternative provision? The word “promote” can have multiple meanings, and I can think of a few Secretaries of State who have lamentably failed to promote the NHS, and should probably not have been promoted in the first place.
The contentious bit of this issue is really about what makes up the NHS. It was claimed about the Lansley Bill, and has been claimed about this Bill, that the change in wording implies that people would be denied access to treatment from the NHS because, for example, an ICB decides to exclude a particular service, and there is no duty on the Secretary of State to stop that happening. A few points are clear enough: the Secretary of State promotes the comprehensive NHS, but does not provide it. The boundaries of what the NHS actually is change over time, as we all know. Social care is now outside the NHS, although that will probably alter slightly over the next few years. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence can redefine the boundaries; primary care trusts and clinical commissioning groups could exclude treatments on a whole range of different criteria that, while they may not have admitted it, did amount to an exclusion; and of course, advances in medical science mean that many things that were not available in 1946 and, indeed, could not possibly have been conceived of during the original Act, are available now on the NHS. Those boundaries are never entirely clear, and it is often up to the courts to draw out a decision about what healthcare amounts to.
However, in the 2006 Act, there was at least a bit of definition in clause 3:
“The Secretary of State must provide throughout England, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements—
(a) hospital accommodation,
(b) other accommodation for the purpose of any service provided under this Act,
(c) medical, dental, ophthalmic, nursing and ambulance services,
(d) such other services or facilities for the care of pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding and young children as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(e) such other services or facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(f) such other services or facilities as are required for the diagnosis and treatment of illness.”
I could go on, but I hope Members will take my word for it that this is very similar language to that of all the previous NHS Acts, going back to 1946. That is essentially what new clause 21 seeks to reassert and confirm for the purposes of clarity, so that where there are subordinate bodies such as PCTs, CCGs or even NHS England, those duties are very clearly set out at the top and can then percolate down.
Under the current Bill, the ICBs have a responsibility to provide services for a defined population that is phrased much like the above definition, but there is no duty on the Secretary of State to provide throughout England; in other words, there is nothing specific to say that the duty on the Secretary of State should be delegated to ICBs, which we say there should be. Our intention is to restore the position that the duty is placed on the Secretary of State, which he then delegates down to NHS England, ICBs and so on. We could spend a lot of time on this, as our predecessors have, but I do not think that will be the best use of our time, so we have attempted to avoid going down that particular rabbit hole with a straightforward amendment, with what I hope has been a straightforward explanation.
The Lansley changes were made to align with the NHS structures that the then Secretary of State introduced, which were essentially market structures, distancing the Secretary of State in the sense that they were unlike anything the NHS had done previously, which was part of the reason why there was so much debate about them. That is why in 2015, 2017 and 2019, we made it clear in my party’s manifesto that we would reinstate the duty to promote and deliver the NHS, so there would be no doubt that it was a public service and could be restored to that footing. Our argument is that for simplicity, we should restore the duties to those of the pre-Lansley era, to reflect that the Lansley experiment has failed and we are in a new world—a new world with the old wording, which we wish to reinstate. Let us keep it simple, save everyone a lot of work and go back to the old wording, so that there is no doubt about where the duties and responsibilities lie.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Government would be wise to take note of the proposal. As my hon. Friend said, many hours, days and weeks have been spent by not only Members of Parliament, but expensive lawyers and lots of concerned constituents across the country, arguing—as I have often thought myself at times—a slightly nuanced point, which is lost on people. I have absolutely been persuaded, however, that it is important to restore that duty. If the Government are rightly binning the Lansley Act, the amendment is an obvious one to consider and accept, as it puts the duty absolutely beyond doubt.
Running throughout the Bill, as we will discuss over the next few days and weeks, is a real problem of clarity and accountability. We should not let the Bill out of this place while it leaves that lack of clarity on duties, responsibilities and accountability for the NHS to decide, along with local government. There is a balance between permissiveness and diktat, and starting with clear duties on the Secretary of State would help. Later, we will discuss how the Government seem to want to give the Secretary of State enormous power to interfere in the most minute aspects of healthcare in our constituencies, something that concerns a great many people, organisations and the NHS itself.
If the Government are serious about rehabilitating themselves as the supporter of the NHS following the Lansley Act, an amendment to clarify that absolutely central role would be a wise thing to accept.
Edward Argar
Amendments 36 and 37 and new clauses 20 and 21 are in the name of the shadow Minister and his colleagues. I do not believe that what is being proposed reflects the reality of the role of the Secretary of State or what it should be, which is a strategic oversight role with the ability to intervene when necessary to ensure accountability. The hon. Gentleman might correct me, but I think he cited Mr Lock, who said that there was no substantial change in practice. That goes to the heart of why I am unpersuaded by the amendments.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the idea that the Secretary of State himself provides services has not reflected the reality of the structure of the NHS for many years, not least since 2003-04 with the introduction by the Labour party when in government of foundation trusts as independent entities in the health system. That purchaser-provider split, long established in the NHS and retained in the Bill, allows some of the health services in England to be provided by those such as NHS foundation trusts, which are legally distinct from the Secretary of State.
In the years since those changes, and as the many vigorous debates in Parliament since and during the passage of the 2012 legislation have demonstrated, there has rightly been no loss in the strong sense of governmental accountability for the NHS felt by Governments of all parties and by parliamentarians. As the proposers of this group of amendments have themselves been among the most eloquent and capable colleagues in holding Ministers and Government to account for the NHS, I find it slightly strange that they feel that their amendment is necessary.
At the time of the 2012 Act, as the shadow Minister alluded to, there was a great deal of debate in the other place on the value or otherwise of this wording. Eventually, the noble Lords concluded that it was better for the law to reflect the reality of the modern NHS. However, it remains the case that the Secretary of State has a firm duty to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service in practice. He does this through setting the strategic direction and his oversight of NHS England and the other national bodies of the NHS, and in the future, subject to debates in this place—I do not want to prejudge what the Committee and the House may determine on those clauses—through the extra lever of the proposed power of direction. At all times, he remains responsible to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.
NHS England also has a duty to arrange for the provision of services for the purpose of the health service in England and a concurrent duty to promote a comprehensive health service. Integrated care boards will, subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, also have functions in relation to arranging the provision of services.
I understand the point that Opposition Members are seeking to make with the amendment, but it is entirely unnecessary as law. The Secretary of State has the duty to promote the competence of the health service in practice. He is accountable to Parliament for the comprehensive health service, and I believe that local NHS leaders and NHS England are best placed to know what is needed to serve individual communities.
This goes to the heart of what I suspect will come up a number of times in our debates in this Committee, which is the extent to which the legislation should be prescriptive, or permissive and flexible. I suspect the shadow Minister and I will disagree on where the balance should lie, in a number of areas. We believe that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance.
The shadow Minister talked about flexibility in redefining the boundaries of what the NHS does. Throughout the history of the NHS, there have been tweaks along those lines. The Labour party introduced charges for glasses and dentures; the Conservative party introduced charges for prescriptions shortly afterwards; the Labour party abolished them, and then reintroduced them two years later. I use those examples because I think we should be wary about being overly prescriptive in primary legislation.
Clause 2 makes a number of amendments to the power allowing the Secretary of State to require NHS England to commission certain prescribed services. It ensures that the Secretary of State can still require NHS England to commission specialised services and facilities, but recognises that aspects of the commissioning might be carried out by other NHS bodies through joint or delegated working arrangements or by directing integrated care boards to provide those services.
Specialist services are commissioned to support people with a range of complex and rare conditions. Those services could involve the treatment of patients with rare cancers, genetic disorders, and complex medical or surgical conditions, for example. As such, it is right that NHS England has overall responsibility for the services and can decide whether they might be better delivered through joint or delegated working arrangements or through directions to ICBs—I am happy to adopt the shadow Minister’s suggested shorthand, otherwise we will be taking a very long time repeating the same words on multiple occasions.
The clause also removes the requirement of the Secretary of State to consider the financial implications for CCGs—to be replaced with ICBs—when requiring NHS England to commission certain services. The change focuses the decision about categorisation of specialised services on the complexity and impact of the service and the ability of ICBs to support commissioning services for their populations, reflecting the fact that ICBs are significantly larger than CCGs and, correspondingly, so are their financial resources. In some circumstances, NHS England may request that a service is no longer nominated as a specialised service or facility—that could be used, for example, as the technology improves and it becomes more appropriate for it to be commissioned by an ICB instead. The clause inserts a new provision in the NHS Act 2006 which requires the Secretary of State to provide reasons for any refusal to requests from NHS England to revoke provisions requiring NHS England to commission specialised services.
I therefore encourage the shadow Minister not to press his amendment to a vote.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, not least the promotion he inadvertently gave me by referring to me as shadow Secretary of State. We should have a Division on that, should we not? I understand what the Minister is saying, but our aim with this amendment is to reflect the new reality. No one has really got to the bottom of why the wording came out in 2012, but we are clearly moving back into a pre-Lansley era and the end of the marketisation, so we should go back to the previous wording. In terms of the services and duties in our new clause 21, I do not think the Minister said he disagreed that any of them should be provided. I am trying to do him a favour here and help him to avoid the Bill being bogged down in the Lords. If it comes back in ping-pong, we will quote the relevant new clause and say, “This is something that could have been avoided.”
I understand that the Minister does not want to be too prescriptive. He is right that the Bill will centre largely on the right balance between permissiveness and prescriptiveness, and we will no doubt have disagreements on that. I have tried to be helpful to him, but he does not want to accept that assistance on this occasion, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
NHS England mandate
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
“(e) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) The Secretary of State may revise the mandate should urgent or other unforeseen circumstances arise.
(6B) If the Secretary of State revises the mandate, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament the mandate as revised with a written explanation of the urgent or other unforeseen circumstances that justify the revision and an impact assessment of the proposed change.’”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 20, in clause 3, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
“(6) No mandate may be laid before Parliament unless the Secretary of State has supplied a statement on how the mandate will be funded.”
Justin Madders
These amendments to clause 3 deal with the mandate to NHS England. The mandate was part of the changes that were introduced to attempt to distance the role of Government and Ministers from the sound of the bedpans dropping. We can talk about how much the Secretary of State should be involved in that, but we will focus our comments on the mandate today.
What we saw was, in effect, an artificial distinction—one that, like so much else in the last piece of legislation, has largely been subverted or ignored. Despite the intentions, Ministers still try to micromanage and sometimes interfere, for what we would describe as political reasons, and the mandate has rumbled on. During the tortuous passage of the Lansley Bill, the Government had to concede that the Secretary of State remained politically responsible to Parliament for the NHS, which, as we have just discussed, has always been the reality.
It would be brave, however, for someone to suggest that the mandate has had the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. The mandate is presented to Parliament each year, but is that anything other than a ritual? I do not think Hansard records energetic and fierce debates about the mandate, although I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, if he can point me to a particular section.
The idea of the mandate is not entirely without merit. It is good that the NHS knows what is expected of it, and we all agree that it should be free from sudden announcements or other surprises—such as the Secretary of State announcing that the following week all NHS staff would have to wear face coverings before informing them that that was what was required. That is just one example from an extreme situation, but the point is that we all crave certainty. The mandate is an attempt to provide that; and without it, it is unclear how accountability works.
As was clearly articulated in last Thursday’s evidence session, the NHS welcomes the mandate’s ability, in theory at least, to give it stability and enable it, if possible, to plan for the medium and long term. I am sure we could have a debate on whether that is indeed what has happened; it is pretty clear in recent times that, for genuine reasons, that has not been possible. However, most experts would suggest that the NHS would benefit from stability and the ability to plan over at least a three or five-year period without lurches in policy and—crucially and pertinently given today’s business in the Chamber—with a degree of funding certainty to match the requirements.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I wish to make one simple point, following what the right hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, which is that the annual funding of any health system based on the tax year—I can speak to this, having spent more than three decades on the frontline—means that clinicians will inevitably be contacted in January or February and asked, “What equipment do you need? You have to obtain it by 31 March.” Providers of medical equipment will happily admit that prices go up in the first quarter of the year and then drop, so this hand-to-mouth method actually costs all health services massive amounts of money. Simply being able to smooth that out so that we know what is coming several years ahead would save millions of pounds on procurement and allow that money to be directed to clinical care.
Karin Smyth
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The mandate is important. It is awaited by clinicians and managers in the health service as it affects how they are to operate in the forthcoming year. Often guidance arrives the week before Christmas, as I remember from my time in the NHS, so we were starting to plan for the very short term, which really is unhelpful. It is a regular statement intent, and it is a way in which the public can see what is happening or is due to happen to their services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston quoted from the King’s Fund’s written evidence, which mentioned the
“multiple plans and strategies in each ICS”
and the need for a “more ‘local’ place level”. As we heard in our evidence sessions, this is already a very confused picture, and one that we are going to try to navigate our way through. Although I do think that there should be greater permissiveness, so long as it is accountable at local level, the mandate gives us a degree of accountability at national level, on the Government’s intent, published in their stated aims, and that gives the general public and taxpayer confidence.
On our amendment about 18 weeks, that target was often criticised as not being clinically referenced. It was brought in after the then Conservative Government talked about an 18-month target being highly ambitious for people waiting to be seen clinically—some of us are old enough to remember those dreadful days, to which we have returned. Now, we could argue whether 18 weeks was the right number, but it was something that drove up standards of care, and it meant that the NHS said to the taxpayer, “We accept that you deserve a better standard of care and treatment, and it is completely unacceptable to be on a waiting list for 18 months to two years”—it was often longer. It focused minds, drove service redesign and made clinicians go back over their lists, because if someone has come on to a list two and a half years earlier, many things would have happened and, sadly, in many instances that person would have died.
By supporting our amendment, the Government would show that they are ambitious for the NHS and the people it serves. If the Minister is not prepared to support that 18-week commitment, what is acceptable to the Government? We and all our constituents know that waiting lists were rising out of control before the pandemic, and that the target had not been met for several years. Clearly the pandemic has exacerbated the situation, but let us be clear that targets not being met was a pre-pandemic problem.
We hear utterances from the Government in the newspapers about what they think about the targets—“nonsensical” is what the Secretary of State said at the weekend. The targets were put in place to give people confidence that their taxes were funding a service that they could hold to account in some degree, and it drove some positive behaviour. It will take a massive effort to get waiting lists down, so what discussions has the Minister had with clinicians and managers about the loss of targets? Why would he not support putting that target back in the Bill? The long waiting lists are miserable for everyone concerned. They need to be published. We need to let people know what they can expect from our service. I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendment, or at least its intent. If he is not prepared to do so, what does he think is an acceptable length of time for people to be on a waiting list?
Edward Argar
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is having a good day; I promoted him to shadow Secretary of State and I think the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made him a member of the Privy Council, so he is doing well this morning. Although we may resist many of his amendments, I take the point that he did not table them from a partisan perspective but genuinely approached them with sincerity. He mentioned that on a previous occasion the Bill Committee had to be run twice. Fond of him as I am, I think both of us would prefer not to have to do this twice together.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for promoting me to the Privy Council. At this rate I will be Prime Minister by lunchtime and supreme leader of the universe by the end of today’s sitting, in which case the Bill will no longer be required.
The hon. Lady made an important point about the effect of annual budgets and, frankly, the opportunism that follows from those providing services. We know that happens in all sorts of sectors, but the amendment sets out very clearly why a longer-term footing is needed. What the hon. Lady referred to was a boom-and-bust approach, but we will leave such terms to history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South articulated clearly some of the challenges as well. She made the point about accountability, which really does matter. As she said, there is a theme throughout the Bill that accountability is somewhat missing. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the impact assessment—better late than never. The White Paper was issued in January and the Bill had its Second Reading in July, so there has been plenty of time to get everything sorted.
The amendments seek to stop the Government’s propensity to announce policy by headline and then work out the detail later on. The Minister has helpfully said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the mandate will be fully funded, and we will make sure that he commits to that. We probably do not need to press amendment 20, but we will press amendment 19 to a vote. We think the Government intend to move towards a longer-term plan for the mandate on an annual cycle, but the legislation as it currently stands does not prevent it from becoming stop-start, and there will be circumstances when it will be necessary to change within year. It is important, for reasons of accountability, that that comes with some conditions attached.
The Minister said that we are trying to take away flexibility from the Secretary of State, but we are not. We are trying to encourage accountability alongside flexibility. We accept that there will be circumstances in which the mandate will need to be changed in urgent situations and we would not want to impinge on that, but if the Secretary of State has the power to move things forward in that manner, he should be accountable to Parliament when he does. Again, we are trying to be helpful and assist him. We hope he does not have to do it very often, but if he does issue a mandate in urgent circumstances he will want to know what the impact will be on the NHS. He will want to know that the funding is there and that the NHS has the capacity to deliver the demands placed on it. Those are questions that any member of the Department will ask, so we hope to put in the Bill what ought to happen in practice. It is important enough to press the matter to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require NHS England to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, the health and well-being of the people of England must be NHS England’s primary consideration.”
This amendment would assert that duties to patients come above any other (e.g. organisational) considerations.
Amendment 23, in clause 19, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim explicitly to require integrated care boards to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
Amendment 24, in clause 19, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, the health and well-being of the people it serves must be the primary consideration of an integrated care board.”
This amendment would assert that duties to patients come above any other (e.g. organisational) considerations.
Amendment 25, in clause 43, page 47, line 32, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require NHS trusts to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
Amendment 26, in clause 43, page 47, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, the health and well-being of the people it serves must be the primary consideration of an NHS trust.”
This amendment would assert that duties to patients come above any other (e.g. organisational) considerations.
New clause 13—Secretary of State’s duty to set targets on population health and reduction of inequalities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least every five years, publish a report setting targets on—
(a) the improvement of the physical and mental health of the population, and
(b) the reduction of health inequalities.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report recording progress against the targets in subsection (1).”
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, and to make my first contribution to the proceedings. It will perhaps give my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston a chance to bask in his new-found responsibilities, while I pick up the cudgel with the Minister. I am afraid I do not have such luxury as he does.
This group of amendments relates to health inequalities and to the priority that we give to the health of the nation, rather than the structures that serve the health of the nation. I will go through each amendment in turn, but I want to talk about a couple of themes that cover them all.
I strongly believe that addressing health inequalities ought to be a foundational priority of any Government of the day. What could be crueller than having such a significant element of a person’s future—how long they will live, how long they will live in good health and what diseases they are likely to acquire—preordained at birth? That has always seemed cruel to me.
Government are not a passive part of that process. The decisions that are taken in this place play an active part in those inequalities. For example, the decisions taken later today and on universal credit will widen them. We should seek to use this Bill as a turning point in our battle against health inequalities in this country. This should be the Bill in which we say that the national health service, and those who need it locally, must be central to addressing health inequalities in this country and that the Government will resource them properly to do so.
It is not a moment too soon to do this. The legacy of this decade of austerity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about, is that for the first time in a century the increase in life expectancy has stalled. What does it say about us, the most technologically advanced generation in history, that the increase in life expectancy stalls on our watch?
Within that there is a yawning gap in healthy life expectancy between those who live in the best-off and the worst-off communities. On the basic life expectancy measure the gap is 10 years, but on healthy life expectancy, measured by the age at which people have their first disability, the gap is 18 years between communities like mine and the communities that are best off in this country. How sad that is; how sad is what it says about us.
As the 2020 Marmot review concluded,
“health is getting worse for people living in more deprived districts and regions, health inequalities are increasing and, for the population as a whole, health is declining…the country has been moving in the wrong direction.”
Again, we heard evidence about that in the evidence sessions of this Committee. We ought to use this Bill as a moment to do something about it.
These inequalities are not just about socioeconomic status; they are about race as well. Research by the King’s Fund shows that
“people from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities have the poorest health outcomes across a range of indicators.”
Covid has shone a light on both race and socioeconomic background as drivers of inequalities. We entered the pandemic thinking it would be a great leveller and that the virus would not know people’s postcode, job or ethnicity. Actually, we quickly learned that that was not the case and that someone was twice as likely to die from covid if they lived in the most deprived communities. A man from a black African background is nearly four times as likely to die of covid as I am. Those inequalities, and how they played out, whether in housing, in occupation or pre-existing health, offered a breeding ground for the virus. That is devastating for individuals, but it is worse for all of us, because it has spread and strengthened the virus. Those health inequalities are bad for everybody.
Just before I turn to my amendments, I should also say that it is strange, given that half of all health inequalities are driven by smoking, to see a Health and Care Bill that does not talk about smoking at all. I hope that when we get to part 5, where some of the public health elements are found, we might collectively do better there.
Amendment 21 seeks to address the point about inequalities by adding to the triple aim for NHS England as set out in clause 4. The triple aim for the national health service is a good thing. It shows the system and those who work in it and lead it, whatever their role, what we want them to prioritise. The three strands of that triple aim are noble: the health and wellbeing of the people of England, the quality of service provided and the efficiency and sustainability of resources. However, that is not robust enough to ensure not just due regard for health inequalities but strong action.
I will not prejudge what the Minister will say, but I suspect he may say that promoting the health and wellbeing of people in England is the aim that covers inequalities. That is an important pursuit, but it is not explicit enough. It is just about general improvement. For example, we hope the Government would expect to see a resumption in the increase in life expectancy. That would be a general improvement in the health and wellbeing of the people of England. The problem with that is that it would not address the point about healthy life expectancy. There would be general and maybe even aggregate improvements for possibly a great deal of the population, but not enough to deal with the extraordinary and growing gaps for others. I think we ought to want to do something about that.
Accepting the amendment would mean the Government would send a signal to NHS England that tackling health inequalities ought to be at the centre of its mission. A quadruple aim may not be as elegant as a triple aim, but it is important that tackling health inequalities is recognised in the Bill. I know that the Minister wants the legislation to stand the test of time. He suggested I said something from a sedentary position about multiple pieces of legislation, which I genuinely believe I did not, but we ought to say that we are here because the 2012 Act was so bad. That there have been nine years since that Act is not a strength on the Government’s part; it is a weakness that they have defended something that has not worked for a long period of time. If we want the Bill to stand the test of time, then we ought to say what we want the health service to do. By putting that in the Bill, we would do that.
Amendment 22 also addresses the triple aim and creates a hierarchy within. High-quality and sustainable services are important, but when commissioning decisions are being made at a national level, as happens with NHS England, and those decisions affect our constituents, we do not want equal weight being given to organisational considerations. The whole point of the Bill as explained on Second Reading is to move to an integrated system that is built around the health and care needs of the population, rather than around organisational boundaries. We all recognise where that butts up in our casework and the frustration that that causes for us and, more importantly, for our constituents—those who have to make multiple calls to arrange care for loved ones and so on. If that is our purpose here, we want health and wellbeing to come first. The amendment seeks to do that and says that the primary aim of the three is the health and wellbeing of the population. If that means that there is a knock-on effect on political decisions on funding, as discussed in the previous set of amendments, so be it. It will be for the Government of the day to ensure that NHS England has the resources to do that well.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the very recent precedent in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, the Bill Committee for which took place in this room or an identical one. I was a member of that Committee, as were the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, who is not in her place at the moment, and the hon. Member for Erewash. When we discussed the triple aim of that Bill, I moved an amendment to prioritise patient safety over all other considerations, because I thought that was an uppermost consideration. It was originally rejected in Committee, but the Government brought it back in later stages, which was the right thing to do. Rather than waiting to bring this back later, we could address it today. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Amendment 23 is a counterpart to amendment 21, but it operates at local level. Whereas amendment 21 applied to NHS England, amendment 23 applies to local integrated care boards—to say that, as part of their responsibilities, they must take inequalities into account. Of course, all the arguments that I have made for NHS England also apply here, so I will not repeat them, but this is quite a profound case at local level. From the written evidence, the hearings and the contributions from hon. Members throughout the Bill’s stages and elsewhere in this place, we can see that there is considerable anxiety that we will end up devolving fixed financial settlements down to the integrated care system level. That suits Ministers, because it means that they can devolve financial responsibility so that the Treasury can know what it is spending on a certain function, but all the tough decisions that get us to that point have to be taken at local level. I do not think that is a dystopian scenario, because that is literally what we do with social care already in local government.
The Government know that they do not resource local authorities sufficiently. As a result, social care is squeezed. What happens in those circumstances is that the systems start to worry about running out of money. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made a point about end-of-year capital that I recognise from my time in local government, but it works in reverse—when Christmas comes about, there is a spending freeze on everything, and the chief executive of every council in the country ends up reviewing every purchase of more than about a fiver. That is the reality for the systems, and local commissioners will be pressured to think in the interest of resourcing their system, rather than tackling health inequalities. That runs straight into the argument for amendment 24, which is a counterpart to amendment 22 and which says that the hierarchy within the triple aim ought to apply at an integrated care system footprint.
In paragraph 44 on page 18 of the explanatory notes, the Government have told us that the purpose of the triple aim duty is to
“require organisations to think about the interests of the wider system”.
I get that, but I do not think it is quite right, because the primary responsibility is to think about the interests of the wider population. It flows from there that the best way to address the health needs of the population is a system-based approach, which is the Minister’s central argument for this entire piece of legislation—so organisations have to think about each other. However, the primacy is the need of the population.
Perhaps the Minister will say it is axiomatic that health systems will prioritise the wellbeing of their community above everything else, but I do not think it is inconceivable at all that at some point in any given year—never mind at some point in the future—system leaders in one of those footprints will feel distressed about their finances and may take the wrong message, or perhaps the wrong bit of cover on a commissioning decision, about putting population wellbeing in the same tier as system sustainability, as if those two things could be co-equals and, if in tension, could be resolved either way. I do not think that is right, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that.
Amendment 25 requires health trusts to pay regard to “health inequalities”. Again, it is a counterpart to amendments 23 and 21, and it is for the same reasons as for NHS England and integrated care boards, so I will not repeat those arguments.
Amendment 26 is a counterpart to amendments 24 and 22, requiring the prioritisation of population health and wellbeing at trust level, for the same reasons that I have just mentioned. Again, I will not repeat those arguments.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support these measures. The longer those of us who work in the NHS spend on the frontline, in particular as a breast cancer surgeon in a specialist area, the more we realise that we are constantly catching someone who falls, instead of building a handrail to stop them falling in the first place. Anyone who works in health or social care recognises that health inequalities are a major issue, going right back to the Marmot report of 2010, the Black report and, indeed, many decades. Therefore, they should be a priority at every single level.
The public have a real appetite to see a different approach after covid, because they are aware that covid was not a leveller. It absolutely hit the weakest, most vulnerable and poorest communities. To change the prioritisation to health and wellbeing is also critical. More money is spent picking up the pieces than investing in health in the first place. That is often the health of children; we should try to tackle child poverty and the issues that come from that.
I took part in a report in 2016 that heard from the UK Faculty of Public Health that the UK loses 1,400 children a year before the age of 15, as a direct result of poverty and deprivation. It is clear that the aim of the Bill is not just to take away the appalling section 75. It is to drive integration and the health of the local population. That should be set as a key priority, if the aim is to come out with an approach of putting health in all policies, within local government, the ICS boards and the NHS.
Karin Smyth
I concur with the comments of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. The hon. Lady referenced the Black report, which first got me interested in working in the health service. I was shocked that, after all those years, the NHS had not improved the dreadful health inequalities that much of the population, including my own constituents, suffered. Here we are 40 years later, and we still have some really quite shocking health inequalities, even in the wealthy city of Bristol.
This is a really important point. We learned a lot in the pandemic, and hon. Members spoke about meeting their directors of public health recently. I have known my director of public health in Bristol for some 20 years because we have worked together over that period. I supported the movement of DPHs into local authorities. I think that was the right move, although the lack of funding that followed has made their job really difficult, and we have not made the improvements we should have made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North outlined.
There is real enthusiasm among clinical and financial leaders for some of the movement in the Bill to bring organisations together in integrated care partnerships or ICSs—wherever we think the power will be—to look at population health. Financial directors I have talked to have said, “This is the direction we need to be going in. We need not to be looking just at our own institutions.” There is a will with the Government, but not including health inequalities is a major mistake. I appreciate that when they drafted this legislation, they were perhaps not thinking in that form, but a number of organisations have asked for that addition to be made.
The pandemic required us to talk closely to our clinical leaders, and it really educated people in individual specialties, who are not terribly knowledgeable about health inequalities—perhaps we think they should be. Even in terms of our understanding of where vaccines have been successful and unsuccessful, and how different communities receive information and engage with local health and care services, the pandemic has been a wake-up call and a good education for many of those leaders. We need to capitalise on that.
I know that drafters do not like to change things, but if we were to put addressing health inequalities in the Bill, as we seek to do, it would focus the Government’s drive on place-based commissioning and service delivery, and send a message to the powerful acute trusts—which at the end of the day run the money, and still will—that addressing health inequalities and looking at where and how their services are delivered to the most vulnerable will be a really positive outcome for the entire system. I therefore support the pursuance of the amendments.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
To encourage the Minister to accept the amendment, I point out that addressing health inequalities would coincide with the Government’s stated aim of levelling up, so there is a happy coincidence there that might persuade him. Health inequalities are reflected geographically, and large parts of the country clearly suffer from them more than others. That pertains to England, but were I standing in the Senedd in Cardiff, I would say the same about Wales. That is slightly off the point, but there we are.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister and all other hon. Members who have spoken for the expertise that they bring to this debate. It is one of the quirks of this House that lawyers are hon. and learned Members and members of the armed forces are hon. and gallant Members, but we do not have an equivalent for those who serve in the medical profession. Perhaps we should think about that.
I am very grateful to hon. Members for bringing this debate to the Committee by tabling these amendments, which relate to the important issue of health inequalities, in the context of the new triple aim duty set out in the Bill. Even though we may not reach the same conclusions about the best way to do it, it is right that we debate this crucial issue in Committee.
With your consent, Mrs Murray, and that of the Committee, I will start in reverse order with new clause 13, and then work my way through the amendments of the hon. Member for Nottingham North. The new clause would place an additional duty on the Secretary of State to produce a report setting targets on the improvement of the physical and mental health of the population and the reduction of health inequalities.
I appreciate and understand the intention behind the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. He is right: health is the nation’s greatest asset. Preventing ill health, improving people’s health and wellbeing, and tackling long-standing inequalities are all fundamental to the economic and social strength of our country. However, the creation of a new statutory duty to set the type of target identified in the new clause is not necessary, in the light of the existing duties on the Secretary of State around improving public health and seeking to reduce health inequalities, as provided for in the 2006 Act. I may not agree with everything in it, but I pay tribute, where it is due, to the Labour party. Labour Members will hear a number of references to what is in that Act and to the retention of what is in that Act in many areas.
Of course, ICBs, too, have duties to have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities whenever they are exercising their functions, to promote integration where it would reduce health inequalities and to set out how they will tackle health inequalities in their plans.
I hope I can reassure members of the Committee that the Government are already taking strong action in these areas and that there are already a number of targets relating to improving the population’s health that cannot be met without addressing those underlying inequalities. For example—I know that this is something that the hon. Member for Nottingham North feels very strongly about—we cannot achieve our existing commitment to a smoke-free generation by 2030 if we do not address as a priority the needs of those people and populations with the greatest levels of need and help people to give up smoking. He is right, and this involves the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds. I suspect that when we reach the latter parts of this legislation that are about public health more specifically, this issue may feature, rightly, in the Committee’s discussions again.
To support our strategy to improve the population’s health and reduce health inequalities, at the beginning of October we will launch the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities within the Department. We have also announced that we will create a cross-Government ministerial group with a remit specifically to identify and tackle the wider determinants of poor health. Our broader focus on levelling up, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, recognises the wide range of factors such as good jobs, homes and local environments in which we can take pride, alongside a range of other factors, that all support and interact with our physical and mental health.
In contrast, I fear that the new clause, although I can see its intent, could make it more difficult for us to swiftly focus on ensuring that such inequalities are identified and acted on. Had we a fixed, five yearly set of targets to work towards, I fear that it would introduce more rigidity, rather than the agility and flexibility that we seek in meeting the changing assessments of what underlying health inequalities must be tackled as a priority. I hope that I can persuade members of the Committee, although perhaps not all of them, that a five-year fixed plan is potentially inflexible and is not necessary in the context of this legislation.
I turn now to the amendments that relate to the duty known as the triple aim. Amendments 21, 23 and 25 would add a fourth limb of tackling health inequalities for NHS England, ICBs and NHS trusts. As I have stressed, we do recognise the importance of tackling health inequalities, but again, we do not feel that the amendments, however well intentioned, are necessary. As we have discussed, there are existing statutory duties on bodies in this area, many of which relate specifically to health inequalities. NHS England and ICBs will have to have regard to such duties alongside the limbs of the triple aim. NHS England will also have to consider such duties when it produces the guidance on the triple aim.
The triple aim is compatible with and conducive to addressing health inequalities and furthering the delivery of these duties. Indeed, tackling health inequalities is a theme that runs throughout the duties. Having organisations consider the wider effects of their decisions will, we believe, encourage greater collaboration and engagement with communities on how best to meet their needs, which in turn will assist with tackling health inequalities nationally, but also flexibly at a local level.
The triple aim duty requires consideration of the health and wellbeing of the people of England. As the shadow Minister alluded to, that would also include consideration of the health and wellbeing of those who are not accessing health services. Similarly, it is a key element of the second limb of the triple aim—the improvement of the quality of services—to consider those areas where services are in most need of improvement. We expect guidance from NHS England to make clear how bodies can discharge the triple aim duty in a way that is fully commensurate with the reduction of health inequalities.
Alex Norris
Turning briefly to the points made by colleagues, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made the same arguments I did about patient safety and the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. She made very good points about the health and wellbeing amendments, and I thought she was right to say that there is a real public appetite, now in particular, to tackle inequality. I do not think the public would be surprised to see the Government enter this space.
The hon. Member for Arfon made a similar point about whether levelling up is a political slogan or a public policy programme. It is very hard at the moment to find evidence for the latter, but this would be a really good piece of evidence for it. It is not just a north and midlands versus south issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, there are some constituencies, like my own, where every single super output area would be in the hardest pressed decile in the country. However, there are many more where there is a greater range—they have some of the poorest parts of the country, but they also have some of the best off. This is something that ought to be at the top of the priority list for every integrated care system in every constituency.
On new clause 13, the Minister said that five years is too rigid. He almost suggested that the Government might outperform. I will believe it when I see it, but there is no evidence from the last 11 years to suggest that that is in any way a risk. Nevertheless, if he brings this back with a two, three or four-year time period rather than five, I will be the first to join him in the Division Lobby to support it.
On amendments 21, 23 and 25, the idea of a “fourth limb” made it work conceptually—I quite like that. What I did not give much succour to was the idea that inequalities lie somewhere else on the statute book, in a way that health and wellbeing and organisational sustainability do not, and therefore it would not need that co-equivalence because it already exists. I did not agree with that point at all.
On the point about inequalities being part of the guidance, I suspect that that will not be the last time that is said in this Committee. Guidance is guidance; legislation is legislation. One of those is an awful lot more powerful and eminent than the other. My view is that if we want to send a clear signal about something, we do not take it out and stick it in the guidance.
I do not give much succour to the point about elevating one of the triple aims either. The Minister said that that would undermine the triple aims. He talked again about the interest of the wider system, but I think all of us are more interested in the wider population. One of those clearly comes before the other. The needs of the one flow into how to organise the system. To organise a system that is supposed to come together in the interests of population health, I would really like to think that population health is more important than the system. I am not sure about the idea that, as a result, worse decisions would be made, and I would be interested in hearing an example. I have to say that that point did not resonate with me.
I am conscious of the reply from the Minister and, indeed, of the time, so I will not press new clause 13 and amendments 22 to 26. However, I do wish to push amendment 21, because if we are talking about NHS England—that totem of healthcare in our country—I really think we ought to send the signal that health inequality should be one of its priorities.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
The clause places a new requirement on NHS England to consult and involve carers and representatives of those individuals to whom health services are provided when exercising its commissioning functions. NHS England is currently required to involve and consult individuals to whom healthcare is provided when carrying out its commissioning functions; the clause extends that existing requirement to consulting with their carers and representatives as well. We want to ensure that we have a health and care system that is accountable and responsive to the people who rely on it.
The clause recognises the immensely important role that carers and representatives play in supporting our health and care system, and ensures that our legislation remains in step with current practice within that system. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee and hope that all Members feel able to support it.
Justin Madders
I am sure we are all excited to get this one passed—I am certainly not going to oppose it. However, I have a couple of questions of clarification.
Health and Care Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 14th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 September 2021 - (14 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Elliott.
We were left on a cliffhanger before lunch. I was about to ask the Minister some questions. He might have preferred the advantage of having two and a half hours in between to think of an answer, but I am sure he will cope. Actually, it is a fairly straightforward question, so I hope for a fairly straightforward answer.
The clause refers to carers and their representatives. Will the Minister clarify who that is? Is that carers’ groups or, for example, someone who might hold power of attorney? That is really the only comment I wanted to make on clause 5.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, I think for the first time in Committee.
To answer the shadow Minister briefly, I certainly envisage that the clause encompasses those with power of attorney, because in effect and in law they are the legal representatives of individuals who do not always have capacity to speak for themselves. In that context, I also hope that we will see carers’ organisations, as well as others who do not necessarily have power of attorney but act as advocates or representatives for individuals, having their views heard and taken into consideration. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Support and assistance by NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause confers a power to provide assistance and support to NHS foundation trusts, NHS trusts and other persons providing services as part of the health service in England to work to secure continuous improvement in the quality of the provision of such health services and their financial sustainability. That new power replaces a range of existing support functions sitting with NHS England and the NHS Trust Development Authority. In particular, it replaces the function of the NHS Trust Development Authority to take steps to assist health service providers as conferred by directions. It also replaces the existing power of NHS England to support clinical commissioning groups and primary care providers, which enables NHS England to provide direct financial support to integrated care boards and providers within the scope of the provisions, and to provide other support and assistance to all those bodies exercising functions within or part of the health service.
The clause is an example of the positive improvement that the merger of NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority will bring to the health service. It will allow NHS England to take such steps as it sees as necessary to identify and address areas of concern early, while also providing support to leadership and guidance where required to shape the services that are delivered for the greatest benefit of patients. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
The Opposition will not oppose the clause, but I have one or two queries that we hope the Minister will be able to answer. Obviously, it is a broad power. I assume that the reference in proposed new section 13YA(1)(a) to “person” relates not just to individuals. Perhaps the Minister will expand on what that is meant to cover.
Also, specifically, at proposed new subsection (3), on integrated care boards and the provision of financial assistance, as we remember from the evidence sessions, there was not a great deal of clarity about the costs that NHS England anticipated might be incurred as a result of the legislation. Will the Minister assist us by providing some estimates of that, as well as whether the powers under clause 6, including the financial assistance, are subject to any limits or reporting requirements back to the Secretary of State, and whether Parliament would have a role in that at any point?
Proposed new subsection (2) talks about providing
“employees or any other resources of NHS England.”
The Minister said that “employees” could include secondees. I think it is clear from the guidance that certain roles on the ICB should not have any, for want of a better description, conflicts of interest or hold any other roles within the wider NHS. I want to make sure that the Minister is clear that that requirement is not going to cause us any difficulties.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the shadow Minister for his succinct questions. I will try to address them all in turn. He referenced the term “person” in proposed new subsection (1). It is a legal definition. In the context of the services provided—I mentioned primary care—it could be a GP practice. Having gone through the drafting with officials, my understanding is that it is a legal term and does not alter what is currently possible.
I may take the questions slightly out of order, and I hope he will forgive me. On proposed new subsection (2), I think he was referring to subsequent new clauses and amendments he has tabled around ICBs, who the suitable persons to sit on them are and the management of conflicts of interest. I suggest to him that, given the amendments he has tabled, the most appropriate time to discuss those issues would be in the context of how we do or do not further refine the definitions around memberships of ICBs. The Committee will reach that on Thursday, I suspect. On reporting and transparency, I entirely share his view and reassure him that I expect transparency to play a key role when public moneys are spent this way.
Finally, on proposed new subsection (3) and the cost to the NHS and the Exchequer, no specific limits are stated in the legislation, but, obviously, any assistance provided would need to meet the purpose set out in the Bill and be transparently awarded. I hope that gives him some reassurance, but I am always happy to revert to him if he wishes to follow up on any detail—either now or in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Exercise of functions relating to provision of services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am getting my exercise today in bouncing up and down in my seat. Clause 7 enables NHS England to direct one or more integrated care boards to exercise certain NHS England functions and to fund the exercise of those functions. This relates to NHS England functions such as the commissioning of specialised services, health services in justice settings and armed forces settings, primary medical services, dental services, primary ophthalmic services, pharmaceutical services, and any of the Secretary of State’s public health functions that are exercisable by NHS England on his behalf. In future the intention is that ICBs be responsible for the majority of health service commissioning in England. This approach will ensure that decisions about services are made closer to the patient and in line with local population needs, enabling greater integration in the way that services are arranged and delivered.
Clause 7 ensures that NHS England has the appropriate powers to make sure we achieve our policy objective, by allowing flexibility for ICBs to take on these additional commissioning responsibilities as delegated functions from NHS England. We intend that this can be used by NHS England to delegate primary care functions while ICBs mature, before we transfer them fully to ICBs at the appropriate time using clause 16 and schedule 3, which we will debate in due course. This will allow NHS England to keep a closer watch on how ICBs are discharging these functions, and managing the transition, before they are fully delegated to and embedded in ICBs.
The Secretary of State will have the ability to make regulations under this clause, meaning that, where appropriate, certain conditions or limitations can be placed on NHS England’s power to direct ICBs, including the ability to prescribe functions that the power does not apply to at all. Any directions issued by NHS England under this clause must be published. I know that the transparency point is one that the shadow Minister has raised on a number of occasions, so I reassure him that they must be published ensuring that such directions are made transparently, and that responsibilities between NHS England and ICBs are clearly set out.
This clause is essential to give NHS England the flexibility, and the appropriate mechanisms, to delegate the commissioning of these services when the time is right to do so. Therefore, I commend it to the Committee.
Justin Madders
We will not be opposing this clause. Clearly, as the Minister has set out, it is necessary to enable the functioning of the health service.
I have one question about the powers under proposed new subsection 13YB(4), which are effectively prohibitions on the ICBs from delegating arrangements further. Will the Minister set out what circumstances are envisaged, if any, where this power may be necessary? There will obviously be delegations, not only to the services listed there, but to place-based organisations. In that situation, what does the Minister see the role of the ICBs as? Will it be the ICB itself that delivers those functions, or will it be another body?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Further to those points about clarity around the exercising of powers, the move to give NHS England that power is entirely sensible. The medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services have had a lower profile in our constituencies over the last few years, as I think we would all agree. It is important to give them the profile they need to be integrated into the system, because they have certainly not been so far.
The evolution of delegating that power to CCGs came late in the day, and remains muddled around the commissioning of primary care services. Therefore, while allowing the delegation of function is entirely sensible, it is not clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, when or how that delegation will be sought. I think the Minister was referring to the involvement of the Secretary of State, but I am not sure in what circumstances the Secretary of State would be doing that, and why this would not be when NHS England, or NHS England regions, decides that the ICB is of a maturity to accept commissioning responsibilities.
One assumes that NHS England believes that at the moment some of those putative organisations are mature enough already; will some of them start doing that on day one, six months in or a year in? How will we know and how will they be resourced to do it? Is it a transfer of power? How NHS England and the local ICB, without representatives of medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical bodies, will be taking that on board is all very opaque.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has a local Mayor, but my community does not. If someone lives in Greater Manchester there is a Mayor, but in other places there may not be. We have a very asymmetric model of local devolution. Does she agree that an asymmetric model of devolution, where some ICBs had certain powers and others did not, would be undesirable and may create more confusion than it solves?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about asymmetrical power and who does what. I may differ slightly, in that I think that that may suit local circumstances, but the judgment about what a mature ICB is, and which powers it should be responsible for, has been made behind closed doors and according to criteria about which we know nothing. The professionals in those services certainly deserve to know better.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of trying to join up different primary care services and the commissioning arrangements. There has been, under Governments of all complexions, a fragmentation in that, with some services commissioned nationally and others locally, and the Bill gives us an opportunity to create a more coherent, place-based commissioning approach.
On the specific point the shadow Minister asked about proposed new subsection (4) and the
“direction under subsection (1) to include provision prohibiting or restricting the integrated care board from making delegation arrangements in relation to a function that is exercisable by it by virtue of the direction”,
my understanding is that it is a pragmatic clause, basically limiting the ability to sub-delegate further. We would envisage this being a consensual and collaborative approach between us and NHS England in the region, and of course the Government would be guided by NHS England.
In the nature of having to make regulations in this House to do it, the wording reflects the fact that it will be the Government laying those regulations, but we would envisage that being guided and led by the NHS. As the hon. Member for Bristol South rightly said, the NHS region will often be the best place to advise on the readiness or otherwise of different ICBs at different stages in the process.
Karin Smyth
Would somebody be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if they disagreed with that delegation, for example?
Edward Argar
My understanding is that there is no formal right of appeal in this context. I suspect that dispute resolution and formal rights of appeal is something we will come back to in other contexts.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Preparation of consolidated accounts for providers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 8 places a duty on NHS England to prepare, in respect of each financial year, a set of accounts that consolidate the annual accounts of English NHS trusts and foundation trusts. The transparency of financial reporting across NHS providers will be diminished without this provision, as the consolidated provider accounts collate the financial reporting of all NHS trusts and foundation trusts to give an NHS provider position that is laid before Parliament, and has been since the 2017-18 financial year.
In addition, NHS England has a duty to provide a copy of the consolidated accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General, and a duty to lay copies of the consolidated accounts and the related report before Parliament. To ensure adequate financial scrutiny, the Secretary of State has the power to give directions to NHS England on the principles and methods to be applied in preparing the accounts and their content and form, and can direct that the accounts must be accompanied by any reports or information deemed necessary. The Comptroller and Auditor General must, as their responsibilities stand currently, examine, certify and report on the consolidated accounts and send copies of the report to the Secretary of State and to NHS England.
The provisions set out in this clause not only provide continuity to the system but place in law strong levels of oversight relating to both NHS trusts and foundation trusts. That ensures the transparency that we would all wish to see and the robustness of the process and procedures governing financial health at a local level. This clause is an important way of ensuring NHS England discharges its responsibilities as system regulator in delivering appropriate and adequate stewardship of the health system and, ultimately, public money.
Justin Madders
Again, we will not oppose the clause, but I have a query about the powers under proposed new section 65Z4(4), particularly in the context of what the Secretary of State said at the weekend about targets being a lot of form-filling and nonsense. It seems rather odd to give himself powers to direct trusts to provide any reports or information that he requires when, clearly, the Secretary of State gets all sorts of information and reports from the NHS at the moment. Could the Minister say what he is not receiving at the moment that he thinks the powers will allow him to ask for?
Edward Argar
I consider proposed new subsection (4) to be purely pragmatic, as there will be circumstances with individual trusts and situations where clarifications to accounts or data may be required. Therefore, it is prudent to give the Secretary of State the power to ask for further clarification. He will be accountable to Parliament for how the money is spent, so it is entirely appropriate that he has explicit power, given by Parliament, to ask for information over and above the de minimis specified in the Bill, to ensure he can be completely transparent with Members and the public more broadly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Funding for service integration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Currently, one of the objectives of the Government’s mandate to NHS England—a process we discussed in Committee this morning—is that an amount of the annual sum paid to NHS England must be used for service integration. In practice, that must be contributed to the better care fund. The better care fund is the national policy driving forward the integration of health and social care in England. However, as we have discussed, other provisions set out in clause 3 will remove the requirement for a mandate to be published every year. As a result, the mandate will no longer be an appropriate vehicle for setting an annual ring fence for service integration. Therefore, the clause will put in place a new power to allow the Secretary of State to direct NHS England to ring-fence an amount of its annual allotment for health and social care integration through the better care fund, to continue the work of that fund and to direct it on how that amount should be used.
The change will have no impact on the operational policy intent of the better care fund; the provision will simply ensure the better care fund can continue to be set annually, notwithstanding changes to the mandate, which will not be made annually in the future, should this legislation be passed. The better care fund has enabled and improved co-operation between health and social care partners at local level. It is therefore important for it to continue. This clause ensures that that will happen, regardless of proposed changes to the mandate.
Further minor amendments are made to NHS England’s corresponding power to enable it to require that an amount of the sum paid each year to an integrated care board be used for service integration. That power exists currently in relation to clinical commissioning groups, and the amendment seeks to ensure that the better care fund continues to operate effectively once ICBs are established.
Justin Madders
Again, I will not detain the Committee for long: I just have a question for the Minister. The more we get into the Bill, the less permissive it appears to be. I have no doubt that will still be used by the Minister in defence against various amendments we will move later today. Given that we have been told that the role of ICBs is to direct health systems in their local areas, it is not at all clear what the situation is if the powers under this clause require them to set aside a certain amount of money for service integration, but doing so would mean a reduction in service elsewhere in the system. How would that dispute be resolved? Who would have the final say?
Edward Argar
As I made clear in my remarks, the clause does not so much direct ICBs specifically; it is primarily about setting aside an amount of the annual sum paid to NHS England to go to the better care fund, which is then allocated. This technical change will have no impact on the operation or policy intention of the BCF, and it should not have an impact on ICBs’ ability to operate. The intention is simply to make sure that as we move away from an annual mandate with an annual financial settlement for the BCF, we can still set an annual amount to go to the BCF so that it can continue its work, and for that to then be allocated to systems.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Payments in respect of quality
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause removes the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations about payments by NHS England to CCGs in respect of quality. We are not abolishing quality payments, but in future they will be made to integrated care boards rather than CCGs—hence the change. However, the current clause conflicts with clause 37—General power to direct NHS England—which provides the Secretary of State with broad powers to give directions to NHS England. Clause 10 removes the power to make regulations setting out the principles or other matters that NHS England must consider in assessing any facts in relation to payments to a clinical commissioning group. However, clause 37 will allow the Secretary of State to use the general power to direct NHS England if required, including in relation to quality account. That will give additional flexibility to shape quality payments in order to better incentivise quality, reflecting our priorities and changing circumstances.
I reassure the Committee—I am not sure whether the shadow Minister will take the reassurance, but he may do—that there is no intention to use these powers frequently, but they will ensure that we have a robust legislative framework that is flexible and responsive enough to support the health and care system in future, in the event that such powers are needed. If Ministers were to direct NHS England in this area, they would be required to do so in writing, ensuring that the direction is in the public interest, and to publish that direction. That will ensure transparency, so that Ministers can be held to account. I suspect that we might return more broadly to that underpinning principle when we come to debate further clauses relating to it in the coming days. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Secondments to NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I have only a couple more of these clauses before the shadow Minister will have his turn with a few amendments.
Secondments can be an extremely useful way of bringing key expertise and resource into an organisation at short notice. We have seen the benefits of such a flexible approach in a number of organisations, including NHS England, and particularly during the pandemic. The clause builds on the practical importance of secondments and makes it clear how they can be used by NHS England, by amending schedule A1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out the constitution and membership of NHS England.
The Bill has given us an opportunity to provide NHS England with powers to appoint secondees across the organisation and use them in the same way as its own employees, and it allows secondees from specified NHS bodies and health arm’s length bodies to be appointed to NHS England’s board. The power to allow employees from specified NHS bodies to be seconded to NHS England and appointed to its board will allow those individuals to exercise NHS England’s functions on the board’s behalf, in the same way as other board members.
As we continue the fight against the covid-19 pandemic and, in parallel, prepare for the recovery of our health and care system, it is imperative that NHS England has access to the most suitably experienced and knowledgeable candidates for executive roles, and that those holding the roles be part of the important decisions that the system will face. The clause will assist NHS England in doing just that.
The clause also includes a regulation-making power, allowing the Secretary of State to make it clear that a reference to an employee of NHS England in the context of the National Health Service Act 2006 should include people seconded to NHS England, should that be considered appropriate in future. That power will ensure that the legislation assesses the continued effect of operation of secondment arrangements throughout NHS England. Any regulations—again, I hope that this offers some reassurance to the Opposition Front Bench—made under that power would be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House, so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not repeat my earlier comments about secondees and ICBs, because we will pick that up later. In our evidence sessions, the role of the healthcare safety investigation body and its independence from NHS England was raised. Is the Minister comfortable that that role will not be compromised in any way by the requirements of the clause?
Edward Argar
I assume—and the hon. Gentleman will probably shake or nod his head—that in this context he is referring both to the Care Quality Commission and HSIB—[Interruption.] Yes, I am reassured and confident that the provisions in clause 11 will not impact negatively in any way on the ability of either safety organisation to conduct inspections and do the work that we envisage them doing. In the case of HSIB, we may return to that when we discuss the relevant clauses. I believe that what is proposed remains consistent with their specific roles, responsibilities and obligations and what we are seeking to achieve for patient safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Role of integrated care boards
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause replaces section 1l of the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out the general function of clinical commissioning groups, with new section 1l, which sets out the general function of integrated care boards. It provides, in a similar way to CCGs, that ICBs have the function of arranging for the provision of services for the purposes of the health service in England. As a result, ICBs will now be the new commissioner responsible for the majority of health service commissioning in England. Later clauses will set out the details of the services that ICBs are responsible for commissioning, but we intend that they should include those currently commissioned by CCGs and some that are commissioned by NHS England, as we discussed in relation to a previous clause, such as primary care, dentistry, pharmacy and optometry services.
The clause is crucial to establish ICBs as the new key commissioners for the NHS in England in future. Our proposals bring together leadership across the health and care system, and without the clause ICBs will simply not have a clear purpose. It seeks to manage effectively in legislation the smooth transition from CCGs to ICBs, and I commend it to the Committee.
Justin Madders
Obviously, we will spend time this afternoon discussing ICBs, so I will not discuss this clause in particular. I will draw attention to proposed new section 14Z26, especially the proposals in subsections (2) and (3) for integrated care boards, which effectively allow clinical commissioning groups to determine their own processes to consult on ICBs. We do not think that the consultation process has been adequate—indeed, it has been non-existent in some situations—but we will probably return to the question of ICB geography later in this sitting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Establishment of integrated care boards
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 13, page 8, line 34, after “board”, insert
“NHS trust, NHS foundation trust, trade union, patient representatives and local authority”.
This amendment would ensure that trusts and local authorities are consulted before any changes are made to the number, shape and size of ICSs.
There are two big themes on integrated care and the White Paper in the Bill and associated documents. Our points are aligned with those of local authorities, using the integrated care partnership as the vehicle to bring the planning of services, such as social care and housing, into the wider framework. It is also the development of the concept of place.
Local government, as we know, does place; the NHS probably does not do it in quite the same way. The clue is in the name. The “local” in local government means that it has always done community engagement; it already has to integrate multiple public services around the needs of a defined population. It is fair to say that the NHS has operated in a very different way in the past and can appear to have a different geography for every service that is accessed.
The Bill settles on 42 as the magic number of areas that the NHS is divided into, which could be influenced by “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” and the ultimate question about life, the universe and everything. That might make more sense than what has been put forward so far as the optimal configuration for the integration of services. The view of many of those who we have spoken to is that 42 is too many for the commissioning of most acute and tertiary services, and too big for the commissioning of primary and community services and social care. Like a lot of things, it is a compromise. It is a fudge. It is an accommodation between competing interests and views.
There is very little explanation in the Bill—in fact, we have zero explanation—about how place will work. We need to understand more about that from the Minister. How will place fit into the commissioning framework? I hope we can have some further guidance in the Minister’s responses. For us, the concept of place is just that—a concept. It is not really pinned down or articulated clearly in the legislation.
As Members will be aware, the NHS has had local government as its key partner in healthcare from the outset. That is recognised by various bodies. For a long time, boundaries were not an issue. We sometimes forget just how intimately involved the NHS and local authorities were at the outset of the NHS. That has obviously changed over the years. It would be fair to say that the current integrated care system boundaries are really a product of the NHS and the way that they have been imposed implies a great weakness in the whole Bill. It is supposed to be about integration between local authorities and the NHS, but it is almost all about what the NHS wants and what it thinks is the best outcome. It should have been co-produced with local government, not presented as a fait accompli. Is the Minister able to tell us how much local authorities and mayoralties were involved and consulted in the design of ICS boundaries?
There is a dilemma here. In our view, starting this way, with boundaries that do not always reflect the natural communities that they are meant to serve, will store up problems. We are less than impressed by what has happened to date, and while we might well be stuck with the 42 configuration that we have now, that does not mean that we agree with the process. I use the term “process” in the loosest possible way. We do not believe it should be a template for the future. Amendment 49 seeks that, in future, any changes in ICS boundaries should be decided in consultation and conjunction with trade unions, local authorities and trusts, and that they are consulted before any further changes to the shape or size of ICSs are made.
The problem we see is how the big acute trusts fit into the system. It has been a problem faced in places such as Scotland and Norway, which are further down the integration pathway. As would be expected, the big trusts dominate, but while they might take 80% of the budget, the vast majority of interactions for the patient are in primary and community care and, of course, in social care. All of those sit far more comfortably in the local authority footprint, as the National Health Service Act 1946 accepted. It is even simpler to consider place in terms of districts and wards or even super-output areas. Those terms are all very familiar to local government, and local authorities already take them into account when they consider how to deliver their services. When the Pandora’s box is opened, we assume place is aligned with something that has already been defined, and we do not try to invent yet another new geography, as has been attempted with ICSs.
I would like to hear from the Minister what the impact might be of further revisions to the boundaries. I understand that Ministers have looked at that and they have apparently changed some but not others, without publishing any real rationale. I note that there have been some cosy fireside chats, after which various changes have emerged. That reminds me of how the Conservative party used to anoint its leader, but it is hardly a transparent or open way to do things.
Let us do the job properly, transparently and openly. No ICS should have a boundary that has not been agreed with all the relevant local authorities. I have had some information from the Minister in reply to a written question about discussions that he has had with hon. and right hon. Members, and I am grateful for that. However, I am still waiting to see all the evidence and civil servants’ recommendations that he had to hand when he made his decisions. One of the main themes during the evidence sessions was the concern that the Secretary of State and Ministers could make decisions for party political, or other less than noble, reasons. Of course, I do not accuse the Minister of doing that, but when decisions of this magnitude are taken in this manner, such questions will be asked.
Whenever we have changed the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies, there has been an extremely lengthy process. When my own local authority, Cheshire West and Chester, came into existence, I recall that regulations were approved by Parliament. I know that because I lived through the trauma of that change; for the record, I should state that my wife is a member of that local authority. The point is that the contrast between what happens with that sort administrative border change and what has happened here is stark. I should also make it clear that I have another hat on. As the Minister will know, there have been many discussions about the ICS area in Cheshire and Merseyside, and, as I understand it, the configuration will be reviewed within the next two years. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eddisbury agrees with me that any decision on that should be made with more transparency than we have seen to date, not less.
As an aside, it is probably worth saying that if we pretend that everything can be resolved on a single footprint, we fail to acknowledge that there are regional arms of what is pretty much a national ambulance service, some trusts operate multiple services across clinical commissioning groups, and even tertiary services are commissioned by NHS England for large population areas. Acute care will not be commissioned at place or even ICS level, so we need to think about a simple place-based model for the rest. In terms of transaction volumes, the vast majority of care services, and indeed wider public services such as education and housing, are already provided on a local authority footprint.
At this point, I will mention our proposals for elected chairs, which I will come to shortly. With the right boundaries, it would be a lot easier to enact that. Proper co-location brings healthcare into line with the rest of the public services—local authorities, police and fire. It makes no sense at all for ICS boundaries not to be coterminous, and I do not think the Minister should disagree with me on that. The boundaries need to match those of combined authorities and mayoralties, and they should be set by local authorities and their partners, not just by the NHS. In terms of transactional volume, the vast majority of patient care interactions are in primary, community and social care, and for the patient they are all classed as local.
This veers into a bigger debate about devolution, mayoralties and combined authorities. The trend is one way. If we start with a blank sheet of paper, the answer is obvious: align along existing populations and boundaries. This matter should have been discussed well before the switch from sustainability and transformation partnerships to ICSs; indeed, that should have been done when the STPs were formed. That was the time to develop a proper and open process and deal with concerns. That is history now, but at least with this amendment we may be able to avoid repeating those mistakes.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this Bill Committee, Ms Elliott. I rise to speak on the amendment, not to support it, I am afraid, but I do want to show some sympathy with the arguments the Opposition have raised about the way ICSs have come into being and particularly about their size and population.
As was hinted at by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, this is where we have a shared experience of the shadow integrated care system in Cheshire and Merseyside, which has, I think, been through four different leadership teams in the last five years. Concerns have been raised with us, by local government but also by many working in the health service in and around Cheshire and Merseyside, about how the construct of this ICS will impact on their ability to deliver local place-based healthcare.
On size, the majority of the evidence we have had in the sessions to date has suggested that the formulation of ICSs needs to have a level of flexibility and permissiveness. However, we also need to be cognisant of the fact that there are populations that will need to be served differently, based on past experiences of borders that already exist. Cheshire and Merseyside will to cover 2.6 million people—that is over eight times the size of some ICSs. It will incorporate 9 CCGs—more CCGs than that, but in Cheshire itself it has moved from four to one as recently as April 2020. There will be 19 NHS provider trusts and 51 primary care groups. It is going to be an almighty body trying to make sure we deliver healthcare at the very local level as best we can.
If that is not done well and there is not the right level of scrutiny, transparency and accountability, the number of bodies on the Cheshire and Merseyside board, for example, could end up being 63 if every body that falls within that geography and that has asked to be on it has a place at the table.
We contrast that with the example of Gloucestershire. We had evidence from Dame Gill Morgan, who is the chair of that ICS, which is one of the much smaller ICSs. In one of our evidence sessions, she was very clear from the experience that she had had:
“If you have a really large ICS and you are trying to do it all, you are so distant from patients, citizens and clinicians that you will never have the contact. Place, in those bigger systems, has to be where you begin to pull those things together, by getting the right people to engage and developing the right level of trust.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 129, Q177.]
Where that will be vital in an area such as Cheshire and Merseyside is on my second point, around population. The ICS will incorporate a huge and diverse population across the Liverpool city region and Cheshire. Those who have only a cursory knowledge of that part of the world will not be surprised to hear that, within it, there are very different health populations, needs and inequalities. The concern that has been raised with myself and other local representatives is that, over time, there is a risk that that might have an impact on some of the priorities, and where they sit within that large area, as well as on what allocations that might bring to deliver the right level of healthcare.
In one of the unitary authorities in Cheshire—Cheshire East Council—somewhere between 55% and 70% of its overall budget is spent on social care. It is so important that these bodies have an integral role in making sure that the place-based services match what they know is needed within their own budget.
There has been some amelioration of that issue, by virtue of the local authority representation on the integrated care board—I think it has two representatives. I was pleased to see in my hon. Friend the Minister’s written statement on 22 July that as part of the boundary review of the ICSs, which has been referred to, Cheshire and Merseyside will have a period of two years where the current arrangements will be reviewed. I seek assurance from the Minister that that review will have veracity and deep-rooted scrutiny of the performance of the ICS during that period, to ensure that it does not fall into the trap that some of the larger ICSs could do unless we have the balance right between the role of local government and local healthcare providers, alongside this larger organisation, which will have to encompass a huge range of demands and pressures on its time and resources.
I have every confidence that my hon. Friend will ensure that the exercise is fruitful, that in Cheshire and Merseyside—particularly in Eddisbury and in Ellesmere Port and Neston—we end up with a better system than we have, and that our patients and residents will be able to get the healthcare that they need when they need it, irrespective of where they live.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is important to recognise the changes that the NHS in England has been through over the past 20 years, moving from about 100 strategic health authorities to primary care trusts, too more than 200 CCGs, to STPs and now to this. Witnesses in the ICS session said that although some were making great progress, it was those with boundary difficulties that were falling behind. The Bill talks about population health and wellbeing, but local government drives a lot of those things: housing, active transport, social care or what the town centre looks like. It is therefore important to get the boundaries right, or in a few years’ time there will be yet another upheaval.
In Scotland we got rid of trusts and went to health boards in 2004, and we have had 17 years of stability since then. If people keep moving around who they are connected with, the Government are breaking relationships and expecting people to form new ones. This is not a minor thing. I would like the Minister to explain what the basis was for deciding the number, the size and the geography of the boards. Was some formula used? Trying to get that right will be a major influencer of the outcome of the whole policy.
Karin Smyth
Ms Elliott, you were not with us last week when I bored the Committee about how many different jobs I had done in the NHS over the 20 years to which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire referred. I feel as if I have lived and breathed that journey from the health authorities’ commissioning function through to primary care groups and primary care trusts. Much like the hon. Lady, I was prompted to come into this place by the Lansley Act—the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We all knew on the ground that, as was warned of and as has now been shown, it was completely nonsensical. It was never going to work, and it was hugely detrimental to the progress of securing better health in an efficient and effective way—more so than anyone could have imagined. I came here in 2015 for a bit of a quieter life—that has gone well for me!
Locally, I objected to the geographical footprint—we do not want to get into the footprints, but they are important to local people. The Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire footprint makes no sense to anyone apart from the chief executives of the local trust, because it is about acute sector flows and absolutely nothing else. That is why it is disappointing that we have not, for example, added health inequalities to the triple aim, because that would force such bodies to look at something more than the bottom line of those large acute sector trusts.
Dr Whitford
On that issue, when one of the amendments was turned down earlier, the Minister suggested that there was already a responsibility to deal with health inequalities that sits within the NHS. Yet, after 70 or 80 years, we have failed to do that, so do we not need not such priorities in the Bill? They need to be taken into account in shaping the ICSs.
Karin Smyth
I completely agree and, as I said, in that sense it has been refreshing to talk to financial directors locally. People who go to be finance directors in NHS organisations have healthcare in their hearts—they want to see only good healthcare and good outcomes—and some of this forcing together of clinicians, finance directors and other managers to look at population health is welcome. They recognise that the way in which the current funding model works—we will come on to the tariff—often stops them doing that, so adding in health inequalities would help. For the moment, we have lost that argument in Committee, but we will see how we get on in future.
In essence, where we have got to now is large CCGs coming together. That is what they are: they are rebranded CCGs. The wording in the Bill has been cut and pasted from 2012. I have other words for describing them: they are an NHS cartel. The CCGs commission and the big providers in that group all decide locally how the NHS cake should be cut—we will come back to that in future amendments. They are accountable neither nationally nor locally. That is deeply problematic. Even the partnership bit, as I think we established last week, is a committee of the ICB, although the Minister may want to clarify that. Sir Robert Francis did question whether that was the case. That goes to show that the architecture is really unclear.
The ICBs are creatures of the NHS, and well done to it for getting that on the statute book—almost—but this is essentially the same model. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire alluded to in talking about the past 70-odd years, we need something better. The danger is that, as before, these bodies have no real discretion over spending; mostly, they are just the conduit for payments to existing providers. There is no real clout or sight of where we develop new services. They have very few levers to pull to drive innovation or service improvement.
All Members should be concerned about how we get that innovation and how we drive service improvement into the system. We need the ICBs to be better. They need to attract and retain the highest quality management or they will fail. They need to be perceived by the public as relevant and they need visibility. They must be the place where ambitious managers seek to work. They have to be the powerhouses, because they are the controllers of the money. They need good managers if they are to have an impact. They need to have local relevance—we will come back to that in future amendments. I am keen to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about elected chairs and non-executive directors. Being held to account by the NHS region is very unhelpful.
In relation to Healthwatch, Sir Robert Francis—we should certainly take note of someone of his stature—told us the other day:
“All organisations currently in the NHS have directors of engagement and communication. I suspect that, with the best will in the world, most of them see it as their job to defend the organisation. This is not about defending an organisation; it is about welcoming constructive comment from the public and responding to the needs that people communicate to them.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 150, Q212.]
We can disagree on how that happens, but some of our amendments are designed to help that happen. This cartel is deeply problematic for all hon. Members locally.
As commissioner organisations, accountability does matter. No one is going to walk down the street saying, “Save my CCG” or “Save my ICB” while carrying a banner to save their local hospital. But CCGs control over £75 billion of taxpayers’ money, and they will continue to spend that sort of money. In my area, it is upwards of £1.5 billion or £2 billion. That dwarfs the council’s budget; it totally dwarfs the police’s budgets, yet we allow it to be done in this way. Even as a Member of Parliament with 20-odd years in the health service, I have sometimes found it almost impossible to find out who is accountable when a constituent comes to me with a particular issue. That is why I have focused on accountability and good governance.
In the proposed new organisations, who will be hauled up when something goes wrong? Who reports to the Public Accounts Committee? If the budget is inadequate, who decides what is cut and what is closed? If the boards are making those kinds of decisions, we need to know who appoints them. How do we know that they are independent? How can we remove them if they do not perform? If big decisions are planned, how do we know? What restrictions, if any, should constrain our right to know? The Bill should spell out those things. All our witnesses, and reams of written evidence, are grappling with that issue.
Politically we might disagree with the centralisation of the NHS and the diktat as opposed to the permissiveness. I am definitely on the more localised, permissive side. I think we need good managers and good clinicians to lead and develop our health services and to be accountable for that money. They must be really accountable.
I hope that in his reply, the Minister will take the opportunity to push back on some of the negative language about administrators and managers in the health service. There is a very good article in The Spectator. I commend it to him, if he has not read it. Why would we have doctors and senior consultants on the phone to these 5 million patients, trying to reschedule their appointments? Who is going to go and fix the boiler? The list goes on and on. We need to make these organisations the beacon of good quality management.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions on the amendment. I may disappoint the shadow Minister—I will not accept it. I hope he will let me address why and deal with some of the questions that have been raised.
The amendment would place a requirement on NHS England to consult relevant NHS trusts, foundation trusts, trade unions, patient representatives and local authorities before revoking or varying an ICB’s establishment order. We consider it unnecessary, because under clause 13, proposed new section 14Z25, NHS England is already required to consult any integrated care board that is likely to be affected before varying or revoking an integrated care board’s establishment order. Given that each ICB will have a strategic view of the health service and population needs in its area, and given that ICBs will have members from different NHS trusts and local authorities, we consider that they remain the best-placed bodies to bring those views together to reflect opinion on what is an appropriate boundary or establishment area.
Section 13Q of the NHS Act 2006 already places a duty on NHS England to involve and consult the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, including in respect of any planned changes to commissioning arrangements. That includes, for example, if NHS England plans to change the range of health services available to the public or the manner in which they are delivered. That ensures the voices of residents and patients—those who access care and support—as well as their carers are properly embedded in decision making.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the requirement in clause 13, proposed new section 14Z26, for CCGs to consult any person they consider as appropriate on the first ICB constitution. That constitution will also be required to set out the process for making further amendments to the constitution.
Turning to the points raised by the shadow Minister and other hon. Members, the boundaries on which we are seeing the footprint put forward at the moment effectively reflect the evolution of STP and ICS boundaries to this point. They reflect local authority boundaries. By and large, the majority of ICS boundaries reflect one or more upper-tier local authorities. That was the criteria set by the Secretary of State. There are some exceptions, which I will turn to in a moment. I will also turn to the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury.
As the shadow Minister will be aware, the previous Secretary of State set out a process where he wanted a presumption in favour of coterminosity—the shadow Minister appeared to be supportive of that—unless there were exceptional circumstances in a particular area that justified an exception being made. The principle of coterminosity is something that was argued against, in some cases, by Opposition Members—not Front Bench spokespeople, as far as I am aware, but Back-Bench Members of Parliament—and by some Government Members, in respect of where there should be specific exceptions.
The process, which was touched on, was entirely consultative. Local authorities were fully involved in those discussions. The local NHS was fully involved in the discussions. There were also what could be referred to as cosy fireside meetings, involving Members from across the House, reflecting their right as Members of Parliament representing their communities to write to and engage with Ministers, to reflect their views. There was a multi-layered approach, with the local NHS and local authorities working together to come up with recommendations, and then Members of Parliament having the right, as all Members do, to lobby Ministers and put forward their perspective on behalf of their constituents. The approach was transparent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury alluded to. We published a written ministerial statement, setting out for the House what had been decided, and we showed the flexibility and pragmatism that I think those consulted would wish to see.
In the areas where exceptions were made—the east of England areas and Frimley—contrary to what the hon. Member for Bristol South said, these are some of the most exceptionally high-performing ICS areas. That is one of the reasons why we decided not to go for coterminosity, because those systems are working well, with established relationships with local authorities, acute trusts and primary care. We took the view that we should not disrupt something that is working well—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That will not stop it being reviewed in future, should the local system feel that that would be appropriate. That was a pragmatic approach to the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury raised the issue of Cheshire and Merseyside ICS—I know that this will also be of interest to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, given the geography of his constituency. The ICS did meet the coterminosity test of one or more upper-tier authorities being coterminous, but I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about its size and about the differences between Cheshire and Merseyside proper, and between different parts of the area, and suggested whether it should more appropriately be split into a larger number of smaller coterminous ICSs.
In a sense, the reason that split did not take place goes exactly to the heart of what the shadow Minister was saying, which is our determination to engage widely, consult local authorities and the local NHS, and come up with a set of rigorously tested proposals. This was—for want of a better way of putting it—a late addition to the work being done earlier this year, because it was already coterminous and the commission was to look at things that were non-coterminous. However, in the light of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and others, the Secretary of State was clear that it should be reviewed.
Two years was deemed an appropriate time in which to do that review, to allow that consultation with Members and others, and so that it did not straddle—subject to the passage of this legislation—the establishment of ICSs just at the time they were coming into being, and we could do that preparatory work properly. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury the assurance that this is a genuine and rigorous review process. When I emerge from this Committee room, perhaps I may, with Members on both sides of the Committee, discuss further what that looks like and how that might most effectively be carried out.
What that process has shown up, however, is that there is rarely a 100% consensus from all local authority partners and the local NHS on exactly what the right solution is where there is not coterminosity and we are moving towards it. That is why I am cautious about some of the language that has been used thus far, which essentially appeared to imply that we would have to have consensus, and that one part or other of the system would have, if not a veto, a right to put the brakes on changes. Were we to go down that route, I fear that, given different perspectives in different local authorities and areas, we would run the risk of paralysing any possibility of change. I think the right balance needs to be struck.
Karin Smyth
I hear what the Minister is saying, but on that basis—I think this is fundamental to all of this—why would we have local authorities or unitary authorities making any sorts of decisions? That is how local people exercise their democratic will. Bringing forward proposals in order to persuade sometimes results in a bit of stasis, but ultimately someone has to decide and break the deadlock, and the concern, as we come to some of the other amendments, is about how one does that. Local people should be able to have that in a transparent way.
Edward Argar
The approach that we have adopted thus far, which I believe is appropriate, is that we have that with local authorities and the NHS, but ultimately it is the Secretary of State who balances those in the case of these boundaries, and he is accountable to this House, so that strikes an appropriate balance. In the case of the East of England areas, certainly, we did have a very strong divergence of views as to what the right boundaries would be. It would be wrong if either local authorities or the NHS had the right to say, “No, it’s this.” That is where we have to have those views put forward together so that they can be considered in the round.
On the final point that the hon. Member for Bristol South made—I may have missed some points, but this is an important one that I want to put on the record—she is absolutely right to highlight the value of the work done by managers and administrators, or whatever title is used to describe them, sometimes pejoratively by some commenting on this matter. She is absolutely right about the value of their work. There is an analogy that I use all the time, with a much-hackneyed quote that Members will know: John F. Kennedy going to NASA, shaking the hand of the janitor and saying, “Thank you for putting a man on the moon.” What sits behind that goes to the heart of what the hon. Lady was saying. The NHS is a team. Without effective managers, people who can engage, and people who can manage budgets and ensure financial transparency and accountability, and without planning and people who make sure that patients are called and appointments are rescheduled, those on the clinical front line, if she will allow me to put it this way, would not be as effective at doing their job. It is not an effective use of a clinician’s time to ring up a patient to rearrange an appointment. Similarly, it would not be an appropriate use of the time of a highly skilled manager or administrator to be performing some other task. We have got to make sure that we have the right people in the right places, with the right skills.
The final point I would like to make again goes back to a point that the hon. Member for Bristol South made, about accountability. I think it was Amanda Pritchard, chief executive of the NHS—forgive me if it was Mark Cubbon, the chief operating officer—who highlighted, in asking who was accountable, that the ICB is an NHS body, working in partnership with the local authority, that is accountable for the funds it spends, which are voted on by Parliament. That is why it has an NHS official and there are routes of accountability up through the NHS to NHS England, and ultimately to the Secretary of State and this House. That is the structure of the NHS that has evolved over the past 70-plus years. I think that the hon. Lady sought—quite rightly—to press and challenge me on whether we think that evolution is the right approach, or whether we need to take a step back and challenge some of those assumptions. She is right to do that, but in this context, which involves the management of public money, the structures and accountabilities are correct.
I am sorry to disappoint the shadow Minister, as I fear that we will not be able to support his amendment. I hope he will not press it to a vote and that I have gone some way towards addressing the points made, particularly with regard to ICS boundaries and processes followed.
Justin Madders
We have had a fairly wide-ranging and useful debate. A number of issues have arisen that we will return to as the Committee makes progress. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Eddisbury could not come on board; perhaps I should not have made my little dig about barristers this morning, otherwise he might have been more inclined to support us. I noted the sympathy he expressed and I think he articulated very well his knowledge of the geography of the area and why there are concerns locally about proper accountability in such a large area.
The irony of the whole debate, of course, is that we are discussing the Bill today, but before we have even got to the end, we know that the Cheshire and Merseyside ICS may not survive two years. Before the Bill has even become an Act, some of its constituent parts may be reorganised in future. We will see what happens on that, and I look forward to engaging with the Minister in that process.
Let us not forget that the genesis of what is before us was the STPs. How were they put together? I think local NHS leaders were sent a missive about three days before Christmas to say, “Can you give us an idea of what you think the most optimal design of your local NHS would be? By the way, we would like the response back by the end of January.” As we know, the NHS is traditionally extremely busy at that time of year, and Christmas is hardly a good time to be engaging with the wider public sector or indeed the community, but that was where the genesis was, and that is where the Cheshire and Merseyside STP and now ICS came from. It would be interesting to know how many of the 42 areas have changed since that original geography back in, I think, 2017—perhaps even 2016. It was clearly then, as it still is, a creature of the NHS, not the communities it represents.
Dr Whitford
Does the shadow Minister think that the fact we have heard today that Cheshire and Merseyside could be reviewed as quickly as in two years’ time might undermine some of the commitment on the ground? If people feel that it will all change again in two years, the engagement may be weakened.
Justin Madders
I thank the SNP spokesperson for her intervention. That is undoubtedly a risk. It is possible we end up with two or three areas out of that review. I hate to think it would get any bigger.
In terms of what people think is their relevant community, Merseyside has a metro Mayor now with very clearly defined geography, and Cheshire is a different area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, people do not take to the streets with banners saying, “Save our CCG!” I suspect the majority of people do not even know what a CCG is or the area that it is meant to cover. I suspect even fewer people know what an ICS is and what area it covers. That will definitely have to change if we are to have a truly integrated health and social care system.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South about the defensive culture at times, alluded to by Sir Robert Francis, is a valid one. We may touch on that in the HSSIB elements of the Bill later on. She was asking the right questions—how can the board be challenged, and who is it accountable to? Those are points we will have to come back to, because there is, to our mind, a clear democratic deficit in the way these bodies have been structured.
Finally, the Minister referred to his guiding principle of coterminosity except in exceptional circumstances. Cheshire and Merseyside is coterminous, it is just coterminous for more than one local authority—and some pretty big ones at that—so I do not necessarily think that coterminosity is the answer.
The Minister referred to proposed new sections 14Z25 and 26 in regard to the duties to consult with members of the ICB. Some of the people named in amendment 49 might not actually be on the ICB, because they are not included in the legislation at the moment. We will come to our amendment on that in due course, and we might be able to change that. In proposed new sections 14Z26, CCGs must
“consult any persons they consider it appropriate to consult”.
That could be everyone and no one. I do not intend to press this to a vote, but I hope the Minister has taken on board several points that will lead to an improved process in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Edward Argar
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 13, page 9, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 10 and insert—
“(1) NHS England may, in connection with the abolition of a clinical commissioning group under section 14Z27, make a scheme for the transfer of the group’s property, rights or liabilities to NHS England or an integrated care board.
(2) NHS England may, in connection with the establishment of an integrated care board, make a scheme for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the board from—
(a) NHS England,
(b) an NHS trust established under section 25, an NHS foundation trust, or
(c) a Special Health Authority established under section 28.
(2A) NHS England may, in connection with the variation of the constitution of an integrated care board or the abolition of an integrated care board, make a scheme for the transfer of the board’s property, rights or liabilities to NHS England or an integrated care board.
(2B) The reference in subsection (2A) to the variation of the constitution of an integrated care board is to its variation by order under section 14Z25 or under provision included in its constitution by virtue of paragraph 14 of Schedule 1B.”
This amendment adds a power for NHS England to transfer property, rights and liabilities (including rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment) from certain NHS bodies to an integrated care board on its establishment: see new subsection (2). In consequence, new subsections (1), (2A) and (2B) restructure material currently in subsections (1) and (2).
Edward Argar
Both the amendments are technical ones. Amendment 10 amends proposed new section 14Z28 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which provides NHS England with the power to make transfer schemes to transfer property, rights and liabilities in connection with the establishment of, abolition of or change in the constitution of ICBs or the abolition of CCGs. The amendment widens the power to make transfer schemes when establishing integrated care boards, so that transfer schemes may include transfers from NHS England, English NHS trusts or foundation trusts, or English special health authorities.
We are widening the scope of those schemes to reflect further work done by NHS England, which has noted that a small number of people currently working in those bodies may need to transfer into ICBs. It is of practical importance for NHS England to be able to make transfer schemes that will ensure a smooth transition when ICBs are established, and for all the staff who may be transferring to newly established ICBs to be fully protected by such schemes.
For all but the most senior staff transferred from elsewhere in the NHS, I assure the Committee that NHS England’s employment commitment to continuity of terms and conditions, even if not required by law, will apply fully. That commitment is designed to provide stability and remove uncertainty during the transition. It is also possible for NHS England to use the schemes to transfer property and liabilities currently held by those bodies to ICBs on their establishment, although again we expect that to be rare in practice.
Proposed new subsections (1), (2A) and (2B) in the amendment restructure material in proposed new subsections (1) and (2) of the clause as drafted. That simply reflects the technical legal redrafting. The amendment therefore does not change the bodies that can be covered in transfer schemes relating to the abolition of CCGs or ICBs, or the variation of the constitution of an ICB. Those bodies continue to be CCGs, ICBs and NHS England.
Amendment 11 is consequential upon amendment 10 and is also simply a technical change. They are technical, but important amendments to ensure—and to be clear—that staff rights, liabilities and properties are in the right places in the NHS when we introduce ICBs into the system, and that the right protections are in place.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment made: 11, in clause 13, page 10, line 13, after “(1)” insert “or (2A)”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 10.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 13, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
“Accountability
14Z28A Reporting: duties on integrated care boards and the Secretary of State
(1) Integrated care boards must report annually to the Secretary of State on their actions and policies and the outcomes for patients of the services they commission.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report each year on the actions and policies of integrated care boards and the outcomes for patients of the services they commission and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
It is a pleasure to move the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends. The heading is “Accountability” and, as I am sure the Minister will have picked up by now, we think that accountability needs to be turbo-charged in the Bill. The new commissioning bodies, the ICBs, are directly accountable to NHS England and therefore on to the Secretary of State. That was explained by Amanda Pritchard when she gave evidence last week. Each year, the ICB has to prepare a report on how it has discharged its functions and specialist duties under the various headings—improvements in quality, public involvement and so on. It has to report under lots of headings. One has to wonder how it will be able to pick priorities from all that, but that is a matter for the ICB.
ICBs must also publish their plans. The NHS, in the form of NHS England, will then assess the performance of each ICB against how it discharges its functions. Presumably, that will be at least in part with reference to those plans.
The amendment, in essence, would add the accountability of the Secretary of State to what we would describe as a fairly cumbersome but necessary regime of performance management. The slant of the reporting in the amendment is less steeped in the kind of bureaucratic tick-boxing that we understand that the Secretary of State is not a fan of, and what has to be reported is outcomes to patients--perhaps, the thing that matters most.
In the recent comparative survey by the Commonwealth Fund, the NHS lost its top slot and went down to No. 4. It was close, but not close enough. Despite usually coming top, it does badly on one of the key metrics that goes into the assessment—patient outcomes. We do well on ease of access but not so well on outcomes, which is a sad reflection. The amendment makes outcomes a priority over other factors. While the ICBs may have much to say on the day-to-day running of the NHS in the area, the ultimate responsibility for the whole system lies with the Secretary of State, even though on a day-to-day basis it may be NHS England that does the real leg work of performance management. In its new integrated form, NHS England performance manages various trusts and foundation trusts. It also runs the failure regimes for them if needed.
Ways of managing providers are well developed, but most of the skills necessary to monitor whole system performance have been lost to some extent, as management capacity in commissioners has been nibbled away. That brings me to the current weakness in holding providers to account on outcomes. Payment by results was a euphemism, as the results did not matter: the process was the determining factor. Reports on outcomes, as with on patient satisfaction, are absolutely necessary. If any system is to be taken seriously, it must seek to improve. ICBs should not see this as added bureaucracy: they should see it as reporting vital elements of healthcare. I draw particular attention to the reference in proposed new subsection (1), which refers to outcomes specifically, because we do not believe that gets as much prominence as it should.
Leaving aside the desire to produce the right reports for the Secretary of State, there is also an issue about how to make ICBs more accountable to their communities—we will touch on that later. Giving them sight of a nice glossy annual NHS report will not be very enlightening, and it will not help communities understand what has been done on their behalf, even if they recognise the NHS as part of their community.
Dr Whitford
Is the hon. Gentleman talking about clinical outcomes? One of the issues is having national clinical standards against which every unit and every area should be able to benchmark itself. In Scotland, we have standards for 19 of the commonest cancers, which are continuously audited. I was directly involved in developing the breast cancer ones in 2000. We have data that goes back over two decades, which means we can see improvement. It is clinical outcomes that need to be the focus, and they need to be agreed nationally: it should not be for every local ICS to decide what it measures and how. Otherwise we cannot say, “We are getting rid of variability, we are saying that a patient with this disease in Newcastle will get as good treatment as they would in Liverpool or Wolverhampton.”
Justin Madders
The hon. Lady is right; we still have a national health service and we should have national standards, and they should be tagged to clinical outcomes. Of course, it would be down to the individual ICBs to deliver against those outcomes, but it is right that those performance measures should be comparable across different areas.
A robust system of reporting is easier to understand and is probably the most important thing from a patient’s perspective. It is so important that it should land on the Secretary of State’s desk. We will talk later about how ICBs can be more accountable to their communities, but this is very much about how ICBs can be accountable to this place. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support the amendment, particularly in relation to outcomes. The Government do not accept having reducing health inequalities as an aim. In my round-up of 20 years of CCGs and all the rest of it, the driver over the past 15 years has been to put primary care at the centre of those organisations, recognising that 90% of patient contacts are within primary and community services.
We heard from representatives of GPs last week, and I have spoken to my local medical committee as well. They are very fearful—we can dispute whether the evidence exists for whether clinical outcomes are better as a result of these organisations’ being supposedly primary care-focused rather than dominated by the acute trusts, and whether that actually worked, but as a policy intent the Government are very firmly moving away from that position—and wondering what their real outcomes would be.
Were the Government to move along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, a regular review of and look at outcomes in our local areas would perhaps help with that particular problem and highlight the driver that we need from community and primary care, as well as just looking at the financial dominance of the large acute trusts.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to rise to respond. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, is now having to do a lot of bobbing up and down with his amendments, and I am grateful to him for tabling this one. I fear he will not be entirely surprised that we cannot accept it, but I will try to explain to him at least why, and why I urge him not to push it to a vote, although obviously he will be the judge of that.
The amendment, as the shadow Minister has set out, would place new requirements on integrated care boards to report annually directly to the Secretary of State on their actions, and a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report for Parliament specifically on the actions of the ICBs. It would also require a Minister of the Crown to propose a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report no later than one month following its being laid in Parliament.
We entirely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be strong lines of democratic accountability from ICBs to Parliament. I hope I can give him at least some reassurance that the Bill already provides for much of the transparency and accountability that he is understandably seeking. The provisions in the Bill will create clear lines of accountability for ICBs to NHS England; they will be accountable through NHS England to national Government and ultimately, therefore, to both Houses of Parliament.
Proposed new section 14Z26 of the National Health Service Act 2006 already places a duty on ICBs to prepare an annual report explaining how the ICB has discharged its duties, particularly in relation to its activities to improve the quality of services, reduce health inequalities and have regard to the effect of its decisions on, and its involvement with, the public.
The report must also explain how the ICB has exercised its functions in accordance with its proposed forward plan and capital resource plan, as well as the steps it has taken to implement any joint health and wellbeing strategy. NHS England will also have the ability to give directions to ICBs concerning the form and content of the annual report, meaning that it could stipulate further reporting requirements for ICBs as necessary where information might be lacking. The report must be provided to NHS England and must be published
I hope the Committee will agree that that is already a comprehensive reporting requirement. Further, under proposed new section 14Z57, NHS England is also required to undertake annual performance assessments to review how each individual ICB has discharged its functions, including how it has delivered on its statutory duties. The Secretary of State will have the power to issue statutory guidance concerning performance assessments, meaning that national Government will be able to influence the methods and requirements of assessment if necessary. Again, NHS England must publish the results of each performance assessment, meaning that the public will have open access to information concerning the performance of their ICBs.
I hope the Committee will agree that the Bill therefore already provides much of the transparency and accountability that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is asking for, and that further duplicative reporting requirements would risk creating new and unnecessary bureaucracy. In respect of the ability of the House to scrutinise, he knows, and Opposition Members know, that they have many opportunities to table debates on a wide array of subjects. He and his colleagues have held me and other Ministers to account, not only in these Committee Rooms but on the Floor of the House in recent months, on a whole array of subjects. With the information I have set out that will already be published, for not only the House but the wider public to read, absorb and consider, there is scope for the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to table a debate in which such reports can be considered if they so wish. I believe that that provides for sufficient transparency and accountability, and I encourage the shadow Minister not to press the amendment.
Justin Madders
I understand what the Minister is saying. We still say there is not enough emphasis on outcomes and accountability to Parliament, but, as he has pointed out, there are other avenues that we can use to pursue those matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause, as we have touched on in the various discussions on amendments already, inserts new chapter A3 into the NHS Act 2006, which contains a number of duties and functions in relation to the new integrated care boards. A new duty is conferred on NHS England to ensure that ICBs cover England and details the required process for establishing the ICBs.
The clause also makes provision for abolishing clinical commissioning groups, transferring staff, property and liabilities to ICBs, requiring the constitutions of ICBs to be published and requiring ICBs to make arrangements for managing conflict of interest effectively. The clause is essential for delivering on one of the core objectives of the Bill—creating statutory ICBs as a means to take an ambitious, collaborative approach to planning and delivering integrated health and care services in England. The clause will establish a smooth transition from CCGs to ICBs, providing clarity and consistency for patients as we move to these new arrangements, as well as creating continuity of employment for NHS staff.
Edward Argar
Yes, of course. I know the hon. Lady has a great interest in this.
Karin Smyth
I hope the Minister will address my earlier comments about the policy direction of primary and community care being front and centre in the last 15-odd years. This is a very different beast. I think that has perhaps not come out in the debate. These are very different bodies, and I wonder how he will make sure that the majority of patient contacts and the majority of the work that is done in the health service is not lost in the new organisations.
Edward Argar
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady. Although these organisations move beyond the CCG model to be much more collaborative, with more partnership working with local authorities and others, and the genesis of the new model is to bring those two parts together, there is no intent for, and I do not believe the practical consequence of this would be, a diminution in the voice of and the need to pay heed to primary care. She is absolutely right. For the vast majority of our constituents, the front door to the NHS is primary care services. The majority of their appointments, their consultations and their engagement is with primary care services. That voice is hugely important. I see that continuing to be front and centre.
The Bill brings together a range of other NHS system providers and the local authority. We may come back to the point when we discuss further amendments. I emphasise what we heard in the evidence sessions, which is that the membership requirements are de minimis. There can be increased numbers of voices for primary care on these boards, as Dame Gill Morgan mentioned in the way she is managing Gloucestershire. That may not fully satisfy the hon. Lady, but I hope I can reassure her that I am in the same place as her in recognising the importance of primary care and that the expertise that has grown up in understanding local communities is vital in framing a system that works effectively.
In requiring ICBs to maintain and publish registers of the interests of their members and employees—I expect we will return to this point in the future, in a different guise—the clause is an essential part of guaranteeing the integrity of each ICB’s decision-making processes. It will ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are declared promptly by individuals and managed effectively. As a result, the public will be able to trust that decisions are made in a fair, transparent manner, in the best interest of the ICB’s local population. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Integrated care boards: constitution etc
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 2, page 119, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) the process by which any proposed changes to the policies of the clinical commissioning groups within the area for which the integrated care board is established will be consulted upon and agreed.”
This amendment would require ICBs to be clear about how they would make changes in clinical policies and established models of care that have already been established and are applicable to patients in the area for which the integrated care board takes responsibility.
We are certainly getting a good workout this afternoon, Ms Elliott—hopefully the Minister will now be able to catch his breath.
As the hon. Member for Eddisbury suggested earlier, we have seen a rapid reduction in the number of CCGs in Cheshire and Merseyside—there are now nine, but there were more than that not so long ago—and it is one of the biggest ICSs, if not the biggest, in the country. I am not going to take the Committee through the angst on that again, but even with sensible coterminous boundaries, quite a lot of ICSs will have more than one progenitor CCG.
Under the old regime, every CCG had its own plans, policies, care pathways and models of care. For example, many had different rules about gluten-free products being available on prescription, and most Members will be acutely aware of the manifest unfairness of the postcode lottery for IVF treatment. The number of cycles people were entitled to and how old they had to be to access treatment all depended very much on where in the country they lived. It is tempting to say that, rather than having all that variation, we should just level up—the Government’s catchphrase of the day—but that of course will not always be possible, and there will be variations in CCG policy that we cannot easily equate into one optimum outcome or standard, so how do we go about moving the many into the one?
The amendment would add a requirement that, in drawing up the initial constitution CCGs, which of course should be aware of the issues, make a start on place-based approaches, but there is an important job to do on harmonisation at the outset, and that is important for patients and the public. It will be contentious. We can all imagine the outrage if something that is offered in one CCG but not another is then removed from everyone in the process of forming an ICB. These are possible changes that we will see over the next 12 to 18 months, and they will be a real test of how responsive and engaged ICBs are in their local communities. We may indeed see people holding banners with ICBs on them if things are not handled well.
In the amendment, we say that the process of harmonisation or variation should be arrived at only after proper consultation. That fits in with the duty, which we have talked about already, on harmonisation, public involvement and consultation. It also highlights a gap in the specification for the job of producing the initial constitution for each ICB, which is given to the relevant CCG. As I have pointed out, it is very much up to them to decide who they consider it appropriate to consult. We want a much stronger and clearer commitment to consultation on changes that might affect patient care on the face of the Bill.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment in order to air this issue in Committee. I fear that I may have to disappoint him once again; it seems I am getting into a habit, although perhaps at some point I will suddenly surprise him.
We agree that it is right that there is appropriate consultation when making decisions about commissioning policies and care. The shadow Minister set out very clearly, as he always does, some of the reasons for that. I hope that I can give him some reassurance that the Bill already provides for much of what he is seeking in terms of outcomes. In clause 19, new section 14Z44 of the National Health Service Act 2006 already places a duty on integrated care boards to involve and consult the public in respect of the planning of commissioning arrangements, including on any planned changes. That would include, for example, plans by an ICB to change the range of health services available to the public or the manner in which they are delivered. This will ensure that the voices of residents, patients and those who access care and support, as well as their carers and representatives, are properly embedded in ICB decision making.
Schedule 2, which concerns the constitutions of integrated care boards, states that ICB constitutions must specify how the ICB plans to exercise its functions, including the duty to involve and consult the public. ICB constitutions must, moreover, specify the arrangements that the ICB will make to ensure transparency in that decision making. NHS England will ensure that they are appropriate and include the relevant provisions.
Under clause 13, and new section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006, NHS England will need to approve the constitution and make an establishment order for the ICB. In that respect, new section 14Z26 goes on to make it clear that NHS England can reject a proposed constitution if it is inappropriate. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the shadow Minister, and helps underline our commitment to ICBs being as transparent and as involving of patients and the public as possible. I encourage him not to press his amendment.
Justin Madders
In light of what the Minister has said, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 31, in page 119, line 28, leave out from “for” to end of line 29 and insert
“an initial chair to be appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State, for a period of no more than 2 years and for subsequent chairs to be elected by the voters in the area for which the integrated care board is established in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State for that purpose.”
This amendment would require the first Chair of each Integrated Care Board to be appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State for a period of no more than 2 years and for subsequent chairs to be chosen through local election.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in page 119, line 29, leave out
“, with the approval of the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 51, in page 119, line 29, at end insert—
“4A The constitution must provide for all members of the integrated care board to be consulted, and for any views expressed to be taken into account, before a chair is appointed.”
Amendment 52, in page 120, line 2, at end insert—
‘(1A) The constitution must provide for all members of the integrated care board and of the integrated care partnership to be consulted, and for any views expressed to be taken into account, before a chief executive is appointed.”
This amendment would ensure the involvement of the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership in the appointment of the ICB chief executive.
Justin Madders
Amendment 31 is about the ICB having an elected chair. Amendment 50 relates to the Secretary of State’s approval to remove the chair from the ICB, amendment 51 relates to consultation on an ICB chair’s appointment and amendment 52 relates to ICB and ICP members and consultation on the ICB chief executive’s appointment. I hope there were not too many “ICB”s and “ICP”s in that statement, but I will now set out some detail on the intention behind each of the amendments.
I would like to make some general points about integrated care boards. I would also like to put some specific amendments to a vote—unless, of course, the Minister does surprise me, and concedes on some of these points. Many things have been said about ICSs, ICBs and ICPs that do not appear in the Bill. In discussing this matter, some care has to be taken in distinguishing between what is actually in the Bill as it stands and what is not. In particular, the NHS document on the ICS design framework came out in July. Is anything in that document to be regarded as interpretation of the Bill? Perhaps more pertinently, is anything in the design framework ruled out by the Bill or inconsistent with it? There is a huge contradiction in all this. Many actions have already been taken, such as fixing boundaries and appointing chairs, that presume that this Committee does not have a say—that this Committee is not going to change anything. That is almost contempt of Parliament, but we are where we are. No doubt the Minister will be able to justify why he feels it necessary to instruct the NHS to get on with these things before legislation has been passed. To be fair to him, that is what they have been doing for the past five years as they have been trying to avoid Lansley, but we are in a different world now.
For us, the most significant issues are ICB composition, ICB constitutions generally, and the vexed issue of what people on an ICB actually take responsibility for. In each of those areas, we have tabled specific amendments. As we know, ICBs are the latest in a long line of commissioning models: we have had GPs, PCGs, PCTs, larger PCTs, cluster PCTs, CCGs, merged CCGs, and now ICBs. Just maybe, if we do not get this right first time—if we have to keep reinventing the wheel—the problem here is that it is always the NHS making decisions about itself. Various retrospectives have shown that CCGs and PCTs have had virtually no impact on the design of services, or in terms of innovation or better allocation of resources based on need, and it is certainly difficult to show that they have had much impact on outputs. It is worth pointing out that in some cases, these ICBs will be allocating billions of pounds of public money—in theory, at least—so when we are talking about a multi-billion-pound venture, it has to be free of vested interests. It has to be open and transparent in a way that, I am afraid to say, has not been a hallmark of the Department in recent years.
We know that many of the NHS witnesses said in their evidence that they did not want more prescription. As we have already touched on, we are probably going to have some debate about where on the spectrum we land in terms of prescription, with one end being a totally prescriptive environment and the other being a totally permissive one. As it stands, the Bill is too close to the permissive end, in this area at least; as I have already said, we do get some prescription when it suits the Department in other areas. We consider that prescription is not an imposition: it is a vital safeguard to make sure that things are done correctly, and that there is proper accountability of roles and positions. Legislating for the removal of conflicts of interest to ensure that these bodies are more representative and accountable is not a frivolous or minor matter. These are not optional matters: they are fundamental in a democratic society. We should take this opportunity to widen public and patient involvement and end what is increasingly looking like a much more internal model than perhaps was envisaged when the White Paper came out—a pattern, I have to say, that is possibly being set from the top.
In our view, each ICB should have an elected chair so we are going to push amendment 31 to a vote, because we believe it is a really important principle that we should be exploring further. There are two justifications for that, the first of which is negative: we simply do not trust those who make these appointments. We have seen far too many family members and friends appointed within the wider NHS who, it would be fair to say, have not come with CVs that obviously lend themselves to being part of the NHS family. In fact, the NHS has already announced who the chairs will be for two thirds of these ICSs, showing a complete disregard for the work of this Committee, particularly when it was decided that councillors did not even need to apply. There are a number of former councillors on this Committee, not least myself, the shadow Minister, and the Minister himself. Perhaps we might not be the best people to judge who could go on those bodies as chairs, but I certainly think that councillors have a legitimate claim to be suitable people in a number of circumstances. We need to take control of this; we need to have a democratic system.
The positive argument for electing someone is that it signifies that there is some accountability. It also speaks to a trend that we want to see continue moving forward, improving genuine representation of the public and of patients. We have elected police and crime commissioners, and we increasingly see Mayors and other elected figureheads having growing powers over services in defined geographies. We have already touched on how ICSs may not mean much to people in the street, but if there is someone at the top who has been elected by the people of an area, that gives everyone a sense of ownership and identity—there is a tangible body there that they have some stake in.
Let us take the example of Cheshire again, as it is the one I am familiar with. The annual budget for the police authority is in the region of £200 million. We of course do not have sight of the equivalent for the ICS at the moment, but let us say it will be significantly more. Cheshire CCG’s budget is about six times that at the moment, and we have to throw in the whole of Merseyside on top. To my mind, we will have a rather unsatisfactory situation where someone is directly elected to represent our interests in police and crime, but no equivalent in health, where billions and billions more is spent.
We recognise that this is a departure from what has been worked on in the NHS to date, which is why the amendment would allow for a period of two years from the initial ICB appointment to enable the Government and probably the Minister to work through the detail of how elections would work, and the precise role and powers of a democratically elected chair.
As a country, we are being told constantly that we are taking back control. That should be put into practice. Local communities should be given a real say in who runs their health services. Throughout the evidence sessions, it was far from clear with which individual the buck stops.
Amendments 50, 51 and 52 reflect our concerns about the frankly arrogant way that the membership of ICBs has been formed to date. If we do not get our wish for a directly elected chair, we still think there is a clear need for more local accountability for the appointment and removal of ICB chairs. As the Bill stands, there is a danger that the chairs are answerable only to the Secretary of State—not to the partnership, not to the community and not to the patients.
Why does the Secretary of State need to approve the chair? Is the chair there to represent the Secretary of State or to represent the ICB? As we have already covered, there is a less than glorious record on appointments by the Secretary of State. Let us take him out of the equation and ensure, as amendment 51 would do, that members of the board are consulted and their views taken into account before any chairs are appointed. After all, we would not want them to be appointed and then not have the confidence of the other board members. One of the questions that is hanging in the air is what would happen in the situation where the chair does not have the confidence of the board. There does not seem to be any clear mechanism for dealing with that situation, which we hope would not be a regular occurrence.
We could have the absurd situation where all those who work with the chair on a daily basis simply did not think that the chair was leading the organisation as they should, but because the chair retained the confidence of the Secretary of State—someone who might meet the chair once a year, if they were lucky—they remain in post. I think we can all see that that would be a very unsatisfactory situation. What does the Minister say should happen in that scenario? What would happen if members of an ICB or ICP clearly object to the appointment of a chief executive? If the Minister does not have an answer to those questions, perhaps he could support our amendments, although I may be tempting fate in even suggesting that.
Will the Minister at least set out what role his Department will have in such situations? What does he define as failure for an ICS? In what circumstances would NHS England terminate the appointment of a chief executive? How will removing the chief executive lead to improvements if, for example, the reason for “failure” is systemic issues around workforce and funding, which we will be coming on to later on? Let us make sure that the system works properly from the outset and that the leaders in it have the confidence of all those who work within it.
Karin Smyth
I will speak mainly to amendments 31 and 50. The case for an elected chair of an ICB is very strong. As my hon. Friend said, if we accept the need for an elected police and fire commissioner, why not for health? The amounts of money we are talking about and the influence on people’s daily life dwarf those even of my local council. That is what people on the boards will be responsible for. Social care is still provided through a democratically accountable local authority, so why not healthcare?
We are moving towards the NHS budget overall accounting for up to 40% of general Government spend—that is what we are looking at for the next few years. It seems to go against the grain of everything else—elected Mayors, devolution and so on—for Conservative Members to allow that quantity of Government funding from the taxpayer to be out in communities without any kind of more local democratic control. There would also be a lot more confidence that the days of crony contracts favouring friends, families and donors had been well and truly left behind were there independent heads of the ICBs. I do not know if the Secretary of State has as many close friends as the last one, but letting him make the appointments is not something that Conservative Members will want to defend.
We should therefore be electing a local health commissioner. The amendment reasonably allows a two-year period for the organisations to get established—they have enough to do at the moment—but it would then start to take away some of the problems that the Government will get into with their proposals for the integrated care board chairs. On the make-up of the boards, too, the Bill is a good opportunity, should they wish to take it, for the Government to move away from the terrible scenarios of the past few years in particular. That argument was made cogently this morning by the Minister himself, in terms of NHS England having non-executive directors, people of independence and so on as part of its board, and it can well and truly be made about these new local bodies.
We do not need to go back to the 1990s, when trusts were first invented. Friends and families were put on to those bodies, which were stuffed with worthies, with business people favoured over local people with strong links to the community. Surely we can learn from the past 20-odd years and from the past couple of years in particular. Place is central to what the Government are trying to achieve and is the general policy direction of the Minister’s Department and many others, so it has to mean something and it has to be accountable.
We will come later to some of my amendments on a good governance commission, for which I hope to gain Government support; on having fit and proper tests for people to be scrutinised as suitable to come on to the boards; and, without wanting to throw back to the past, on bringing people in from the community to make the ICBs reflect their local community. In all seriousness, in our sad political situation, most ICBs will be headed up not by people are particularly sympathetic to Labour, so this is not a partisan point. It is, as the Minister started to say about NHS England itself this morning, about having people with the right qualifications—some clinical, some not. Let us have some clear criteria for how we want the boards to be governed and the sorts of people we want on them.
As I said earlier, the Government have got themselves into a real mess with accountability and with how much work the Secretary of State is doing, given how much is put on his desk—this sort of circular NHS accountability thing—so the amendments are trying to offer the Government a way through that follows their general policy direction. That was raised by NHS Providers in its written evidence
“to make crystal clear the relationship between trusts and ICBs, and how the statutory accountabilities of trusts, foundation trusts and ICBs align. There also needs to be clarity within the legislation on how the roles and responsibilities of the current NHS England and NHS Improvement…regions, ICBs, ICPs, trusts, foundation trusts, health and wellbeing boards…places, provider collaboratives, neighbourhoods and primary care networks…will all fit together.”
We would all like to understand how that works, even those of us who follow such things.
I am not suggesting that an all-powerful elected chair will get that, but at least that skilled person bringing together the multiplicity of organisations, groups and people for the local community would be a figurehead who needs to understand and grapple with the issues. The chairs would need to be trusted and highly skilled. In that way, there can be further accountability back up the national system, either through NHS England or the Minister. Let us take all that away from the Secretary of State’s desk—he is going to be a terribly busy man over the next few years. Let us help him out.
The Government should support this and similar amendments to try to bring local accountability much more to the fore. That, in turn, would allow local people, who are expected to spend huge quantities of their taxes on health—increasingly so over the next few years—to be very clear about what the money funds, what they get for their money and how they can hold people accountable.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, said that his amendments would give me two years to work through this, if necessary. I am grateful for his confidence in my longevity in this post—only time will tell.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address amendments 31, 50, 51 and 52, which were tabled by the shadow Minister. I fear that I may not surprise him on this set of amendments. Under the Bill as drafted, the chair of the integrated care board will be appointed by NHS England, as he and other Members have highlighted. It is therefore rather disingenuous to suggest that friends and cronies will be appointed. This is an NHS England appointment, with approval from the Secretary of State. I am not quite sure what is being suggested about those at NHS England, but I suspect it is rather unfair.
The chair will be appointed by NHS England, with approval from the Secretary of State. That reflects the fact that the ICB is accountable to NHS England and, through it, to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, this House. That goes to the heart of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bristol South on the balance to be struck between having local flexibility and accountability, and recognising that this is a national health service and the way in which it has evolved. The accountability mechanisms are also national to reflect that.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s questioning, the chief executive of the NHS, Amanda Pritchard, said very clearly of the ICBs:
“In the proposed future structure, they would be accountable to a combined NHS England and NHS Improvement structure. At the moment, we operate that through seven regions, and then through to the national NHSEI executive. We are, in turn, accountable to Parliament.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q21.]
Amanda Pritchard was very clear that it is the integrated care board that carries that national statutory responsibility on behalf of the NHS, hence why we have structured the accountability requirements as we have.
That chain of accountability has been at the heart of the NHS since its inception. There is a difference, which I know all Members recognise, between the DNA—for want of a better way of putting it—of social care provision, which has evolved through the link to local authorities, and the NHS, which has a more vertical, national structure. That goes to the heart of the different DNA of those two complementary—vitally complementary—parts of the system. We have to remember that history.
That is reflected in the clear belief, which is shared across both sides of the House, that in various ways the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable to this House and, through that, to the public for the performance of the NHS. It is therefore only right that once NHS England has made the appointment, the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable, should give final approval for the appointment of the chair. It is an important role in the ICB, as I am sure all Members would agree, and it is right and proper that the Secretary of State ensures that the appointment is appropriate. That is why, I fear, we cannot accept amendment 50, which would remove that mechanism.
At this point, it might be helpful to address the shadow Minister’s point about councillors. We need to draw a distinction between their role on ICPs and on ICBs. ICBs are the NHS accountable body for the spending of public money. As is already the case, the NHS is clear that it does not approve of dual accountability, so when someone is directly accountable for the spending of NHS money, they are required to have that as their role and to not have multiple roles. That applies to the chair and the chief exec, as is consistent with current practice. I discussed that at some length with the chief executive of the NHS when she was chief operating officer. Quite rightly, given my background and the shadow Minister’s, I sought her guidance and that is the conclusion we reached.
Amendment 31 suggests that the chair of the ICB should be appointed via local elections. That brings in a new element to the accountability relationship, which, again, could give rise to the perception of conflicting accountability routes, given that the genesis of how the NHS is currently structured has been as a national health service. The amendment risks introducing a degree of tension into that relationship. Given the importance, as the hon. Member for Bristol South rightly said, of having the right, highly skilled and able people in all these roles, it is appropriate that the mechanism we propose seeks to balance local knowledge and national accountability.
The shadow Minister or perhaps the hon. Member for Bristol South—forgive me if it was—asked what happens if there is discord within an ICB or challenges to the authority, capacity or capability of an individual chair. Essentially, we come down to the constitution of the ICB. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 sets out how that would work, and NHS England will be producing guidance. Ultimately, NHS England will have the power to remove a chair should issues arise that necessitate that, but there will be further guidance on how that would work and what thresholds there might be.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised an important point: what is the mechanism in the hopefully unlikely event that that should occur? Chairs are subject to normal recruitment processes, and NHS England’s approach to appointments has been to work with the existing ICSs, including both NHS providers and local authorities, to ensure that the chairs appointed are high quality, credible and have the confidence of their local systems. Similarly, to ensure democratic involvement, ICBs have strong duties in relation to public and patient involvement, and local authorities must appoint, by right, a representative to the ICB.
Before I turn to amendments 51 and 52, the hon. Gentleman raised some challenge about the design document, its status and whether it appeared to prejudge the House’s deliberations. I want to reassure him: the key word in terms of that document is that it is in “draft” form—it is not formalised, and it is not the final document, because he is right. However, it does allows the non-statutory ICSs to be given a degree of guidance to continue their evolution, rather than all work stopping while we deliberate. Should the House pass the legislation that means ICSs become statutory, that document would have greater force. However, we are not seeking to pre-empt or pre-judge the will of the House. In fact, even with that caveat, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we did not publish the document in draft until after Second Reading. That recognised again that we wanted the House to have a say on the principles before we even published documents in draft form and that we are cognisant of the need to show respect to the House’s democratic processes.
Amendment 51 would mandate that NHS England consult with the board before appointing a chair, and amendment 52 would require the chair to consult with both the board and the integrated care partnership before appointing a chief executive. We fully accept the importance of both the chair and the chief executive having credibility among system leaders and the population they serve. That is why NHS England is working closely with local authorities, NHS bodies and others in the appointment process.
The Bill, at its heart—again, we will come to the question of balance—aims to strip out needless bureaucracy by removing processes that we believe add little in terms of ensuring high-quality or safe care and that could get in the way of collaborative, smooth decision making. The amendment to formally require consultation on the appointment of the chief executive would create an unnecessary formal requirement, as well as potentially duplicative work, given that we would anticipate this happening informally anyway, and having due regard to that.
We believe that the approach taken in the Bill ensures both patients and the public have a strong voice on ICBs while also ensuring that the accountability arrangements set out by the chief executive in her oral evidence are maintained upwards as well, to the House and the Secretary of State. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to consider not pressing all his amendments to a vote.
Justin Madders
We have had an interesting debate, and I think we have seen the stark differences in approach. Certainly, Labour colleagues see the proposal as an obvious thing to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, the NHS will account for about 40% of all Government expenditure, so it seems obvious to want some kind of accountability for how it is spent on a local basis. The Government have decided to split the NHS up into 42 areas, so this seems an obvious thing to do, but I appreciate that the Minister comes at this from a completely different perspective. It might say something about the culture of the NHS and perhaps the insularity in how it does things.
When the Minister talked about not being here in two years’ time, he was of course referring to the inevitable promotion that he is due. Perhaps he will be promoted to the Home Office, in which case he will be dealing with police and crime commissioners. Perhaps at that point he will be persuaded of the benefit of having locally elected individuals responsible for services. Of course, we did not have police and crime commissioners until the coalition Government decided to import them from America, and although there is certainly a degree of scepticism about them, if they are a good thing for policing, I see no reason why the NHS should not embark on a similar route.
I envisage some tension between those who sit on an ICB who have some democratic mandate, perhaps from the local authority, and those who do not. Would they be seen to have greater legitimacy? Would their vote carry more weight than other ICB members, because it could be argued that, in the eyes of the public, it would? I think that we are storing up problems for further down the line. If we are to see this levelling up—this renaissance of place—in towns and cities up and down the country, we will need a focal point in all our public services, and none is more important than health and social care.
The Minister suggested that those involved in NHS England might not be appointing people in the most straightforward manner. I was certainly not implying that in my comments, because, as he conceded—this makes me wonder why he is not prepared to support amendment 50—all these appointments still require the approval of the Secretary of State. That is the bottom line. If that is not necessary and the Minister has full confidence in NHS England to make the right appointments, we do not need the Secretary of State’s approval, so the Minister can support amendment 50.
Turning back to amendment 31, which I will press to a vote, we think that a focal point of local accountability is vital. When something goes wrong, when decisions are made that people are unhappy about, or when people just want answers, they need a figurehead that they can go to. They need someone they can hold to account at the ballot box, as is our democratic tradition in this country. I do not think that they will get that with ICBs. If the Minister does not support the amendment, I really think this will be a missed opportunity, and I hope that in future years he will think again on this point.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 32, page 120, line 26, in schedule 2, at end insert—
“(d) at least one member nominated by the mental health trust or trusts that provide mental health services within the integrated care board’s area;
(e) at least one member nominated by the Directors of Public Health that serve each local authority within the integrated care board’s area;
(f) at least one member nominated jointly by any NHS trust, NHS foundation trust and local authority that provides social care services within the integrated care board’s area;
(g) at least one member nominated by the trade unions representing the health and social care workforce that serves the integrated care board’s area;
(h) at least one member appointed to represent the voice of patients in the integrated care board’s area.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to have members nominated by Directors of Public Health, mental health trusts, social care providers and trade union representatives and a member representing patients.
The amendment seeks to enhance the prescribed members of the integrated care board. We have not been able to move the Minister on the chairing, but I hope we might be able to do a bit better on the board members.
These are exceptionally important roles. The decisions that these bodies make will shape communities and lives. As we have heard, the boards will be accountable for spending hundreds of billions of pounds of public money. We are banking on their leaders taking good care of that very profound responsibility, and taking integration from an academic concept, or something that is seen in some places, to a real-world idea across the country. That is a big ask, and we need the very best people on the boards and the best range of voices.
Prior to coming to this place, I was a system leader in my local health system. I chaired my health and wellbeing board for a number of years and led my council’s health and care functions. That dual responsibility is hard, because our every instinct is to think “system first”—certainly in local government, because we know that the best prize and the best step changes in the wellbeing of the community come when organisations work together. We know that, but we also butt up against the grinding realities of one-year budget cycles and diminishing financial resources, so we find ourselves in one meeting—a board meeting perhaps—where we are desperately trying to move forward the cause of integration, or the common cause of the shared vision in a community, but we know that when we get back we have to meet finance colleagues in local government, and there is a reality to that.
That duality is really hard. I always likened it—people rolled their eyes in my health and wellbeing boards, and they may roll their eyes in this Committee too—to playing for an international football team, because people come from their clubs, but they come together for a common purpose. They wear a different shirt. The reason that matters is that they do not forget who they were previously—none of that goes away—but in that moment, they are trying to work in a common cause and put aside any of the parochial or local differences they have. That worked best with a balanced and diverse set of voices and experiences around the table, and I do not think that the Bill supports the appointment and assembly of a balanced and diverse set of voices.
The more I have listened to the Minister, the more concerned I have become about that issue, because on two occasions he has characterised integrated care boards as essentially NHS fund-holding bodies that therefore sit within the NHS accountability structures. I absolutely agree that that is true, certainly in this schedule, but in that case, is this not just a bigger CCG with an integrated care partnership moored to it? What really is different here?
We have said throughout—and have been told that we are wrong, and perhaps overly cynical in saying so—that this is an NHS reorganisation Bill, not an integration Bill. I am afraid that the Prime Minister rather weakened Ministers’ arguments by saying that there needs to be an integration White Paper, which I thought was an extraordinary indictment of this legislation. If this is a Bill regarding integration, who is integrating with who? There do not seem to be multiple parties; there seems to be a single party, perhaps with different elements and slightly different email addresses, but still with broadly the same accountability structures. At this point, this does not feel like integration.
In the previous sitting, the Minister described the current composition of the boards as a de minimis one, and said that there could be more members. I hope there is an expectation—he might address this when he replies—that generally, there would be more than the five people currently set out. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of schedule 2 set out the minimum of five members who will form the integrated care boards: the chair and the chief executive—there must be two of them—and then one member to represent all the NHS trusts, one person to represent primary care, and one person to represent all the local authorities in the area. The first time I read about those three ordinary members, I thought, “Those poor people.” One person to represent all the trusts in an area? One to represent all the local authorities in an area? Goodness me, that is a challenge.
I understand that the Minister is not keen to be overly prescriptive beyond what is in the Bill, and that there is a desire to strike a balance between being permissive and being prescriptive—trust me, nobody gets more frustrated with people in London telling people in Nottingham what to do than I do. However, given what is in the rest of schedule 2, I think the Minister is in danger of undermining that argument.
As we have heard, paragraph 4 says that only NHS England can choose the chair; paragraph 5 says that only NHS England can remove the chair; paragraph 14(2)(a) says that NHS England can vary the constitution of a local integrated care board; and paragraph 14(2)(b) says that NHS England can stop any other amendments to that constitution. We should not give too much succour to the idea that this part of the Bill is going to be particularly permissive, and that there is not going to be prescription in there. Of course there is, because we want local communities to shape their planning and their approaches, but we also think that there are minimums—I think we could find a level of commonality relatively easily—and we want to establish them as a backstop. Obviously, we have five here, but I think we ought to go a bit further.
As such, my amendment suggests five other members, the first of whom would be a representative of a mental health trust or similar. Again, if the Minister thinks I am wrong or that I have misunderstood this, I would be keen to hear from him, but I think it is exceptionally unlikely that the ordinary member chosen to fill the role described in paragraph 7(2)(a) on behalf of NHS trusts in a particular integrated care board footprint would not be from the biggest acute trust in that patch, or at least from one of its acute trusts. Our big hospitals are the gravitational centres of a local health system. They are totemic to a local population, they are massive financially, and they are exceptionally powerful in terms of soft power in a community. That means that there is one place and that place is gone, so once again, there is nothing for mental health.
We talk so often in this place about the need for parity of esteem between mental and physical health, but this is an opportunity to demonstrate that in practice, and we are not taking it. Beyond the fact that we ought to be putting mental and physical health on an equal footing, so many of the knotty issues that we will want local health systems to tackle will be rooted in issues relating to mental ill health, so I think there needs to be a voice at that table that can give balance to the decision making.
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I understand his desire to try to push the agenda of some very important parts of our healthcare system, including mental health. Is he cognisant of the evidence that we heard from Dame Gill Morgan, who has already set up an ICS and who has perhaps done some of the testing for us on what works best? She said:
“In our case, we will have mental health and social care around the table, not because we are told to but because we could not imagine how we could do our work at a local level without having those people feeling that they are full partners and sitting around the table.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 133, Q186.]
Does the hon. Gentleman think it is important that we listen and learn from the experience to date in order to ensure that—to use the hon. Gentleman’s football analogy—we do not have too many people on the pitch? The analogy falls down, because it is possible to have only 11 on a football pitch. The danger is that we end up with too many people, which is unworkable and unmanageable.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention—I am going to stop at 10. That evidence actually supports the point the I am making. When we heard that evidence, the witness said that it was automatic to them, but of course we would want someone from a mental health background and someone from a social care background. I completely agree. What I am saying is that if that is so clear and obvious, which I believe it is, why on earth would we not put it in the Bill? It was clear and obvious enough that we wanted to have someone on behalf of local authorities, and that we wanted someone on behalf of primary care. If it is clear and obvious in those cases, it is clear and obvious in these, too. That was my reasoning, and it was obviously echoed in the evidence submitted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Mental Health Foundation. That is the first thing I want to say about the amendment.
The second relates to a director of public health drawn from that patch. Goodness me—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said this morning, if anyone has proven themselves under fire over the last 18 months, it is our incredible DPHs. With a unique combination of knowledge, training, local insight and cross-system relationships, they have done an extraordinary job for us in pulling together our approach to the pandemic. We should be using that to pull together our approach to all sorts of big issues that we face in our local communities.
The DPHs are the human embodiment of our communities’ joint strategic needs assessment. They bring that to life, and they could bring that to the table. If we want our system leaders to go beyond their organisational concerns when they go into their integrated care board meeting, who better than the person who develops the insight into system need? The DPH is exactly the right person. They also provide an invaluable director-level connection to all the departments of the local authority that have such a profound impact on the wider determinants of health—housing, leisure and planning. What a wealth of knowledge, and what connections, they would bring to the table.
Thirdly, the amendment provides for a designated social care representative. The stated aim of the Bill is to drive integration and to foster collaboration between health and care partners. I really want that to be the case, rather than this being just a reorganisation Bill. It is a 135-clause Bill, and two of the clauses are about social care, so it is not unreasonable to say that perhaps there is an imbalance. Rather like the much-hyped social care reform and funding plan that the Government are discussing downstairs at the moment, the clauses in the Bill neither reform nor, in the main part, fund social care. Again, social care is left trailing behind. It has been battered for 11 years and, as a result, we see rationed care, dreadful terms and conditions for staff, and services that are just not fit for what they were supposed do. If the Bill really is about fostering collaboration, social care ought to be explicitly represented.
I am conscious that there is a nominated local authority representative under paragraph 7(2)(c) of schedule 2, but that person will already have quite a lot on their plate. They will have to represent the broader views of the entire local government family. Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is probably one of the simpler planning footprints in the country, but it is still 11 counties, and representing all those views at once is very difficult. It is too much—and not credible—to represent not only 11 council chief executives, but 11 directors of adult social care and children’s social care, as well as all the other functions of the local authority. A social care lead, who convenes the social care leads in the given geography, would give the ICBs the specialist knowledge and insight to create and foster the environment for a true partnership between health and care.
Fourthly and penultimately, amendment 32 would replace the staff voice through recognised trade unions. As has already been mentioned, our health and social care services are well served with amazing staff. They are our experts. They are the people who feel things on the frontline and who know, when they go, “Here we go—here’s a new initiative”, whether it is practical and rooted in real-world experience. They have that very direct experience of population health and how it is changing over time.
The staff are the ones telling us about the fractures in the health and care system that make their jobs harder—the fractures we are supposed to be dealing with. They were the ones—boy, should we have listened to them then!—who told the Government very clearly what the impact of the 2012 reforms would be on the system and about the greater fracturing of the system. They were not listened to then, but they should have been and they should be now.
Prior to coming here, I was a union organiser. I know one thing for sure: senior management always think they can speak for the staff, but I am afraid they generally cannot. That is not a criticism; their lives at work are very different. The health and care family is better served when all aspects are covered, rather than some speaking for others. If we are going to develop really significant plans at these boards, the discussion would be incredibly enriched if the voice of the frontline was there, to sense-check things, to highlight things that are working already and the workarounds that staff develop as time goes on, and to assist on planning as well. There is an awful lot they could contribute.
Finally, and crucially, let us have a representative of the patient voice. The whole reason why any of us come to this place is that we want to give communities a voice. We think that is important. The key way we do that is to listen to people. If we do not, we do not do very well for very long.
We want our communities to have brilliant health and care services, but sometimes we make it harder for them to tell us what they want. We have tremendous mechanisms for finding out. The evidence of Sir Robert Francis from Healthwatch was particularly pertinent on not just using numbers, but the wealth of qualitative information. Let us have someone who is an expert by experience and who can draw on and bring that with them, and speak for thousands of other experts by experience. We must believe that they have as much to contribute as senior leaders. Not only would they bring insight, but it would give legitimacy to decision making, which is something that we have real concerns about, as we have said on discussion on multiple groups of amendments.
Those are the extra five members we are suggesting. If anyone listening at home is keeping score, that means five members—the chair, the chief executive, the acute lead, the primary care lead and the mental health lead—who owe their employment fundamentally to the NHS, and five—the local authority lead, the DPH, the social care representative, the staff representative and the patient representative—who do not.
If the Bill is about integrating and not about a restructure and reorganisation that involves the big acutes taking on the rest of the system, that might be quite an elegant balance. Of course, local systems could seek to augment that, which would be a matter for them, but this would be a very solid foundation, which I think enriches the board. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Dr Whitford
I, too, rise to support the amendment. This is probably one of the most important amendments so far. In the witness discussion, we came back time and again to which voices would be on the ICB and would be able to influence. I agree that, with all the talk of parity of esteem, it seems incredible that there would not be a voice representing the importance of mental health on the board. Similarly, with the talk of moving to population health and wellbeing, there is a need for directors of public health to agree policy and to feed in information about the underlying health inequalities, life expectancy and so on in the local population. Not to have a social care voice when what the Government say is that they are trying to integrate the NHS with social care seems quite bizarre.
The NHS and social care are both services delivered by people for people and having both the workforce and staff voice, and the patient voice, is therefore important. On the staff voice, the “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” report from the Nuffield Trust highlights that the success of both the Scottish patient safety programme and the Scottish quality improvement standards was driven by the fact that frontline staff were involved as drivers, champions and developers from the word go. These programmes have been able to run over years, building on experience that is then shared with other sectors and specialities. It is important to get this part of the Bill right, or else priority will not be given to integration, population health or wellbeing. Of all the things that have been discussed so far in Committee, and through the witness statements, this amendment is one of the most important.
Edward Argar
This is an important amendment because it goes to the heart of the debate we have been having about permissive versus prescriptive, and where the appropriate balance is. I suspect we slightly disagree on that—perhaps a little less than one might suppose—but I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, for bringing this amendment forward. It gives us the opportunity to start getting into that permissive versus prescriptive debate. At the outset he raised the recent announcement by the Prime Minister about integration; it will not surprise him when I say that I believe this creates the foundations of that integration, on which we can continue to build in the coming years.
In respect of the specifics of the amendment, schedule 2 sets out minimum membership of the integrated care board. That is the key element here. It will need to include members nominated by trusts, foundation trusts, persons who provide primary medical services in the ICB area and local authorities. As we heard in the witness sessions, this is very much de minimis—it is not what will happen; it is the baseline, above which each system can go if it wishes to reflect local needs and priorities. We have heard the quote from Dame Gill Morgan about how she is approaching it, but we have also heard from Richard Murray of the King’s Fund, who said:
“You could easily criticise the degree of permissiveness; you could criticise the degree of direction in there. The question should be, ‘Can anyone come up with a better one?’ We have not been able to do so, so I think it is a balance well drawn.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 09 September 2021; c. 127, Q173.]
I appreciate that shadow Ministers may take a different view because they feel they have come up with a better balance. However, I highlight that evidence before I go into my answer.
Dr Whitford
Obviously, Dame Gill Morgan is quoted as saying that no one could evenly remotely think of setting up an ICS without primary care voices—and these other voices. Are all interim ICSs that have developed so far following the same model as she is? Is this totally intuitive, and therefore to be relied on, or should it actually be laid down? The voices listed in this amendment are central.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady and I have spoken about “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” before; as she will know, we are not dogmatic and are always happy to learn from Scotland’s NHS—as, I am sure, it is happy to learn from England’s NHS. That is to the benefit of everyone, and I am very grateful to her for inviting me on Second Reading to come and visit Scotland and see it on the ground, which I hope to do.
The reality is that the ICSs at the moment, on a non-statutory footing, are at different stages of development, different stages of evolution and reflect different approaches. One of the things we are seeking to do here is to put a non-restrictive degree of prescription around this—if that is possible—to get a degree of consistency, but not to be too prescriptive.
Dame Gill Morgan leads one of the more developed ICSs. I do not think what she is saying would be unrepresentative of the attitudes and approaches adopted by ICSs more broadly. I should say ICBs, as the hon. Member for Bristol South rightly highlighted the importance of reflecting careful use of the terminology in the evidence sessions—she caught my eye, and I have corrected myself now. I think we strike the appropriate balance here, and I suspect we will see ICBs going further in their membership, but that flexibility is able to reflect local circumstances.
Edward Timpson
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister could assist the Committee with a question on the evidence given by Louise Patten from the ICS Network, who said that, on top of the five mandated board positions in the Bill,
“a further five will be in the mandated guidance from NHS England.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 134, Q186.]
Is that something that the Minister has been sighted on? If so, do we know what those positions are? I fear that the hon. Member for Nottingham North might have to start to move to a substitutes bench to get enough people around the table, based on his amendment.
Edward Argar
I am pleased that I do not see any signs of the hon. Member for Nottingham North moving to the substitutes bench any time soon. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to pre-empt the detail of the guidance, but, as Louise Patten said, the whole purpose of this is to provide the ability to further supplement what is on the face of the legislation with guidance that the ICBs will have regard to.
Justin Madders
Perhaps the Minister can help me. When I read the guidance, I understood that it meant that there would be at least 10 individuals on any ICB. Does the Minister think that is the correct number?
Edward Argar
The key focus for this amendment is what the legislation sets out in this clause, and that is the five positions—that is what we want to specify on the face of the legislation. I will come to the detailed guidance, but first I will go through a few of the remarks from the hon. Member for Nottingham North in support of his amendment.
At the heart of the issue is our desire for the provisions of the Bill not to be too prescriptive regarding the membership requirement, beyond that proposed statutory minimum. The guidance is a different matter from what is in the actual legislation; we want the statute to specify that de minimis. We believe that it gives the right approach and balance, having key voices and local flexibility to add voices—including those the hon. Member has proposed, but others as well—and that it reflects the evidence given by Martin Marshall, who said that the boards have to be kept to a workable size to be able to make decisions effectively. Again, that is permissive.
I come back to the point that local ICBs can appoint more members, should they wish to do so. They can go significantly beyond the legislative minimum requirements if they so choose. Therefore, we do not believe that prescribing further membership is necessary. Of course, schedule 2 states that ICBs will need to publish details of their membership in their constitutions. Under clause 13, proposed new section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006, NHS England will need to approve the constitution proposed by each ICB. Again, we come back to that approval process.
Justin Madders
Of course, the evidence from the Gloucestershire ICS was that of course those individuals—some of whom are included in our amendment—would be on the ICB. From our perspective, it is clear that all the individuals we have named are critical players in any local health system. Could the Minister set out which of those included in our list, if any, he does not think would be appropriate to sit on an ICB?
Edward Argar
I think that all add value, but equally, in some circumstances, we see different local arrangements; in some localities, some people fulfil more than one role or sit in different places.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to cover his specific point about the guidance before I conclude: the guidance will not prescribe additional roles in the same way that legislation prescribes or mandates, but it does seek to set out best practice, highlighting what would be deemed to be best practice—drawing on experiences such as Dame Gill’s, I suspect. We would expect that ICBs would pay due heed to that guidance, alongside their de minimis legal and statutory obligations.
If in time, when those ICBs are up and running, it becomes clear that that approach needs strengthening and that we need to add further requirements, regulation-making powers in schedule 2 will allow the Secretary of State to do so at a later point. We believe that it is right to start at this de minimis point in the Bill. It reflects our view, which I have articulated throughout, that we must not attempt to over-legislate at this stage on the composition of ICBs, letting them evolve as effective local entities, to reflect local needs. It may not fully reassure the hon. Gentleman, but there is a mechanism whereby further changes could be made in future, although we do not believe that will be necessary.
The amendment takes a different approach, which is essentially more prescriptive and less permissive. I do not dispute the sincerity of that approach, but it comes down to a matter of where we feel the appropriate balance should be struck. I fear that, although the shadow Minister and I are quite close to one another in our region of the east midlands, we are slightly more distant in respect of the amendment, but I am grateful to him for affording the Committee the ability to debate a key point of principle in the approach to the Bill.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for her contribution and for sponsoring our amendment. She spoke about the way staff have not only improved patient safety and the quality improvement programmes, but made them stand the test of time. We are sometimes in danger—the Bill is a good example—of building things that do not stand the test of time and keep being changed, and she went through all the various situations. If we pass any test, it should be that one. The amendment is certainly one way of improving our chances on that.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, too. I understand the de minimis point, but I still cannot envisage a scenario in which we would not want a mental health rep on the board. I live in undoubtedly the best place in England—in Nottingham—but we still have mental health problems and need mental health leaders. If we need mental health reps, and we certainly do, I think that everybody probably does.
The Minister’s response did not quite address the point about balance. The balance of the five members is four NHS and one non-NHS. The whole business maxim is no mergers, only takeovers. If the provision is really about integration and partners coming together on an equal footing to improve the population’s health, everything that we have heard so far does not fit with that. What we have heard so far is about organising this round with the terms of reference that NHS England wants, and if local communities and local authorities wish to be part of that and know their role within it, that is absolutely fine. I think we should aspire to do better, so I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 30, in schedule 2, page 120, line 26 at end insert—
“(2A) The constitution must prohibit representatives of GP practices with active Alternative Provider Medical Services contracts from becoming members.”
This amendment would mean that the only GPs able to participate in integrated care boards would be those whose practices are on the standard General Medical Services (GMS) contract.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 33, in schedule 2, page 120, line 26, at end insert—
“(2B) Representatives of private providers of healthcare services, other than general practitioners who hold a contract for the provision of primary medical services in the area, may not be appointed to integrated care boards.”
This amendment prevents private providers of healthcare services from becoming members of integrated care boards.
Amendment 27, in clause 20, page 29, line 9, at end insert—
“(4) Representatives of private providers of healthcare services, other than general practitioners who hold a contract for the provision of primary medical services in the area, may not be appointed to integrated care partnerships.”
This amendment prevents private providers of healthcare services from becoming members of Integrated Care Partnerships.
Alex Norris
We have not had success with chairs, and we have not had success with who should be on the board, so we move on to who should not be on the board. Let us see whether this alternative tack might prize the Minister away from not giving us his support.
The amendment would mean that representatives of GP practices with alternative provider medical services, or APMS, contracts were prohibited from participating in integrated care boards. That would mean that, under schedule 2, they could not provide that primary care representative.
Let me briefly explain the context. The vast majority of practices—nearly 70%—operate under the general medical services, or GMS, model. That is the standard contract and the most usual model of partnership whereby a CCG or NHS England contracts with a local general practice. Another quarter or so operate on personal medical services, or PMS, models. There is a little more flexibility for commissioners to tailor to local need—this is not agreed as a standard contract like the GMS at national level—and again the arrangement is with a local practice. However, these are not particularly en vogue; they are being phased out, I understand.
That leaves the remaining portion, which is on APMS. That is a much more flexible contracting model and very much a child of the previous decade. Here, commissioners can contract with organisations other than GPs or GP partnerships, and can contract, for example, with private companies.
APMS contracts—without that GP requirement and with shorter durations—offer the easiest way for large private companies to take over practices. Those are companies motivated by profits, rather than their patients, and their having a voice on the board would run contrary to what I am sure Members on both sides of the Committee seek to achieve. I would say it was contrary to the triple aim of the Bill.
However, this is a model on the march and one that could change general practice beyond recognition. My colleagues and I do not think it should exist, but we will make our case on that when we deal with clause 16 and amendments 28 and 29, so I shall have to keep the Committee in suspense. The amendment would mean that a representative from such an APMS partnership could not be part of the ICB and could not fill that place.
As my colleagues and I have made clear previously, we think it paramount that the Bill put patients front and centre. For many patients, using the health service begins and ends with their GP for big parts of their life. The GP is someone they have known for years, someone they can trust and someone who plays an active role in and knows their community.
The pandemic has created some access issues, but the care that people have received is still exceptional. The latest GP survey found that 89% of patients said that the healthcare professional they last saw was good at listening to them and giving them enough time, 88% said that that healthcare professional was good at treating them with concern, and 93% said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. Our local GPs are really good and do the job really well. It is not much of a stretch to think that those are the sort of people that the public want speaking for them in these ICB structures. That would be very welcome.
We also know that, whether my supposition that the ICBs are going to be really big CCGs is right or not, CCGs had significant involvement from primary care clinicians and the ICBs will have less. That is definitely a point beyond contention, but there is still a reserved place on the board. However, this is a perfect opportunity for local GP leaders to fill that space, and with regard to APMS contracts, I do not think that those representatives will provide that same involvement.
I appreciate that the numbers will be relatively small—indeed, this might be quite unlikely to happen—but we should bear it in mind that APMS contracts do not require a GP to be a contract holder. They do not offer the same benefits to an ICB as a general or personal medical services contract holder, who is contractually required to be a GP. That is a significant difference. This position on the board should bring important perspective; it should not be wasted.
This is about two things: first, showing the best possible voice and secondly, putting a stop on creeping privatisation. Ministers have been at great pains earlier in the process, and certainly on Second Reading, to say that this is not about privatisation. Well, this is a very good chance to prove that.
Justin Madders
I would like to speak to amendment 33, which is grouped with amendment 30. I will try to address the real concerns that were so eloquently described by the British Medical Association. It said that there are huge risks and absolutely no benefits from having out and out private companies sitting on integrated care boards. Nothing in the Bill remedies that conflict to allow those companies to sit on integrated care boards at the same as allowing them to comply with their statutory duty to their shareholders in manner that anyone could feel comfortable about.
We know that spending in the private sector before the pandemic in 2019-20 was £9.7 billion. I accept that those figures before the pandemic are probably the fairest to cite, but that sum is still double what it was a decade earlier under the last Labour Government. We have seen the creep from the private sector in recent years and we need to put an end to that.
Amendment 33 is not about the amount spent on private providers but about who runs the NHS, not just who profits from it. For us, there is a complete and utter incompatibility between the aim of a private company and what we say should be the aims of the NHS and ICBs. I can do no better than refer to the evidence of Dr Chaand Nagpaul, who last week said:
“We forget at our peril the added value, the accountability, the loyalty and the good will that the NHS provides. We really do.
We only have to look back at the last year. Compare the vaccination programme run by the NHS and delivered by NHS staff to Test and Trace. Even with Test and Trace, compare the £400 million that Public Health England had to the billions that went to the private sector, and local public health teams reached 97% of contacts compared to 60% for the others. I am saying that it does matter. Your local acute trust is not there on a 10-year contract, willing to walk away after two years. It is there for your population; it cannot walk away.” ––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 90, Q113.]
Those final words sum up our concerns perfectly. Put a company on the board and their interests last as long as their contract. Of course, their interests may not be the same as the NHS’s during that period anyway. With that clear and, we believe, unanswerable concern about conflicts of interest there must be a solution in the Bill. As it stands, there is not, and that is what amendment 33 seeks to remedy. We hope that the Minister recognises the opportunity that this presents and goes one step beyond his colleague, Lord Bethell, who said in response to a written question:
“We do not expect independent providers to have seats on the ICB.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 August 2021; Vol. 814, c. 56.]
What he expects and what is actually in the legislation is not the same.
We have already seen in the south-west private providers lining themselves up to have a big say in how local NHS systems are run. If it is the Government’s position that they do not expect private companies to sit on the board, do they say that because they do not believe it will happen, or because they do not want it to happen? If they do not want that to happen, they should support the amendment. If they do not support it, and if they refuse to join us in trying to legislate to stop private companies getting involved in the running of the NHS, all the people who believed that the Government were determined to increase private sector involvement in the NHS will be entitled to say, “We must be right.”
When presented with the opportunity to put a halt to further private involvement, not only did the Government not support the proposals from Labour, but they actively voted against them. All the words about what the Government expect will count for nothing because when it comes to the crunch, the Government will have sided with the private companies, some of which, let us not forget, have actually sued the NHS when they have not got their own way. Is that the kind of collaboration and integration that we want to see in ICBs? Remember when Circle walked away from Hinchingbrooke because the contract was too tough. Was that in the spirit of joint working? No, it was not. We should be absolutely clear in this Committee and support the amendment that says that private companies should not be running or having a say in the running of ICBs.
Dr Whitford
Although this was described as an evolutionary piece of legislation that would not involve a lot of upheaval for the NHS, it actually does. It is a significant piece of legislation, but it represents a missed opportunity to go back to a unified public NHS with integrated care bodies as the main structure. They are responsible for spending billions of pounds of public money, but the system will still be a transactional one based on a purchaser-provider split and tariffs. We will talk further about how can inhibit development.
If we are to have a purchaser-provider split, we have to have a split. We cannot get away from the conflict of interest inherent in having private providers who seek contracts to deliver care sitting on the very board that makes those decisions, or on the partnership board that will develop the strategy. That is a conflict of interest. It should be resolved, and the amendment should be supported.
Edward Argar
With your indulgence, Ms Elliott, I will turn to amendment 33 first. Integrated care boards will be NHS bodies, whose membership consists, at a minimum, of individuals appointed by NHS providers, providers of GP services and local authorities that coincide with the ICB. Any perceived risk of privatisation through the ICB membership provisions is, I believe, entirely unfounded—and, I feel bound to add, potentially unfair to the many public servants in the NHS who work for ICBs. Although service provision—I emphasise the word “provision”—by the independent and voluntary sectors has been, and continues to be, an important and valuable feature of this country’s healthcare system under successive Governments of all political complexions, it was never the intention for independent providers, as corporate entities, to sit on integrated care boards, nor for an individual to be appointed there to be a representative of such an interest in any capacity.
People must therefore be assured that the work of integrated care boards is driven by health outcomes, not by profits, and I am sure that there will be a consensus on that principle across this Committee. That is why there are already safeguards in place to ensure that the interests of the public and the NHS are always put first. The ICB chair has the power to veto members of the board if they are unsuitable, and NHSE has the power to issue guidance to ICBs in relation to appointments as part of its general guidance-making power. That sits alongside the robust requirements on ICBs to manage conflicts of interests, and NHSE’s wider duty to issue guidance to ICBs.
I turn to amendment 30, which seeks to exclude individuals whose GP practice holds an alternative provider medical services contract from being made a member of an ICB. APMS contractors include some private and third-sector organisations, but also some GP partnerships. These contractors include, for example, social enterprises and partnerships that provide services to homeless people and asylum seekers. This amendment would potentially prevent some individuals from being on ICBs, on the basis of the type of NHS GP contract that their practice holds.
I do appreciate the intent behind the amendments, namely the desire to avoid the appearance, and potentially even the risk, of privatisation and conflicts of interest. However, the effect would be to limit the ability of primary medical service providers to appoint an ICB member who might best meet the requirements of the local population, by reducing the diversity of GPs who could be appointed. While I can understand the intent behind them, I fear that these amendments do not do what they seek to do, and they would have unintended consequences. I will turn to those shortly.
We recognise that the involvement of the private sector, in all its forms, in ICBs is a matter of significant concern to Members in the House, and we are keen to put the point beyond doubt. However, having taken appropriate advice, I am afraid that that these amendments would not cover a number of scenarios—for example, lobbyists for private providers, or those with a strong ideological commitment to the private sector—and they would therefore not be watertight
As it stands, these amendments may well not offer the robust assurance that perhaps hon. Members intended. Therefore—this is where I may surprise the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—to put this matter beyond doubt, we propose to bring forward a Government amendment on Report to protect the independence of ICBs by preventing individuals with significant interests in private healthcare from sitting on them.
As hon. Members will know from their attempts to draft these amendments, avoiding unintended consequences is not a simple matter. If appropriate, I would be happy to engage with either the hon. Member for Nottingham North or the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston in advance of Report. We may not reach a consensus, but, as they both know, I am always happy to have a conversation with them.
The Government are firmly committed to the founding principles of the NHS. We recognise the importance of its values, and the public service ethos that animates it. It is by no means our intention to allow private sector providers to influence, or to make, decisions on spending on the commissioning board—the ICB—and the spending of public money. The Bill does not allow that, but we will look to see whether we can find a way to put that unfounded fear to bed once and for all with an appropriately worded amendment that does not have unintended consequences.
Although I appreciate that much the same motive underpins amendment 27, it is worth considering why the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership are different bodies. The decision to create integrated care partnerships came from discussions with a number of stakeholders who revealed a strong case for the creation of a committee to consider strategically not only the health needs but the broader social care and public health needs of a population. It is not a body like the ICP, as we have heard, which will be directly accountable for the spending of NHS monies.
We therefore do not intend to specify membership for the ICP in the Bill, as we want local areas to be able to appoint members as they think appropriate. To support that, we have recently been working with NHS England and the Local Government Association to publish an ICP engagement document setting out the role of integrated care partnerships and supporting local authorities, integrated care boards and other key stakeholders to consider what arrangements might work best in their areas.
We would expect members of the ICP to be drawn from a very wide variety of sources and backgrounds, including the health and wellbeing boards within the system; partner organisations with an interest in health and care, such as Healthwatch; and potentially voluntary and independent sector partners and social care providers at that level, as well as organisations with wider interests in local priorities, such as housing providers.
To exclude independent providers from both the ICB and the ICP would, I fear, risk severely reducing the extent to which all parts of the broader health and care ecosystem could be drawn upon in the ICP context. It would exclude valuable expertise and would, for example, prevent social care providers who provide a small amount of domiciliary care to the NHS from sitting on the ICP. Furthermore, the ICP will not make commissioning decisions or enter into contractual arrangements that are binding, or make decisions about who gets funding allocations. Those are functions conferred on the ICB, hence the distinction that I make.
I therefore believe that membership of individuals from independent providers on the ICP does not present a conflict of interest in the way that hon. Members have asserted, certainly in the context of the ICB. I suspect that we may debate that further in the coming weeks, but taken with the ICB and the comments that I have made, we believe that this provides the right balance between recognising the distinctive accountabilities and responsibilities of the NHS, local authorities and other partners, and strongly encouraging areas to go further in developing joint working.
I hope that what I have said provides some reassurance to Opposition Members, and that they will be willing—I see them nodding—to engage with me to see whether we might find a greater degree of consensus. I should also say that I will obviously speak to the Scottish National party spokesperson on this as well, as I have done throughout. I addressed my remarks to the shadow Minister, but of course I extend that offer to her. I hope that on that basis, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Alex Norris
If the Bill is about collaboration, we ought to model that here. Given that very gracious offer, I am very happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 33 to schedule 2, which has just been debated. Justin Madders, do you wish to move the amendment formally?
Justin Madders
In the light of the Minister’s concessions, we wait with interest to see what we can work together on to achieve the aim that appears to be shared across the Committee, so we will not move amendment 33.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are going to continue with schedule 2. I call Alex Norris to move amendment 34.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 2, page 120, line 26, at end insert—
“(2C) The constitution must require integrated care boards, and any committee or sub-committee of the board, to meet in public and publish all papers and agendas at least 5 working days before each meeting is held.”
This amendment mandates integrated care boards, and their sub-committees including “place based committees” to meet in public and publish all papers and agendas at least five working days before each meeting is held.
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. This is a resumption of our discussion on schedule 2, which lays out the rules under which integrated care boards must meet. For all the talk of local flexibility, the reality is that the regulations are quite tight in schedule 2; the amendment seeks to tighten them a little more, but not disproportionately so.
The amendment asks for two things: first, that the boards meet in public, and, secondly, that they publish their papers five days in advance. To start with meeting in public, it has been mentioned on a number of occasions that the 42 different integrated care boards are in different states of development. There will be systems that are well advanced and model good behaviours of transparency and accountability, but we have to set regulations to ensure a minimum floor standard, and this is what the amendment does.
For a struggling system, the worst-case scenario, as we have said before, is that it can become a closed shop of leadership appointed centrally by NHS England and the leaders of the big acute trusts, because it is they who have the power and the resources. We cannot legislate to improve the culture of those systems—that is not what legislation does—but we can ensure proper oversight to try to minimise the risk, and meeting in public is a good way to do that. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say, and this will mean that the public have a good sense of what decisions are being taken in their interests.
A key part of that citizen oversight is to know what decisions are being taken and when. Including a provision in the constitution to publish papers with five working days’ notice seems a good way to do that. I would argue that that represents rather basic good governance, so it is a very low bar to clear. We have spoken before about wanting to allow integrated care boards to be able to vary to fit their local circumstances, but I cannot see under what circumstances it would be desirable or relevant to vary the publication of that information. I do not think there are any local circumstances that would call for that. The requirement would mean that members of the public, elected representatives and those who represent staff or anyone with a general interest would understand what is going to be decided and when, and would give them the opportunity to make representations so that the board members are making decisions in the full knowledge of the facts and the views of the broader system.
In the amendment, that requirement also applies to all committees or sub-committees. This matters, because we heard in the evidence sessions that it is almost inevitable that every system will want to establish sub-committees, both thematic—we heard from the system in Gloucestershire about its primary-care themed one, which I thought was a very desirable way to use a sub-committee—or, inevitably, given what we have said about the size of the footprints of some of the integrated care boards, place-based. It is important that the provision applies to those bodies too.
The question matters even more to the integrated care partnership and its status, and I hope the Minister will be able to address it. My reading of clause 20 and proposed new section 116ZA of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 states that this is a committee of the integrated care board and the local authority. I would argue that that remains an oddity, because the process was pitched to us on the idea that we have an integrated care board that will be the official NHS fund-holding body, but then we have the integrated care partnership that will provide the broader involvement on an equivalent basis, not as a sub-committee. I hope that point can be addressed, but nevertheless it will be important for that body that the public know what is being discussed and when. We will come back to clause 20, but the commitment from the Government that the meetings and papers should be public is a good thing.
Conceptually, the amendment lands the ICB and any sub-committees at about the level of an executive board of a council. That to me feels about right. The Minister may have reflections about circumstances where, by exception, the boards may need to meet in private for certain decisions, as local authorities would do. There are ways to do that for councils, so I do not think it is beyond our wit to do the same for these bodies, too. As a default, the basic principle of public meetings, with papers published five working days in advance, seems sound.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I offer my support to my hon. Friend and agree with everything he said. There may be a response from the Minister, although I do not know what he will say, but there is some discussion that perhaps the amendment is not necessary, as this already happens and the Bill refers to publishing—but that is not true. There are exemplar trusts and bodies across the country that have a culture of openness, but NHS boards are secretive and protected.
We have numerous examples of whistleblowing and good journalism uncovering the depths of NHS bureaucracy. Boards with which I have dealings, not just locally in Bristol, do a lot out of the public eye, and a culture of not liking scrutiny has evolved over a couple of decades, even though they should be really proud that people are taking an interest. We need to change that culture, and having a reference in the Bill would help.
Trade union colleagues have often come to me to complain about how they are blocked from getting key information about plans for changes. Changes are announced, and management often want to start TUPE discussions without really understanding what is behind the change. The use of freedom of information requests results in variations across the country in who responds and how they respond. That needs to stop.
The default should be to make things public unless there are reasons not to. I was a non-executive director back in the noughties, and was led by a chair who had come from local authorities—a Labour chair, but I do not think that matters. People who were used to chairing in local authorities found it quite peculiar that the NHS wanted to discuss matters in secret. As a board, we made it the case and culture that managers had to say if there was a really clear reason, and on several occasions we challenged why things were not done properly.
The new NHS is not commercial. The Government tell us that we are not quite getting rid of the purchaser-provider split, but we are moving away from competition as the driver of the health service. The confidentiality argument should be disappearing. I hope that the Minister accepts that the very highest standards now need to be set around openness and transparency and need actually to be enforced. All levels of the NHS and all these committees and sub-committees, however we end up organising them, have to be cognisant of the Nolan principles, which should drive all their work.
If a trust is finally forced by a tribunal to disclose information, it should have been provided earlier. There should be consequences. Where there is a bad culture, we need to change it. To reference my hobby-horse, there should be a business case to support every major decision. Later we will discuss my new clause 7, which comes from the pain I have experienced trying to unearth business cases, particularly in wholly owned companies and subsidiaries, to deliver facilities management. I have asked for business cases only to be told, “No, it is confidential.” There should be no need for it to be confidential at all. I do not understand how a business case can be confidential—at best, a few lines might be sensitive, but not a full business case.
That shows that NHS bodies who fear a change think they have something to hide. It is wholly wrong. If a change is proposed, the case for change should be published. We need to know why it is necessary. I would go further; I would publish all details of the tender process and the contract management. If anyone wants to do business with the NHS, which we welcome, they need to be open and transparent. It really is a test of the intention to change course and move to an integrated, collaborative model, because as we exit the market, we need to be make sure that the wellbeing of the public and the patient really comes first in commissioning. As I say, that culture needs to be changed.
To come back to my theme, ICBs need to be the bodies that the public recognise and understand as being where some sort of accountability resides. That means that nothing should be secret. Let us go further: the public has the right to question. That is what we come back to. There has to be a figurehead—ideally an elected figurehead —or non-executive directors who can be truly independent and challenge that secretive culture. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and to the hon. Member for Bristol South for their amendment, and for their comments on it. As the shadow Minister set out, it would require ICBs and their subcommittees to meet in public, including place-based committees. To address one of his specific points, if I understood what he was saying, I think he does interpret it correctly: the ICP is a committee of the ICB, albeit a joint committee with a whole range of other organisations. I would expect the same principles to apply to it as to the ICB, and I will go through those in a second. The amendment would also require all papers and agendas relevant to those meetings to be published
“at least 5 working days before each meeting is held.”
We agree with the shadow Minister that it is right that ICBs involve the public in their decisions, and do so in a transparent and clear way. I hope that I can offer him some reassurances that the Bill already provides much of what he is asking for. Like a number of hon. Members, I served on a primary care trust board as a non-executive director, back in the days when I had more hair and it was not grey—although that might have been just a day ago, before reshuffle speculation—and I take the point that the hon. Member for Bristol South has made. We sought to be as transparent as possible, but there were occasions on which total openness to the public about consideration of certain items would not have been appropriate. I will come to those in a second.
In terms of what is already provided for, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 already places on such bodies a set of requirements to involve the public in meetings that is very similar to those in the amendment, and I suspect that Act was part of the genesis of the shadow Minister’s thinking. The Act requires meetings to be held in public, for the public to be made aware of the time and place of the meeting, and for the agenda to be published, alongside any reports or documents relevant to the agenda items. ICBs have already been included in the Act by the consequential amendments in schedule 4 to this Bill, and we may want to connect that loop up when we reach schedule 4, hopefully later today—I believe that is the intention. By using that legislation, we keep ICBs in line with the requirements placed on other public bodies, meaning that there is consistency across public bodies and they are held to the same standards.
I hope I can give some further reassurances that there are broad duties on integrated care boards to involve the public in the decision-making process, over and above those contained in the Act. Clause 19, which inserts proposed new section 14Z44 into the National Health Service Act 2006, places a duty on integrated care boards to involve and consult the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, including in respect of any planned changes to those commissioning arrangements. This will ensure that the voices of residents —those who access care and support, as well as their carers—are properly embedded in ICB decision making.
Schedule 2 to this Bill, which concerns the constitutions of integrated care boards and which we will reach shortly, states that ICB constitutions must specify how the ICB plans to discharge its duty to involve and consult the public. Moreover, those constitutions must specify the arrangements that the ICB will make to ensure that there is transparency in its decision making, and NHS England will ensure that all proposed constitutions are appropriate and include the relevant provisions to meet those obligations. Under clause 13, which inserts proposed new section 14Z25 into the 2006 Act, NHS England will need to approve the constitution when making an establishment order, and proposed new section 14Z26 makes it clear that NHS England has the power to reject a proposed constitution if it does not meet the appropriate bar.
Turning to a few specific points made by the hon. Member for Bristol South, we are still clear that competition has a role to play in this space: it is about proportionality, and seeking to achieve a better and more proportionate balance in that respect. She rightly asked about the examples of circumstances whereby it might not be appropriate to be fully transparent. I was on a primary care trust board some years ago, and there were occasions when the board would discuss specific incidents or situations that could lead to the identification of an individual or a group of individuals. Clearly, such matters would be confidential. Similarly, matters that were due to be, or were, before the courts were discussed on occasions—again, we would expect that to be confidential.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. I completely agree that where we will see the worst practices across footprints, each and every one will be secretive and not invite scrutiny, so it is very important that we set arrangements to ensure that that cannot happen.
I am grateful for the clarification that the 1960 Act will apply, which assuages my first concern. On the second, relating to the notice of board papers, the Minister has essentially said that local footprints will have to set that element of the constitution themselves, but that the safeguards and schedules will mean that NHS England has to sign them off. In that sense, there cannot be wide divergence, because the centre would not permit it. I reiterate that there should be commonality. I cannot see why it would be seven days in one place and five days in another. I do not know how we could explain that, so I hope that in those conversations the Minister stresses the need for uniformity. Perhaps the guidance might include strong encouragement on that. On the basis of the agreement that we have in principle, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 43, in schedule 2, page 123, line 2, at end insert—
“(5) An integrated care board must apply all relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions.
(6) An integrated care board must ensure that all relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions are applied throughout the area for which it is responsible.
(7) Any integrated care board which wishes to employ anyone directly on an annual salary greater than £161,401 must receive approval from their integrated care partnership before confirming the appointment.”
This amendment puts into primary legislation the current practice that NHS bodies honour collective agreements over staff pay and conditions and gives the integrated care board a role in ensuring this remains the case.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to see the Minister, although when I saw the headline that two Ministers from the Department had been promoted to the Cabinet, I had expected that he would be among them—alas, not on this occasion. I am sure it is only a matter of time. Of course, if the Minister and other Members on the Government side want to keep their phones on in case a call comes through, we will not be offended if they have to pop out for a couple of minutes. I hope the Minister’s rush of blood and damascene conversion to the perils of privatisation at the end of the sitting on Tuesday have not blotted his copybook too much.
I turn to amendment 43, which plays into several points that have come up in the evidence sessions, particularly the anxiety that was mentioned by Sarah Gorton of Unison in her evidence to the Committee last week. She said that she wanted to see in the legislation confirmation of assurances that have been given verbally and in guidance. She referred to conversations that she had had—I am not sure with whom, but I assume with officials in the Department. Those conversations were to the effect that there was
“no intention for any new parts of the system to undermine the collective arrangements”.––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 96, Q129.]
and that the “Agenda for Change” agreement would continue to apply across the board and, indeed, to ICB staff. That is an important matter to seek assurance on. Anyone who has been involved in “Agenda for Change” will know that years of hard, torturous work were involved in getting that agreed. Certainly, on this side, we know the value of the staff and their trade union representatives, and the importance that collective agreements have in bringing issues to the fore and ensuring a universality in treatment and a common understanding of the basis on which the employer and employee move forward.
Of course, whatever the collective agreements say, the staff would like to be offered increases that actually keep pace with the cost of living, rather than the real-terms cuts that we have seen in the last decade. However, as an overall framework for ensuring staff are treated fairly and consistently, it is certainly not something that we want to be chipped away at.
I will not try to persuade the Minister of the benefits of collective agreements across other sectors—it would be well outside the scope of the Bill—but it is worth pointing out that there is plenty of evidence from across the world showing that where workforces have negotiated terms and conditions within sectors and across whole industries, they tend to enjoy better terms and conditions and, crucially, better rates of workplace satisfaction and staff retention. As highlighted in the report recently published by the Health and Social Care Committee, the NHS faces an enormous challenge in retaining its workforce.
We do not want anything to undermine “Agenda for Change”. Sadly, though, we have seen attempts to do that in recent years, with the creation of wholly-owned subsidiary companies. I will not return to the argument about whether those are a good thing, because we have said that they are not, but let us examine for a moment why trusts sometimes seem eager to set these companies up.
There are, of course, huge financial pressures on trusts. I will not rehearse the arguments on that, but they are always looking at ways to reduce their costs, and potentially with these subcos to boost their income. The VAT advantages have been a big part of that, but one of the big concerns—cash-pressed trusts may see this as a big opportunity—is that the subcos potentially have the ability to move away from “Agenda for Change”. That is the heart of it; it is not that the trusts have a major objection to “Agenda for Change”, but moving away from it allows them to set their own terms and conditions, which is really a euphemism for saving money and cutting pay. We think that that kind of approach is a false economy and, ultimately, self-defeating.
There are other examples of where the private sector will step in. We saw the news this week that King’s College Hospital Foundation Trust will transfer staff at its urgent treatment centre in Denmark Hill to Greenbrook Healthcare under a three-year contract, starting in October. Of course, staff will expect TUPE to apply, but, as we know, it is not a panacea. It does not protect terms and conditions for ever more, so it is little wonder that the news of that change has led the workforce to raise concerns.
Unison’s written evidence sought clarification from the Minister that
“it’s not the intention that ICBs depart from Agenda for Change”,
which the Minister gave on Second Reading. The written evidence also states that
“UNISON would support amendments to ensure that ICBs will apply the relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions, and be responsible for ensuring that these are applied within the wider system. In addition, further reassurances should be sought that nothing in the Bill will compromise the assurances already given in the Employment Commitment, the terms of which should endure beyond the point of staff transfer.”
The evidence continues:
“Recently published guidance lists 10 ‘outcome-based people functions’”—
perhaps that phrase could be translated into plain English at some point—
“that ICSs will be expected to deliver from April 2022… In addition, the guidance suggests that the responsibility for engaging with trade unions will rest with the regional teams of NHS England / Improvement rather than with ICBs”.
That runs the risk of depriving unions of access to those who might be making strategic decisions in their area—or perhaps it just speaks to a larger truth about where power will lie in all this. We have covered those concerns in our amendment to some extent, but we would like reassurance from the Minister on some of the points we have raised about how this will all work in practice.
In particular, we need reassurance that the system will not undermine existing provider responsibilities on engaging with trade unions. As hon. Members will know, the vast majority of NHS staff will not be employed in commissioning bodies such as ICBs. The strong relationships with individual provider organisations should be a supplement to existing national and regional partnership forums. The concern is that the new kids on the block, the ICBs, will in some way disrupt those arrangements.
If, as we are told, the new ICSs—to use the correct terminology—will be system leaders themselves, it is not impossible that some of those leaders will want to set their own path in tweaking employment matters. We might see circumstances in which some agreement about staff mobility within ICSs comes to the fore, particularly for those whose duties cross organisational boundaries. In principle, that is no problem, as long as no ICB thinks that, as a result, it can move outside existing collective agreements. Our amendment would rule that out.
It is essential that ICBs have a positive role in all this and that they follow existing practice by referring to collective agreements. We would not want a re-emergence of what we saw some five years ago, with certain trusts trying to undermine collective terms and conditions. Those attempts failed, but we never know when that might re-emerge. We also believe that the ICB should honour national agreements for the staff it employs.
That should not need to be said—as we have heard, assurances have been given—but it needs to be made explicit in the Bill to give us the cast-iron lock that both we and Unison would like. We would certainly like some further assurances about whether the ICBs have the potential to circumvent or destabilise existing arrangements, should they seek to forge their own path at some point. We see this amendment as bolstering the commitment to “Agenda for Change”—I hope that the Minister will confirm that commitment when he responds —so that ICBs’ broad powers are not seen as an attempt to undermine or conflict with the hard-won terms and conditions that have been collectively agreed.
Turning to sub-paragraph (7) in the amendment, which relates to pay limits, hon. Members will have seen headlines in the paper, on Tuesday, I think, about the highest-paid NHS managers being “cleared out”; I think that was the term that was used. I am not quite sure what that means, other than redundancy. The story refers to a Government-inspired audit, which was—at least on Tuesday—going to be led by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who has since moved on to other matters. That is a shame, because he used to hold the same role as the Minister does now, and he would know exactly where to look if there were indeed examples of unnecessary management and bureaucracy in the NHS.
That news follows the headlines we saw last week about some ICB executives potentially receiving salaries of £270,000. Let us be clear what we are talking about here: that is the pay of 10 nurses. It seems that someone somewhere in Government is exercised about the number of managers in the NHS, but according to the King’s Fund, the actual figure is somewhere below 5%, and many of those managers hold dual clinical roles. If the Government think there is a problem here, I am not entirely clear what they think the scale of it is, or what the consequences would be if thousands of managers in the NHS were made redundant. I am sure that was not covered in the impact assessment, but we have the benefit of that now.
To be clear, the amendment is not about bashing managers at all. Every organisation needs managers if it is to be effective, and they play an important role in enabling clinicians to get on and do their jobs on the frontline. I am sure the Minister would not want to leave managers in the NHS with the impression that has unfortunately been left by some of the headlines this week, namely that there is no role for managers in the NHS. One could be forgiven for concluding that from Tuesday’s headlines. If the Government think layers of management, bureaucracy or management costs have got out of control, we can do something about it.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for his remarks on the amendment. I echo some of his comments, which we covered on Tuesday in Committee in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol South. Members on both sides of the Committee made clear our recognition of the value we place on those who work in the NHS, irrespective of whether they are managers, in clinical roles or in any other role. In our exchanges, we recognised the centrality of having good, high-calibre managers for what we all know is a huge system.
Amendment 43 would have two effects. First, it would require ICBs to apply to their staff all relevant collectively agreed terms on pay, conditions and pensions. Secondly, it introduces new rules for oversight of pay for the most senior ICB staff. The Government and the NHS remain committed to the principle of “Agenda for Change”. If it gives the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston further reassurance, I am happy to write to him, because this is a detailed point and I suspect he may wish to have something in black and white that sets out exactly our position on this. We recognise—he alluded to this—that there is a need for a degree of flexibility in some circumstances. He talked about people moving between roles, secondments and so on. I will turn to that in a moment before turning to the point about pay.
There is already a commitment in the ICS HR framework technical guidance that staff transferring into ICBs will transfer across on their current terms and conditions, in line with the “NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook” requirements. The commitment states that NHS pension rights will be preserved, as the individual will continue to be employed within the NHS, ensuring that staff transferring into ICBs will benefit from that protection and will not see any change to their existing conditions. Furthermore, we would expect ICBs to use the nationally agreed pay and conditions framework for the overwhelming majority of the time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some flexibility, and he was right to do so. There may be circumstances in which an ICB needs flexibility to recruit staff, to attract staff with very unusual or valuable skills, or to reflect local circumstances and the availability of certain staff. Therefore, an ICB may need to vary the terms and conditions in order to make a post attractive if the marketplace is very competitive. Equally, the Bill provides valuable flexibility—for example, in order to allow ICBs to employ on secondment staff who have previously been employed by a foundation trust or local authority. Given the emphasis that the Bill places on systems working collectively and sharing staff, that is a useful flexibility. I would argue that such flexibilities are not unique, because NHS foundation trusts also have a degree of discretion in adopting such conditions, although they overwhelmingly choose to honour and keep the existing terms and conditions.
If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the view on the involvement of unions and staff where there was divergence or flexibility. I would hope that where there was any divergence or a need for flexibility, that would be addressed collaboratively. Ideally, there should be consent from those working in the organisation as well.
I turn to the proposals for very senior managers. I believe that procedures are already in place to ensure that the most senior staff within the NHS are appointed with fair and equitable salaries, and proposals to pay very senior staff more than £150,000 a year must follow benchmarks or be subject to ministerial oversight. Ministerial oversight of salaries higher than £150,000 a year has been effective in managing the risk of salary escalations, and it provides for a national outlook across the public sector.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire, who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I do not think there is any inconsistency in what my right hon. Friend envisaged with the review. That should not be interpreted as a criticism or an attack on hard-working staff, but given the amount of money that is spent in our NHS on salaries at all levels, it is right that from time to time the Government look at that, review it and reassure themselves that the appropriate balance is being struck between fair remuneration for the work that is being done and value for taxpayers. I do not think I would read any more than that into it; it is simply the Government and Treasury being responsible with public money.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will be aware that the Government are in the process of finalising the system for pay oversight that will apply to ICBs. Although the specifics may differ, the effect and intention will be the same: to afford ICBs a degree of agency and flexibility, so that we can continue to attract the most senior and experienced leaders, while also ensuring that we put adequate checks and balances in place to ensure that public money is well spent. Therefore, I would argue that the amendment is unnecessary. Once again, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing the amendment to a Division.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but I fear that I will disappoint him on this occasion. He mentioned the flexibilities that already exist, which we do not seek to change. I do not see anything in the amendment that would alter those. We have had a very clear commitment, and he has mentioned the guidance. Indeed, he may write to me—
Justin Madders
As he does regularly. I write to him regularly, too. He mentioned the importance of having this in black and white, and that is where we agree. We do need this in black and white, and the place for that to be is in the Bill, so we will press the amendment to a Division. I understand what he has said about ministerial oversight of ICB salaries, but if these bodies are to be locally run and accountable, we think the amendment would be entirely consistent with that aim.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“(7) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility and receive the income related to that agreement.
(8) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any proposed Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility.”
This amendment would enable integrated care boards to participate in existing and future LIFT schemes and to receive the income that would come to the local area from the local investment in such schemes.
I assure the Minister that this as a probing amendment, and I will not seek to divide the Committee, but it is an important issue. The local infrastructure finance trust transformed the primary and community based services in large parts of the country, and certainly in Bristol, over the noughties. In my constituency, there is a very large general practice community base, as well as South Bristol Community Hospital with the long-campaigned for urgent care centre and several rehabilitation and prevention beds used by the community trust out-patients. However, they have all hit problems in the last decade and have not really fulfilled their potential within the system, largely because many of them came on stream at the time of the Lansley Act and the abolition of primary care trusts.
The management of estates generally is something I have spent a lot of time unravelling. There is nobody locally spearheading them, really understanding the different, sometimes complicated, relationships within them and making them fulfil their potential, in terms of both delivering services locally and the financial model. There has been a lot of buck-passing locally about who is responsible for developing those things, and that is particularly true of my local community hospital.
My concern is that the wording in the Bill around “externally financed development agreements” is the same as was applied to clinical commissioning groups after the Lansley Act. The Bill also does not deal with NHS Property Services or community health partnerships, which are outwith the Bill. I wonder how these local ICBs are going to manage capital and estates development with the inherited part of that architecture. We will come later to the management of capital to develop the estate.
My concern is around how we get capital investment into primary and community care. In our evidence session, we asked the new chief executive how she saw this happening. I appreciate that we talked about large hospitals, even though we do not seem to know what a hospital is these days, but my point was really about community services. Ms Pritchard said that development would happen through
“the existing capital allocation processes… Rather than just going to each individual organisation to then make their own decisions about how they spend it, it would now go through the ICB, so there is a process that allows consideration in the round of how the system spends that money most effectively on behalf of its entire population.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 21, Q25.]
We will have some discussions around further clauses about the treatment of capital, but they do not really allow for the principles around the Local Improvement Finance Trust and primary care to develop. How do we get this investment into primary and community care? What is the Government’s view on the LIFT model?
Justin Madders
Particularly in light of the changes that have been made with covid, one thing that has cropped up locally is that a lot of GP practices—they are basically converted houses—simply are not designed with the ventilation or space to ensure there is a safe distance between people. That points to the importance of this issue and the need for clarity on how we get these estates into a state that is fit to deal with covid.
Karin Smyth
I agree, and we will probably all have examples through the primary care networks of practices that were not in old houses but that had perhaps had a LIFT scheme or another new development. In my constituency, the Bridge View Medical practice was able to have a flow through the building and move patients downstairs because it had a large, fairly new building. The pandemic has shown that in an emergency we need to make sure that the community-based estate is brought together in some way. Actually, that applies not just to the health service, but to ex-local authority or even Ministry of Defence or other Government Department estates. The place-based aspect of the Bill should be encouraging people to do that locally. Because estates are not part of it, they will struggle to deliver on the service intent of the Bill.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on amendment 17 and the insight that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South brings from her long period of working in the NHS. What is at the crux of this point is quite important. We have spoken quite a lot about integrated care and revenue, but the capital component is as important, so I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss it.
I have great affection for the Bulwell Riverside facility in my community, which co-locates two GP surgeries, community services and pharmacy services with local authority neighbourhood services, the local library and youth services. Pre-covid, I and the local councillors would be there every week for an event. Every year, my annual jobs fair is there—it is today, but we are not inside because of covid, so it is out in the marketplace. If any of my constituents are watching, we are there until 2.30 pm.
That joint service centre has driven a culture of integration and collaboration, exactly in the spirit of everything we have been discussing on the Bill. It is a very practical example of integration in practice. It was funded on the LIFT model because, at that point, more than a decade ago, that was the way to get money into the system. The logical consequences on the ground of the legislative direction that we are told is intended here will be more need for this sort of joint service centre model. We need to give that proper consideration.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, this element is one of the few bits of the 2012 Act that is not being removed to take us back to pre-2012 status. Then, primary care trusts could enter into these arrangements locally, whereas their successors, clinical commissioning groups, could not and, at the moment, the successor ICBs cannot either. The amendment would remedy that.
Why is that provision not being added back in? It looks a bit like a wheeze. Originally, PCTs would have had a 40% stake in the arrangements and would have benefited exactly as my hon. Friend said. Now, that stake is owned by community health partnerships. Who owns 100% of community health partnerships? That is the Department of Health and Social Care. It is not that nobody benefits from these arrangements—it is that the Department does, rather than local communities. We are told this Bill is about localisation and devolving resources and powers to local communities, so why on earth is this bit not going back in? It is definitely a point of interest, particularly with existing LIFT models.
On LIFT models, it may be that the Government do not think that they are in vogue now or that they are the right model. I would be interested to hear what other methods the Minister might prefer.
How to get capital back into the system is a significant point. The NHS backlog is now £17 billion, as the bill for austerity becomes due, so we will have to address it by one means or another. If that is not to be done through this system, I am keen to hear from the Minister how it is to be addressed.
Edward Argar
It is right that we discuss this point today, because while the focus of the media is often on the 40 new hospitals being built—a very clear and understandable definition; I am sure any reasonable person could recognise a new hospital—we do not talk as often as we should in this place about primary care. It is often neglected in discussions, debates and headlines. It is right that we are talking about it today.
On the shadow Minister’s point about CHPs and similar, the Department exists to further the health of the population and to support local communities. There is a wonderful synergy in those objectives and outcomes.
I will turn to the substance of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South who, on this as on many things, knows of what she speaks, with her depth of experience in this space—I always tread slightly warily when responding to her challenges. As she alluded to, the amendment would allow an integrated care board to enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility, and to receive the income from that agreement.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary, as the ability to enter into an externally funded development agreement is already covered by provisions in paragraph 20 of schedule 2. The provisions allow an ICB, which would take the local view of estates and other health matters,
“to enter into externally financed development agreements”
if the agreements are
“certified as such in writing by the Secretary of State.”
Such certification will be considered if
“the purpose or main purpose of the agreement is the provision of services or facilities in connection with the exercise by an ICB of any of its functions, and…a person proposes to make a loan to, or provide any other form of finance for, another party in connection with the agreement.”
We are clear that the wording of the provision would encompass a development agreement entered into with a LIFT company. If included separately in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, there is a risk that the interpretation of paragraph 20 of schedule 2 is that the Bill’s intention is to restrict the use of externally financed development agreements to those that involve taking a shareholding in LIFT companies, which is just one type of project company model that could be used to access private finance. That is why we believe that the amendment introduces a degree of ambiguity that is not currently there.
On the broader points raised by the hon. Lady about who has responsibility for the primary care estate and for investing in and upgrading it, she will be aware that it is a complex picture because of the nature of some GP surgeries—some own their own buildings, others will be in a health hub. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds—we remain ministerial colleagues in the same Department for the moment, but who knows what the future may bring—has done a huge amount of work with primary care to look at those challenges.
The hon. Member for Bristol South talked about hubs, or integration. One of the models being looked at—all the credit must go to my hon. Friend for this work—is the so-called Cavell centres that hon. Members will have read about, which are about looking at how we could have health hubs in town centres, bringing together a whole range of services. They are at an early stage of development, but it would be remiss of me to pass over that point without paying tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in that space.
On LIFTS more broadly, we are not envisaging any changes to existing LIFT company arrangements. They can still be used for the purposes for which they were originally set up. The hon. Lady has kindly indicated that she does not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that I have given her some clarity, particularly on why we think the provisions in paragraph 20 of schedule 2 will cover and continue to allow the arrangements to which she alluded.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, which I will read and understand carefully. We would still like our dividend back; it is an important principle of localism and, dare I say, accountability. We promised people that that is what they were getting. I will continue to pursue the matter in this place, but I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and, as I said, I will not seek to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
The schedule details essential information about how we expect statutory ICBs to function and about the essential criteria that ICB constitutions must fulfil. It sets out that ICB membership must, at a minimum, include a chair, a chief executive, representatives from local NHS trusts and foundation trusts, primary medical service providers and local authorities, known as “ordinary members”.
The chair must be appointed by NHS England and approved by the Secretary of State. The constitution must not provide for anyone other than NHS England to remove the chair from office. The power for NHS England to remove the chair from office must be subject to the Secretary of State’s approval. The chief executive must be appointed by the chair and approved by NHS England.
The ordinary members of the ICB must, at a minimum, include one member jointly nominated by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts that, as I have alluded to, require services in the area; one member jointly nominated by persons who provide primary medical services within that area; and one member jointly nominated by the local authorities within the ICB area.
Justin Madders
We will not divide the Committee on the schedule but as we have batted quite a lot of this about for a couple of days, it is worth reiterating some of our concerns in relation to how ICBs will actually work in practice.
Taking the Committee through the schedule, in paragraph 4 we have concerns about the chair having to be approved by the Secretary of State and, indeed, under paragraph 5 the chair can be removed by the Secretary of State, which could create tensions and speaks to the reality of how much autonomy these bodies will have. Paragraph 6(2) states:
“constitution must provide that a person is eligible to become or remain the chief executive only if the person is an employee of the integrated care board.”
That stands to reason, but the interim guidance on ICBs for the position of chief executive says that they must be employed or seconded to the ICB. Indeed, the chief finance officer, the director of nursing and the medical director can all be employed or seconded to the ICB, according to that guidance. We think that potentially represents a conflict of interest. It needs clarification, because what is in the Bill does not necessarily sit well with what is in the interim guidance. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.
Paragraph 7(1)(a) of the schedule talks about the constitution specifying who should be appointed as ordinary members. Again, the interim guidance helps in providing a list of suggestions regarding ordinary members. It is worth pointing out that, when we totted up all the people the guidance says are the minimum requirement for a board, it comes to 10 people. Although the Bill may say three, the reality is that the guidance says many more. Again, that speaks to the amendment that we tabled on Tuesday about the numbers on the board. The idea that the Bill is permissive is slightly betrayed by the detailed guidance. It depends on what is meant by “permissive”.
One particular mystery is in paragraph 7(3), which says:
“The constitution must set out the process for nominating the ordinary members”.
We know that ICBs will be able to set their own constitutions, approved by NHS England, but how the particular individuals on the boards will emerge still feels rather opaque. Of course, we hope that such things can be done by consensus and agreement. No doubt in the majority of cases they will be, but given the size of some of the areas it will be very difficult sometimes to get a geographical spread that represents the whole area and the various interest groups that constitute an ICB. Of course, diversity may also struggle to be accommodated within that. Such things are all fine and good in the Bill and in the guidance, but I think delivery on the ground will be slightly more difficult to achieve.
Paragraph 8 talks about qualification and tenure for membership of the board. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on whether there is an optimal period of membership of a board. I think I saw two years somewhere in the guidance. I may be mistaken on that, but that seems a little short to me. I wonder whether he has a particular view on that. Paragraph 9 talks about constitutions being required to comply with any regulations that may come forward. Of course, the Bill has a lot of such clauses, where regulations will be produced in due course. I know this is slightly out of his control, but the Bill may not come back to us until much later in the year, if at all this year, depending on how the other place views it. That may mean that we are really down to the wire in terms of any enabling regulations that are needed under the Bill.
Paragraph 10 deals with the terms and conditions—a point that we discussed this morning. Paragraph 14 is quite interesting, because it talks about variation of the constitution, and how that should be done in consultation with NHS England. Indeed, NHS England will retain its own power to vary the constitution. It is important to put on the record that if such steps are taken to change the constitution, it is really important to involve stakeholders, the public, patients and workforce representatives. I hope that the Minister can fill me in on some of the details.
Edward Argar
I will try to address each of the shadow Minister’s points one by one, perhaps not in an entirely fluent way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what he perceived to be an inconsistency between interim guidance and what is proposed in terms of secondees in similar employment. Actually, under paragraph 18(4) of schedule 2, the legislation allows for secondments to continue for those employed as chief executives. It specifies particular organisations, such as secondments from trusts, other parts of the NHS, such as NHS England, or indeed from the civil service. Given that specification, I do not believe that there is an inconsistency.
The hon. Gentleman touched on interim guidance and how that fits with what the Bill will look like once it is, as I hope, enacted. I would gently remind him that it is interim guidance—the key word being “interim”—to allow the continued evolution of ICSs at the moment, without pre-judging what the House may or may not do in terms of making them statutory. That guidance is there to allow them to continue on their path without having to sit and wait for the deliberations of the House on something that they are empowered to do and are already doing. I do not necessarily see the opacity to which the hon. Gentleman alludes but he may disagree.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about geography and the number of local authorities and other organisations involved. I suspect that he has got in mind his own particular geography of Cheshire and Merseyside and the size of the ICS there. That goes to the heart of why we are being permissive: we are setting out a minimum level, and therefore there is nothing to stop an ICS of that size, if it so chose, at ICB level to have a broader range of people sitting on it and a larger number. Each organisation will be able to judge what it thinks is the appropriate number of people to sit on its board to reflect the need for effective decision-making and effective local and organisational representation to reflect the broad geography of its remit.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the optimal length of service on a board. I have to say in my experience, and I suspect in his from his days in local government, one sees a multitude of approaches in different public bodies. Some tenures are for two years or three years, or two years with a renewal presumed for another two years. I am not sure that there is a clear one size fits all, but there should be principles underpinning it, namely that one does not have someone who joins and never leaves the board, and one has to have the ability to refresh the board to bring in new skills. From my experience of sitting on various boards, including charity boards as a trustee or as a non-executive director, effective organisations need to conduct regular skills audits of their boards, to ask what has changed and what the organisation is lacking in the modern world. As time goes by, one needs different skills and different mixes of people. I would expect ICBs and ICPs to continue to look at what is needed to be at their most effective.
I hope that I have broadly addressed the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s points. The other points were those that he has quite rightly come back to, and which we debated at length when we considered his other amendments and those tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South. On that basis, I encourage members of the Committee to support the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 14
People for whom integrated care boards have responsibility
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause requires NHS England to publish rules setting out which people each ICB is responsible for. We intend to recreate as closely as possible the arrangements that currently exist for clinical commissioning groups. However, CCG responsibility is based on a model of GP membership that will no longer exist under the new ICB arrangements.
The clause places a duty on NHS England to publish rules determining the responsibility of each ICB, subject to certain exceptions that may be created by secondary legislation. This is intended to replicate the ability to make exceptions to the responsibilities of CCGs by regulations in section 3(1D) of the National Health Service Act 2006. As with the existing regulations, the new regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House, which I hope offers some reassurance to the Opposition Front Bench in respect of the regulation-making powers. Therefore, there would continue to be strong parliamentary oversight of regulations under the clause.
Proposed new section 14Z31 ensures that no one slips through any gaps. The rules set by NHS England must ensure that everyone who accesses primary medical services, as well as anyone who is not registered with a GP but is resident in England, is allocated to a group of people for which an ICB is responsible. In practice, we expect NHS England’s rules to be framed in such a way that ICBs will be associated with certain GP practices, and responsible for patients registered with those specified GP practices. They will also be responsible for people who are not registered but are resident in the ICB geographical footprint.
Taking that approach is intended to ensure universality of coverage and to minimise the disruption of transitioning from CCGs to ICBs. The clause also provides a power to replace the duty on NHS England to publish rules dealing with ICB responsibility, with an alternative approach based simply on residency. If it is considered appropriate in the future, those new arrangements would mean that ICBs were responsible for those who usually reside within their specified geographical footprint. Regulations would be required in order to change that approach.
The clause provides the necessary certainty about which ICB is responsible for which people. Without it, there could be significant confusion about ICB responsibilities, difficulty in calculating financial allocations to ICBs based on those they are responsible for and uncertainty for providers about which people they are contracted to provide services to. The clause seeks to provide fluent continuity with the arrangements under CCGs, and explicitly does not allow people to fall through gaps. Ultimately, everyone will be the responsibility of an ICB and will be able to access care when they need it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will make some comments on clause 14. I think the Minister has anticipated to some extent what I might say. I may well drift into clause 15 as well, but I promise the Committee that I will not repeat those comments in the discussion on clause 15. There is clearly an overlap here. It really is about the issue that the Minister referred to: who is entitled to what within the comprehensive NHS? For some, this is a formality, repeating the language used before and the principles on which the NHS was founded. For others, every word change and new clause that appears in the legislation is an attempt to restrict access and allow an opening for cuts to services to be made in a time of immense financial pressure. We want, and I think the Minister has opened the door to this, to ensure that that is not what the Bill is about.
To be fair, there is a history of commissioners trying on occasions to restrict access. There was the Croydon list of some 20 years ago. Primary care trusts set out lists of services and said that the treatments had little or no value and should not be provided on the NHS. Of course, that led to huge debates between trusts and medical practitioners. It could be argued that people were defending their own particular practices and specialties, or they could be said to be champions of the NHS. Patients looked at it from both perspectives, but for the patients who relied on those services it was a very real debate and a very real source of anxiety.
A more recent argument on this came from the various attempts to apply NHS charges to certain people who it was argued were not eligible for free treatment. There is a very sinister echo of the phrase “no access to benefits”. The long-held consensus appeared to be under threat—the principle that emergency NHS care is open to all. When American tourists come over here and have to seek emergency treatment they are pleasantly surprised, and somewhat bemused, that they do not have to produce a credit card at the point of use. This is where the arguments begin to arise.
If a patient is moved from an emergency bed for elective care, they can be charged if they are ineligible for free NHS care. The usual test is whether they are ordinarily resident in the country. On principle, if someone qualifies for NHS treatment, they can get it anywhere in the country, while on holiday. Most of us have taken our breaks this year somewhere in this country. We do not have to go back to our own local A&E to get treatment. We could, in theory, get our elective operations anywhere in the country, should we wish. Pre-Lansley this did not matter as much, because it was always payment by results. Ambulances crossing borders may occasionally result in a cross-organisational internal charge. Maybe we will see an end to that kind of bureaucracy.
The other argument that emerged during the Lansley period was around who the responsible commissioner within a particular area or population was. That market approach required tying people to a GP practice. The GP register has been a central base from which decisions were made. Did that really affect things on the ground? It certainly caused a lot of debate. It would be helpful if the Minister provided clarity.
The issue of access is important, and clause 14 sets it out in subsections (1), (2)(a) and (2)(b) of proposed new section 14Z31 of the National Health Service Act 2006. According to the NHS, access is universal, but depending on their immigration status within the UK, a person may be charged for accessing certain services. However, certain services are free to everyone: treatment given in an A&E department, though this does not include further treatment following admission to hospital; treatment for certain infectious diseases, but for HIV/AIDS only the first diagnosis and counselling that follow are free; compulsory psychiatric treatment; and family planning services, but this does not include termination of pregnancy or infertility treatments. People ordinarily resident in the UK or who have an exemption from charging will not be charged for NHS treatment. I could go into what ordinarily resident means, but I will not detain the Committee by going through all of that. However, it is fairly clear that it can be a British citizen or someone naturalised or settled in the UK, usually known as having indefinite leave to remain.
The Bill does not cover any of this, but there is a point about it not necessarily being the same person paying for and receiving the treatment. There are questions about those seeking asylum and those who might be denied care because there are questions about where they live. There was the image of a paramedic stepping out of an ambulance and asking someone suffering a cardiac arrest whether they had some kind of identification to prove that they were ordinarily resident. The images are not common ones, but they raise concerns. When the 2012 Act was debated, these issues were discussed at great length. I do not think the fears that were expressed at the time have manifested themselves. Does the Minister believe that using “usually resident” is better than “ordinarily resident”? I also wonder whether under proposed new section 14Z31, the NHS will publish rules as referred to. Could we have clarification on that?
Edward Argar
I will respond very briefly. The shadow Minister raises two key bundles of points. I hope that I can reassure him that the approach adopted here is far from restricting access. It is designed to ensure that everyone has an ICB covering them, ensuring universality of coverage. Similarly, the clause does not alter in any way the ability of anyone to access emergency care when they need it, nor those ordinarily resident in the UK to use the NHS as they do.
The second bundle of points he made related to charging regulations and those who are eligible to be charged under current regulations. While he highlighted a number of points, I genuinely believe that the charging regulations in place are appropriately and reasonably framed and strike the right balance in ensuring that people can access NHS care, while rightly making a contribution to the services they are accessing—obviously with certain things exempt from charging for public health and other reasons. I do believe they strike the appropriate balance. There is nothing in what we are proposing today that fundamentally changes people’s ability to access healthcare, nor indeed changes those charging regulations. On that basis, I commend clause 14 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 15, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) medical services other than primary medical services (for primary medical services, see Part 4),”.
This amendment makes it clear that integrated boards have a duty to commission secondary medical services (replicating the current position for clinical commissioning groups). Although secondary medical services would appear to fall within new section 3(1)(f) and (g), in the existing legislation they are mentioned specifically so the amendment would continue that approach.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Government amendments 12 and 13 are both technical amendments that clarify the commissioning responsibilities of integrated care boards. Clause 15 introduces proposed new section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which places a duty on integrated care boards to commission a range of non-primary health services. The duty to arrange for the provision of primary care is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
In the Bill as introduced, there was no specific reference to medical services. Instead, non-primary medical services were considered to be covered by the broad provisions of new section 3(1)(f) and (g), and primary medical services were dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Similarly, there was no specific reference to ophthalmic services. Instead, non-primary ophthalmic services were considered to be covered by the broad provisions of new section 3(1)(f) and (g), and primary ophthalmic services were dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
However, the equivalent duties for clinical commissioning groups specifically reference these medical services and ophthalmic services, so the removal of an express reference to non-primary medical services and ophthalmic services generated some concern, which I hope to reassure the Committee is misplaced. There is no change of policy in this area, but to avoid any potential confusion these amendments put beyond doubt the fact that integrated care boards are responsible for these services, and replicate the current language.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We will not oppose the amendments or, indeed, clause 15. I think it is important, as the Minister said, to make it very clear that the relevant provision in clause 15, proposed new section 3(1), on ICBs providing services that they consider necessary, does not mean that they can unilaterally withdraw services. That is the concern that has been raised, and I think it is important that it is on the record that that is not what is intended.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I seek some clarification. With demand for palliative care set to soar because of our ageing population, I would be very grateful for any assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister can give that the reference in clause 15, in line 30 on page 13, to “after-care” includes palliative care and end-of-life care services.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, I also ask our hon. Friend the Minister to clarify this matter. As we all know, the voluntary sector is hugely important for palliative care. So many people at the end of life want to go home. We also know, in relation to discharge from hospital, that we need to get people into the right place, with the right care, so it is hugely important that we do everything we can to support that sector and to relate it to end-of-life care and palliative care.
From a personal and local perspective, I will also say, on the care that is provided, that my constituency has an excellent hospice—St Ann’s hospice. It is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, and lots of events are taking place. The hospice relies on funding from donations from local people and the wider public. It does an enormous amount of work.
If we are to provide the personalised care that we want to achieve, and if we are to enable people to be at home and to be cared for in different settings at the end of their life, it is really important that we consider this matter in relation to the Bill, so I welcome this change to clause 15.
Edward Argar
A number of the points raised by hon. Members, while touching on the amendments, will be addressed substantively in the clause stand part debate that is just about to take place. I do not think that there is anything further to add on the amendments.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment made: 13, in clause 15, page 13, line 24, at end insert—
“(ca) ophthalmic services other than primary ophthalmic services (for primary ophthalmic services, see Part 6),”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment makes it clear that integrated boards have a duty to commission secondary ophthalmic services (replicating the current position for clinical commissioning groups). Although secondary ophthalmic services would appear to fall within new section 3(1)(f) and (g), in the existing legislation they are mentioned specifically so the amendment would continue that approach.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
In opening the debate on this clause, I highlight the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Cheadle. I suspect that, in my winding-up speech, I may be responding to further questions on this. They are absolutely right to highlight the amazing work that is done by hospices and various charities and organisations in providing end-of-life and palliative care. When I come to my conclusions, I hope to be able to offer further reassurances to my hon. Friends, who I know take a very close interest in this area, and, quite rightly, have championed it in the Committee today.
Clause 15 substitutes a new section 3 into the National Health Service Act 2006, which replaces the clinical commissioning group equivalent with one that requires integrated care boards to commission hospital and other health services for those persons for whom the ICB is responsible. The clause lists those things that the ICB must arrange for the provision of, which includes, but is not limited to, hospital accommodation, nursing and ambulance services, dental services, diagnosis, care, treatment and aftercare of people suffering illness, injury or disability. In proposed new section 3A, the clause also provides a power for ICBs to arrange for other services or facilities that they consider appropriate to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of people for whom they are responsible.
The clause makes it clear that the duty on an ICB to arrange services does not apply if NHS England has a duty to arrange for their provision. The clause gives ICBs a clear purpose, without which it would not be obvious which bodies in the system are responsible for commissioning which parts of the comprehensive health service that we all want to see.
I should note that ICBs will not be the sole commissioner in the system. As I have just alluded to, NHS England will remain a commissioner for some services best commissioned nationally, such as specialised services. The clause also allows us to very clearly divide responsibilities between NHS England and ICBs. Between NHS England and the ICBs, the NHS will continue to commission a comprehensive health service free at the point of delivery for all who need it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I rise to support the comments that were made earlier. I had indicated to the Minister that I would raise the issue about stating very clearly that the terms “care” and “after-care” in proposed new section 3(1)(f) include palliative care and services at the end of life. We have had a 36% rise in the number of people dying at home during the pandemic. That may be a result of choice, but, as someone who has supported someone at the end of their life at home, it is only possible through end-of-life services, including GP services and the Marie Curie overnight nurse. I do worry desperately about the percentage of people who are dying at home. It will be a huge issue for these organisations in the future to manage that positively. The Minister’s assurance that palliative care and end-of-life services are very much the responsibility of these boards would be most welcome.
Edward Argar
I will respond only briefly, because the only outstanding point that the hon. Lady rightly made was about paragraph (f). My understanding is that palliative care services and similar, as she has alluded to, would be captured under that paragraph. She is right, as are other Members, to highlight just how important those services are as continuing care or aftercare for patients. I give her the reassurance that my understanding of paragraph (f) is that it would encompass the services to which she has alluded.
Karin Smyth
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Commissioning primary care services etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in schedule 3, page 126, line 28, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Amendment 29, page 126, line 32, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent NHS England from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Clause 17 stand part.
Edward Argar
With your permission, Ms Elliott, I will first turn to clause 16 and schedule 3, and then discuss amendments 28 and 29, before concluding with clause 17.
Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 3, which makes provision for integrated care boards to take on responsibility for primary care services. The schedule allows for the conferral of functions relating to the commissioning of primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services on ICBs and contains related amendments. NHS England is currently responsible for arranging these services, but in future, once ICBs are fully established and ready to take on these functions, we intend for ICBs to hold the majority of them. This approach will ensure that decisions about services are made closer to the patient and in line with local population needs.
The schedule introduces a number of provisions to enable the transfer of these functions. The schedule includes equivalent provisions relating to primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services. That is to ensure flexibility, as it allows the different services to be conferred on ICBs over a period of time if that is deemed the most effective and efficient approach. The Bill is designed for the future, and we want to work with the system to support it to move at the right pace and offer patients the best care at all times.
The schedule provides for regulations to define which services should be regarded as primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services for the purposes of the Bill. The services that are classed as primary care services may vary over time and so these powers allow the Secretary of State to react to any such changes. The powers restate similar powers that are currently found in the National Health Service Act 2006. This provision places a duty on ICBs to provide primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services for those people for whom the ICB is responsible and allows ICBs to enter into the necessary arrangements in order to do so. To date, NHS England has always been responsible for dental and ophthalmic services, but the commissioning of primary medical services has been successfully delegated to clinical commissioning groups for some time. These provisions will ensure that primary care continues to be at the centre of delivering joined-up care to local communities—many members of the Committee have highlighted that—in partnership with wider health and care services in the area.
The schedule requires each ICB and NHS England to publish any information that may be prescribed in regulations concerning the provision of primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services. To ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place once these responsibilities are transferred, NHS England will have powers to direct ICBs as to how they should exercise their primary medical, dental and ophthalmic care functions.
In addition to primary care services, the Secretary of State will have powers to require NHS England to exercise pharmaceutical services, which can, in turn, be delegated to the integrated care boards. NHS pharmaceutical services are generally not directly commissioned, and the schedule continues to allow for that consistent approach to be followed.
The schedule makes provision for the necessary technical and consequential amendments to reflect the new provisions within it relating to primary care services. It is crucial for establishing ICBs as the key commissioners for the NHS in England in the future.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate amendments 28 and 29. I will address what I read into them at this stage and if I have misrepresented them, I will of course seek at the end, as appropriate, to address any misapprehensions I may have set out. I fear that the amendments would prevent an ICB from entering or renewing a contract with some private and third-sector organisations for the provision of primary medical services. Although the explanatory note for the amendment says this will
“prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract”,
I have been advised that it would actually go much further than that limited objective, as limited companies can currently also hold general medical services and personal medical services contracts. The amendment would bar some of those companies from doing so, which would have a potentially devastating effect on primary care at a moment when the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, is working flat out to build capacity in primary care.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I wish to speak to amendments 28 and 29, and will also briefly address a couple of brief points relating to the clause.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response—it is handy to know in advance the likely arguments against the amendments. I referred to the amendments late on Tuesday afternoon, with regard to private company involvement in integrated care boards. We are heartened to hear what the Minister said about that and look forward to having those conversations. My original notes said that the amendments go a little further and might be a little rich for the Committee’s blood, and that may well be the case, but they are nevertheless important.
As I said the other day, the vast majority—around 70% —of GP services are provided on the general medical services contracting model, between local and national commissioners and a GP or GPs and their practice. A little more than a quarter of services are on the personal medical services terms, which allow greater local flexibility, although I understand that the intention is to phase them out. There is a small but growing number of APMSs, which we are debating. APMSs allow bespoke contracting with private companies, with no obligation for a GP behind them. The Minister mentioned their being time-limited as an asset; I am not sure that that is necessarily true. Of course, there has to be flexibility for commissioners to meet need, but my argument is that this is being misused and is operating as a loophole for private companies to enter the market and cream off profits in a way that I do not think is generally the direction that service users in the NHS want. Colleagues should not think that, because the model currently provides just over 2.5% of contracts, this is in some way small beer. The largest provider of GP services in this country is wholly owned by a US megacorporation and has 500,000 patients on its books. I do not think that is what our constituents want from their national health service in England, and I do not think that is what they expect it to look like either.
Therefore, it is reasonable to use the Bill to try to do something about it, because this will be the model. It will grow at pace unless it is checked, and there are many reasons to tackle the issue. It is not just because I find the model distasteful, which I do. First, such contracts are poor value for money. For a registered patient, the mean payment to an APMS provider is 11% greater than that to a GMS provider. Of course, the Minister made the argument on Tuesday that such practices often serve the hardest cohorts, so perhaps that could account for the difference, but that is not the case either. When patients are weighted according to need, the mean payment is actually 16% greater on APMS contracts—it gets worse. If we read that across the entire patient list across the country, it would be the equivalent of £1.5 billion. That is the risk, if this grows to be the dominant model. Such contracts also provide less satisfactory care, with a 2017 survey of nearly 1 million patients finding that APMS services generated lower levels of satisfaction.
Finally, the contracts are easier to walk away from. Within the NHS, we already know that when it stops working for private providers corporately, they are willing to just walk away from contracts and hand them straight back. I strongly say to the Minister that such arrangements are a distortion of the health service’s founding principles. They are costly, they are of lesser quality and they are less reliable.
Amendment 28 is designed to stop integrated care boards entering or renewing such contacts, and amendment 29 would do the same for NHS England. I fear that the Minister may have slightly catastrophised the impact of that, because if this was accepted today, there would be GP services that could no longer operate tomorrow. For a start, the Bill has an awful long way to go, and I gently say that if there is anxiety about health organisations working in advance and presupposing that this will become law at some point and will be operational in April, I am afraid that the Government started that a very long time ago and have already started to fill places in shadow. I do not think there should be any anxiety about getting prepared in this way, so that there would not be a cliff edge.
I am willing to take the argument that perhaps there is a better and more elegant way of drafting this, and I would happily accept an amendment in lieu, but what I cannot accept is nothing at all. Again, the Minister’s point on Tuesday was very good, because sometimes there will need to be a way to provide flexibility for very bespoke services. I think the example he used was services for street homeless people. Of course, that might be a very different model from that of the GPs on my estate. I would accept that as a principle, but the corporation that has the biggest patient list, at 500,000, is a bricks-and-mortar primary care service in my community. That is not a use of flexibility; it is using that as a loophole.
I do not think that can be right, and I do not think the answer can be that the provision needs to exist and therefore we must open this space for that sort of distortion. We are either saying, “There needs to be flexibility, and here is the best way of having a flexible system. Don’t worry—we’ll make sure it is not misused,” or we are saying that we are happy with such organisations entering the market. The Government need to say which one is their preference.
I will make a point about primary care networks before I move on to clause stand part. Obviously, primary care networks are not in the Bill, but I put quite a lot of stock in them. I think that, locally, they will be a very important unit of organisation of care services in our community. I want them to work, and I am playing an active role in the primary care network in my constituency. I think they have real potential. However, who will lead them if we lose our GP practices to those who do not have an interest in our community? The model will become much more distant and uninterested, based on finances rather than the local population. I believe that would be a very, very bad thing indeed. As I say, the amendments may not offer the best way to close that loophole, but I have not heard a better one, or indeed a desire to close it, so I wish to press the amendments to a Division.
Finally, a couple of quick points on schedule 3, which we do not intend to press to a Division. We have had quite a lot of discussion—the Minister touched on this in the previous stand part debate—about the arrangement of integrated care systems, such as they exist. At the moment, we know that NHS England holds certain responsibilities, the regional teams hold certain responsibilities and CCGs hold certain responsibilities at a local level. It is possible, after these reforms, that CCGs will be replaced by ICBs and the previous arrangements and responsibilities will remain unchanged, with NHS England nationally doing the same things, the regional teams doing the same things and ICBs picking up the responsibilities of their predecessors. I suspect, however, that that is not the intention, so I want to press the Minister a little bit on that.
The explanatory notes, on page 59, paragraph 286, state that the functions relating to medical, dental and ophthalmic primary care sit with NHS England, but that
“The intention is that Integrated Care Boards will hold the majority of these functions…in the future.”
Will the Minister expand on that? Does a “majority” mean two out of the three in a different area? Does he intend—again, we touched on this the other day—that this should all be devolved to the 42 ICBs at the same time, or will there be a sense of when each system is ready to pick up those important services? If so, what criteria will that be based on?
Finally, in case we do not come back to this topic—I do not expect the Minister to have an exhaustive list to hand—what is the thinking on other NHS England national and regional functions? Are they likely to be devolved to ICBs? Can he give an example of what sorts of things might be retained? He mentioned that we would want to retain specialist commissioning at a national level. The final question is this: is it ICB by default unless there is a very good reason why it cannot and therefore it has to be done at a national level, or is it at a national level unless it is proven that ICBs are competent to take it on? The answer may be a bit of a mixed economy, but if that is the case, I am keen to know what criteria he will use, or the Secretary of State will use, to make those decisions.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, who made an excellent case for amendments 28 and 29. While on a primary care trust board, I commissioned APMS contracts under a previous magnificent Government—I am not saying this one’s not magnificent, but—because they offered flexibility. Then, as now, they were a sign of a failure of the system and the model of primary care contracting to deliver, particularly in areas of high deprivation. To provide flexibility in Bristol, for example, we had an 8 am to 8 pm service in the city centre to allow better access for people in the city centre, partly to drive down demand on emergency care services, which is a circle that we just keep on going round. Whether they worked or not is a bit of moot point, but it is a model and it is clear that something is needed—I would certainly concede that—so I understand the Government’s difficulty here with having something that is flexible.
I was slightly concerned when the Minister said that the APMS model would be developed further. I wonder if he wants to come back on that. We have to accept that they are problematic at the moment and we would like to see them go because of that. They are now being used as a back door, a very unfortunate one, for large private companies to start hoovering up general practices, which is, yet again, a sign of failure as to why they cannot survive in their environment. If they are going to be developed further, that is something we would like to hear more about. If not now, perhaps the Minister responsible could come back to us on that. Patients are always surprised when they find out that their GP is a private contractor. I accept that this is a difficult area to be completely black and white on. We are certainly in favour of flexibility in developing services in areas of high demand where, for reasons around capital or the type of contract, a GP might enter into partnerships. We know that the workforce is changing rapidly and the model of partnerships is not as attractive and is not recruiting people into the service. It is—not to overuse the word—a crisis.
I am sure we have all been contacted by various bodies representing GPs in our own constituencies. They are fearful not just about the current pressures, but the future attractiveness of primary care. We are not going to get into the future model of the contract today, but I always pity the poor Minister who has to negotiate the contract.
Karin Smyth
It is not a negotiation that anyone looks forward to with relish, but we need to take a good, strong look at the model now. This policy is not the route, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has described perfectly why it is not. It is of deep concern. These large organisations are not part of the local community. It is completely against the thrust of this Bill, which is about place-based, locally accountable systems. The Government would be wise to take his advice and perhaps come back with something else. We seek assurance that this policy is not being developed further, because that would be of even greater concern.
Edward Argar
I can reassure the hon. Member for Bristol South. I fear she misheard me when I was saying that we were encouraging primary care commissioners to go further in developing primary care provision—that was not necessarily this model. Forgive me if I was unclear on that, and I hope that gives her a little reassurance on that point.
To address a number of the other points that the shadow Minister primarily made, I suspect his fears are not borne out in reality. I suspect he will none the less, as we cannot accept his amendment, press it to a vote to highlight the issue, and that is his prerogative. I come back to the point that flexibility in this space is hugely important. The examples given by the hon. Member for Bristol South about the challenges in primary care provision are a good argument for why we need this flexibility. We know that some practices, which are GPs’ private businesses contracted to the NHS, on occasion will collapse or a partner will retire and a surgery will cease to operate, especially if no one wishes to take it over. Therefore it is important that these flexibilities are available to commissioners to ensure GP practice coverage.
Karin Smyth
Just to be clear—my apologies for mishearing the Minister previously—such closures are a sign of failure. The answer is to negotiate the contract better and to modernise a clear contract, not to use this vehicle. That was my very clear point.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but it would be a sign of failure not to build flexibility for all eventualities into the arrangements we have at the disposal of commissioners and into what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds is trying to do to build resilience into the system. I very much hope that she will continue to do so, or will ascend in the next few hours to something else. That is why flexibility is at the heart of this measure and why we cannot support the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
I will try to address a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman made. We envisage PCNs continuing to play a hugely important role locally in the provision of primary care services. My GP is actively involved in the local PCN in Leicestershire. I know, whenever I speak to him, just how much it has done, particularly in the past 18 months, to build resilience into the system and make sure it works. I know the value of those PCNs more broadly in, for want of a better way of putting it, more normal times.
The final thing the hon. Gentleman asked about was the delegation of currently nationally commissioned functions down to ICBs. The short answer is that he was right in his supposition that this is not a binary, one-size-fits-all measure. The reality is that NHS England will be looking at which ICBs and ICS areas are sufficiently developed that they can take on additional commissioning responsibilities. If he and I sat down, we would probably have a fair sense of which ones were already well advanced. It may be some where there is a mayoralty and there is already a significant amount of devolution in one or two areas. It may be others. We heard from Dame Gill Morgan in Gloucestershire, who clearly has a highly developed ICS in that area. I would be reticent about setting a black-and-white thing on meeting some criteria. There is a degree of subjectivity, which is why we will be reliant on the expert advice of our colleagues in NHS England, and they will make these decisions in the appropriate way.
I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on the broader clauses and schedule stand part. I fear I have not persuaded him in respect of his amendments, but it was worth a try.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Conferral of primary care functions on integrated care boards etc
Amendment proposed: 28, in schedule 3, page 126, line 28, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.—(Alex Norris.)
This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Edward Argar
Clause 18 amends section 12ZA of the NHS Act 2006, which currently relates to commissioning arrangements by the board and the CCG. Elsewhere in the Bill, this has been updated to refer to newly merged NHS England and ICBs instead. The purpose of the clause is to allow those arrangements to be efficient and work smoothly so that ultimately patients are provided with the best service.
In essence, the clause would allow NHS England and integrated care boards to choose to enter more flexible arrangements with providers of NHS services, allowing flexibility for providers to tailor services to best meet the health needs of the population. For example, the management of long-term conditions such as diabetes can have complex care pathways. An integrated care board, through its commissioning arrangements, could allow a local trust to determine the range of services that will meet these needs in the local area. This includes the trust subcontracting services to other providers where they are best placed to provide some of those services.
The flexibilities provided by this clause will add to the ability of commissioners and providers to work together, using each other’s expertise to get the best outcomes for the entire system. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to clause 19, to which 15 amendments have been tabled. Although amendments 77 to 79, 4, 56, and 80 to 82 have not been selected for debate as no member of the Committee has signed them, if any Member wants to move those amendments, would they please indicate?
Clause 19
General Functions
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 19, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) make arrangements to ensure that patients can access services within maximum waiting times in accordance with their rights in the NHS Constitution.”
This amendment places a duty on each integrated care board, in the exercise of its functions, to meet maximum waiting time standards.
The amendment would insert in clause 19 a new requirement on integrated care boards, in addition to the many requirements set out in the clause, to ensure that patients could access services within the maximum waiting times as set out in the NHS constitution. I expect the Minister will tell us that those requirements are already set out in the constitution and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, but if the answer is that that is an effective tool for ensuring compliance, by any account it has failed.
In every aspect of performance, the NHS has gone backwards in recent years and there can be no doubting the strength of connection between that going backwards and the decade of austerity that the NHS has endured. It is more than five years since the 18-week standard has been met, and that has led to the record waiting lists we see now. In case there is any doubt about this, let me put it on the record that waiting lists were already at record levels before the pandemic, and despite all the fanfare from the Prime Minister following the national insurance rise, we still do not have a guarantee that they will go down during this Parliament.
Let us not forget why the last Labour Government introduced the standards. Years of underfunding under the 1979 to 1997 Conservative Government led us to a dark place. People were waiting months—sometimes years—to access treatment, and that was rightly identified as a priority to fix by the last Labour Government, who wanted to let record investment into the NHS, but also wanted to ensure that that investment was targeted and effective so that the NHS could be judged on its performance. As a result, the targets were introduced.
Targets and funding combined proved to be effective, which is why, by the time the Labour party left office, the NHS had record satisfaction levels and waiting times that today’s Secretary of State can only dream of. Little wonder the rhetoric in recent months has increasingly been that of scepticism about the benefit of such targets, culminating in the Secretary of State’s words at the weekend that the targets are, in fact, “nonsense”. Well, I think we can see what is going on. Targets have got hopelessly out of reach and there is no real plan for to how to change that, so the Government seek to undermine and ultimately change—or remove altogether—the targets, so that poor performance is disguised or played down.
That does a disservice to the patients who are waiting months—in some cases, sadly, years—for the treatment that they are entitled to. Most of those people will be in significant pain. All will be unable to live their lives to the extent that they would like. Some may be unable to work or undertake other physical activities. We do not need to go through the full list; we can all understand the impact that waiting for treatment can have on individuals. In many cases, their lives are effectively put on hold. They deserve better. The amendment would make it clear that their rights as patients under the constitution meant something and that the ICBs should be expected to focus on delivering those standards.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment and giving us the opportunity to debate it. Of course we understand the importance of reducing waiting times. The Government are committed to increasing activity, tackling backlogs and ensuring that patients can access timely healthcare, backed up by the record investment announced by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—indeed, some might agree, to a degree copying what the Labour Government did in putting up national insurance.
For instance, to tackle backlogs and drive up activity, the Government are providing £2 billion of elective recovery funding, which is double our previous commitment, and we are working to encourage innovation to help patients to get the care they need. In his remarks, the shadow Minister highlighted funding. I would point out to him the fact that, despite inheriting a note saying “Sorry, there is no more money,” we have continued to increase spending on the NHS.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s vain attempt to persuade me to withdraw the amendment, although he rather missed the central thrust of its purpose, which is, of course, to point out that this is not just about funding; it is about focusing that funding. That is why the targets were introduced in the first place.
We believe it is important that ICBs are also given that focus; we could call it an incentive or a prioritisation. They should be keen to be seen to be delivering that. This is such an important part of the NHS—how are we to judge each ICB’s performance if we do not know how they are performing on waiting lists? This is an important area. We think the general tone and the rhetoric from the Government are that waiting targets are not of significance, so this is an opportunity for them to put right some of the stories that go around in respect of that by supporting the amendment. We will press the amendment to a vote in any case because we believe that this is an important matter, and it should be put on the record.
Karin Smyth
I will not repeat my comments of the other day with respect to an amendment that suddenly disappeared from the amendment paper without my noticing. The point I was making was that targets do drive behaviour, and we learnt something in that magnificent drive down from the Conservative Government’s target of 18 months to wait on a list, which seemed acceptable to them at the time. The wait is beyond that now for many services, which seems acceptable to the Government now, although it is completely unacceptable to everyone in my constituency.
We must consider the managerial and clinical effort involved in focusing on those waiting lists, which, as I have said previously, is about making contact with all those patients, assessing their condition and seeing how it has ordinarily deteriorated once on the waiting list. Sadly, many people have died while on those waiting lists. That effort is huge, and it will require focus.
The Government are asking us all to pay a bit more towards the health service, and most of us are conscious of the fact that that is needed. We can debate how it is being done, but we should know what it will get us. We should absolutely be clear to our constituents—given that they have suffered so much, particularly during the pandemic—that the previous standards were not acceptable, and were not being met, and that it is completely unacceptable to ask people to pay more without their having any idea of what that will bring, or indeed of the Government’s intent with regard to how long they think it is acceptable for people to be on a waiting list.
It is also hugely onerous on the clinical managerial staff to manage these waiting lists in the way that they are, which is hugely inefficient. This is a really bad sign of the flow through the system; we have bottlenecks throughout. It will come back to haunt the Government and whoever is speaking on their behalf at this time—I have no doubt about that. I say that with sorrow because it is miserable all round. The Government would be wise to make some kind of assessment of what they think is an acceptable time to wait for various treatments, so that would be clear to people. Supporting our amendment would give some indication of good faith, at the very least.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend has described the amendment very well, and it would be good to know the Government’s intentions in respect of waiting lists, because we consider the rhetoric a distraction and a nuisance. It is politically convenient for them to have such headlines. We want to put the amendment to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
On a point of order, Ms Elliott. I apologise for interrupting the flow of the sitting, but it will not have escaped your notice that my amendments 55 and 54 to clause 20 are coming up soon. As luck would have it, the debate will coincide precisely with the time at which I am due in Westminster Hall to discuss the progress of the Government’s implementation of the recommendations of the Timpson review. It is very difficult for me to avoid being present in Westminster Hall. As luck would further have it, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd is happy to move the amendments on my behalf, as well as speak to them. I hope that is acceptable, and I apologise for having to absent myself for a short period in order to fulfil my duties in another part of the House.
The Chair
That is absolutely fine. I thank the hon. Member for advising the Committee of that.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 19, page 17, line 4, at end insert
“through working with innovation and life sciences ecosystems, facilitated by Academic Health Science Networks, to ensure patients and the public have timely access to transformative innovation.”
This amendment would mandate Trusts to work with AHSNs to promote innovation in health services.
Innovation has allowed us to conquer certain diseases and come up with better and more effective treatments for others. It is integral to societal progress and is a major source of inspiration, new opportunities and, indeed, new financial burdens for the NHS. Most importantly, it means improved outcomes for patients. Innovation needs to reach patients if we are to get the full benefit of the many incredibly talented people who make up our academic and research community.
Academic health science networks have an informal role in the NHS, and there is no obligation on any CCG to work with them to ensure that new, innovative medicines are available. There are 15 academic health science networks across England, which were established by NHS England in 2013 to spread innovation at pace and scale, improving health and generating economic growth. Each network has a distinct geography, covering a specific population in each region—it almost sounds like an integrated care system, but there are not quite as many. They are the only bodies that connect to the NHS and the academic organisations, and are catalysts that create the right conditions to facilitate change across health and social care communities with a clear focus, as we believe should be the case, on improving outcomes for patients. We think they are uniquely placed to underline and spread innovation at pace and scale, driving the adoption and spread of innovative ideas and technologies across large populations, but their effectiveness rests on their ability to bring people, resources and organisations together quickly, delivering benefits that could not be achieved if they operated in isolation.
Everything those bodies do is driven by two imperatives: improving health and generating economic growth in our regions. They are the only partnership bodies that bring together all partners across a regional hub economy to improve the health of local communities. They have a remit from NHS England to occupy what is effectively a unique space outside the usual NHS service contracts and performance management structures, enabling them to collaborate to foster important solutions.
Those bodies use local knowledge to harness the influence of partners to drive change and integrate research within health improvements. They are interested in seeing healthcare businesses thrive and grow, creating jobs, bringing investment and seeing the system improve. They have a different focus, but they share the following priorities: promoting economic growth; fostering opportunities for industry to work effectively with the NHS; diffusing innovation; creating the right environment; and supporting collaboration across boundaries to adopt and spread innovation at pace and scale. They improve patient safety by using knowledge, expertise and networks to bring together patients, healthcare staff and partners to determine priorities and to develop and implement solutions. They optimise medicine use—[Interruption.] Perhaps I have predicted what the Minister was about to say?
Edward Argar
I am envying the shadow Minister’s breath control as he runs through his list.
Justin Madders
I am merely trying to ensure we make good progress today.
Those bodies ensure medication is used to maximum benefit, including safety and making efficient use of NHS resources. They improve quality and reduce variation by spreading best practice—we often talk about the variation among outcomes across different parts of the country. They put research into practice, collaborate on national programmes, and have a unified focus on various initiatives, including the NHS innovation accelerator and patient safety collaborative programme.
The amendment would bake in that good work, some of which I have outlined, by including those bodies within the scope of proposed new section 14Z39 of the National Health Service Act 2006 regarding innovation.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support my hon. Friend. We have rightly criticised much of what has happened in the last few years, but we should also remember that some amazing partnerships and networks have developed, including in my area—Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire—with the universities and others in both primary and secondary care, bringing together clinicians, researchers and so on. They stumbled initially as things were difficult at the beginning, but they have come together very well. They are well regarded—variable but well regarded—and are a useful source of innovation coming together, so I fully echo my hon. Friend’s comments.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for facilitating the debate on this matter, and, as I said, I admire his ability at pace and fluently to rattle through a long list of examples.
As the shadow minister said, the amendment relates to the role of ICBs and ICPs in relation to innovation. First, I want to reassure the Committee that I share his view on the vital importance of research to the NHS and the UK more widely. We are committed to being a research superpower and fully support research and innovation in the NHS and the public being given timely access to transformative medicines and treatments resulting from that innovation.
The example we would all use at the moment is vaccine development. That is a phenomenal example, and it is at the forefront of many of our minds. That is why we have replicated the research duty on CCGs for ICBs to continue a system that has been working well. We are fully supportive of research and ensuring that effective health, public health and social care services are delivered, but we cannot support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. The Opposition would not want to be accused of being over-prescriptive—that is certainly not what we intend. I appreciate what the Minister said about not wanting to limit the role of ICBs and he made a good point about the vaccine roll-out being a pertinent example of how innovation can be of huge benefit. That may be at the forefront of his mind because there is now a vacancy in the Department in the role of Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment; the Minister may be looking to add to his already extensive portfolio.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 19, page 17, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
“(a) support the conduct of research on matters relevant to the health and care system,
(b) work with universities and other research settings to support the development of the health research workforce and careers, and
(c) promote the use in the health and care system of evidence obtained from research.”
This amendment would require Integrated Care Boards to work with universities to support research in their local health and care systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 19, page 17, line 13, after “1F(1)”, insert “and work with universities and colleges”.
This amendment would require Integrated Care Boards to work with universities and other education providers to promote education and training in their local health and care systems.
Chris Skidmore
The amendments would place a legal duty on integrated care boards to support and promote the use and development of research in their local health and care systems. The existing legislation talks about the health system; this is the Health and Care Bill, so it makes sense that the duty to promote research should also promote research in care settings.
Importantly, amendment 7 would promote and support the conduct of research alongside universities, which drive research outputs and innovation in healthcare. We would all agree that that has been highlighted throughout the pandemic: if it was not for our universities, we would not have all received a vaccine, in respect of which the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of research and innovation.
In the specific context of the Bill, it is important to require ICBs to engage with universities and other research settings on the development of the healthcare research workforce. ICBs will have a vital role in ensuring that we have sufficient numbers in not only the health workforce but the healthcare academic workforce, which is key to overall healthcare workforce sustainability. That is particularly important for the development of the clinical academic workforce. Clinical academics work in higher education institutions, conducting cutting-edge research and educating the future workforce while also providing clinical expertise to health and social care services. Because they remain clinically active, their research is grounded in clinical practice and questions that matter to services and patients.
Data from the Medical Schools Council staffing survey shows that although the total number of NHS medical consultants and GPs has risen by 40% over the past 15 years, the numbers of clinical academic have simply not kept up to pace—in fact, they have decreased, from 7.5% to 4.2% of the workforce. The proportion of clinical academic GPs has remained stable, but at just 0.4% of the GP workforce. Furthermore, less than 0.1% of the workforce in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions are clinical academics. Increasing clinical academic capacity is essential to advancing evidence-informed practice and innovation in healthcare in the future. The point here is that expansion of the healthcare programme of student numbers on the UK Government’s intended scale also requires an expansion of the number of healthcare academic staff.
The 2019 academic staffing centres of the Council of Deans of Health identify challenges for universities in recruiting staff and an ageing academic workforce in healthcare subjects. In England, 36% of academic staff are over the age of 50, and 9% are over the age of 60. That suggests that the academic workforce is significantly older than the healthcare workforce as a whole. It suggests that, within the next 15 years, almost half of the academic staff will be at or near retiring age, with many already likely to have retired. Without significant renewal of the academic healthcare workforce, not enough staff will be left to keep up with the number of students.
It is key that senior leaders in both the higher education and the healthcare sectors cultivate a culture of support for clinical academics. ICBs, health and social care providers and universities need to work in partnership to support clinical academics and clinical staff interested in secondments or joint appointments to universities. There should be opportunities for clinical staff to obtain experience and skills in teaching and also in research.
Amendment 7 ensures that ICBs remember their responsibilities to research, to local research priorities and to developing a local clinical academic research workforce, and universities are vitally involved in that important work. I think I am the only Member of this House who has been both a Health Minister and a Universities Minister twice. When I went into the Department of Health and Social Care, we were talking about integration between healthcare settings and social care settings. We have a similar problem with integration when it comes to looking at the medical workforce and ensuring that the education settings and the healthcare settings also integrate better together.
Amendment 8 returns to this point. It would require integrated health and care boards to work with universities to promote education and training in their local health and care systems. Universities are committed to co-creating healthcare services through working with practice partners, further education colleges and other stakeholders to plan and deliver the future workforce. I know that, when we come to clause 33, we will be talking about workforce planning at length, but this amendment would help to enable us to plan in advance to mitigate some of the problems that come with workforce planning for the future.
Universities are rooted in their local and regional communities and focus on improving healthcare outcomes and driving up economic and social wellbeing through providing programmes to meet skills gaps in those local areas. This is highlighted through the work of the universities during the pandemic, including the University of the West of England in my own locality hosting a Nightingale hospital, and the deployment of thousands of healthcare and medical students and some academic staff within clinical practice to expand the NHS workforce at the height of the pandemic. We all want to pay tribute to those medical students who, with no extra salary, gave up their time to volunteer to help staff on some of those covid wards at the time.
In England, universities currently sit on local workforce action boards and on sustainability and transformation partnerships to ensure that education is central to local healthcare planning. The amendment ensures that universities and colleges continue to be actively engaged by ICBs to plan and deliver on local workforce needs and priorities to ensure a sustainable workforce. This should take place alongside continued work with Health Education England.
Healthcare programmes are holistic and necessarily constituted of theory and practice components. For example, a registered nursing programme consists of 4,600 hours of education across three years—2,300 hours of academic learning and 2,300 hours of theory learning. Universities and their practice placement partners need to be involved in national and local workforce planning to ensure that there is adequate placement capacity in the system. As I saw when I was a Health Minister, placement capacity has long been recognised as a constraint to sector growth. Even if the hospitals wanted to expand, they did not have the placements to be able to deliver on the demand that was there.
ICBs must be involved in developing placement capacity and innovation and work with partners to increase placement opportunities outside the NHS, including in private healthcare, the third sector, social care, research and teaching, and international exchange. ICBs also need to work with education providers to think about developing education placements to support digital innovation and online and blended delivery, particularly considering the learning we have from the pandemic. That will help to support higher education institutions to manage the continued challenges posed by placement capacity problems, considering health service pressures.
Requiring ICBs to work with universities and colleges is also key to ensuring the success of healthcare apprenticeships and new technical qualifications such as T-levels. Universities work in close collaboration with local employers to develop and deliver healthcare apprenticeships. They are also committed to ensuring smooth articulation between further education and higher education, and universities are working with colleges to ensure that the healthcare T-levels and the new higher technical qualifications are rolled out successfully.
The amendment would ensure that the planning of future workforce numbers and sufficient placement capacity for all learner routes must be developed in partnership with education providers. That is crucial.
Alex Norris
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his amendments and the case he made for them. I hope that he remembers with fondness his visit to the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University when he was Universities Minister. He will have seen then the significant role that they play in our community, and I think they provide a good model for some of the things that we are talking about. I hope the Minister will address the points about clinical academics in particular. They were very well made, and I thought the right hon. Member for Kingswood also provided the basis for what will be a really interesting discussion on clause 33.
What attracts me to amendment 7 is that it is really important to send a signal to the leaders of integrated care boards that we want research to be central to their mission, as NHS Providers said in its evidence, and that we do not see them solely as administrators of health and care spending on a day-to-day basis, who every winter have to engage in collective crisis management to keep the lights on. We have much broader horizons in mind for them. If this is about new and enhanced models of more integrated care, we have to harness the expertise of academia. Hopefully, if this was effective and worked as a two-way process, with academics learning from inside the system and the systems learning from best practice from around the different footprints, that would be really powerful.
That relates neatly to the point about inequalities, from the beginning of our line-by-line consideration. The argument in favour of making that a priority was not about some sort of quixotic search for solutions or saying that something must be done, so let us just do something; rather, it is about taking evidence-based, high-quality interventions that work and putting them to work elsewhere. The sort of insights that amendment 7 proposes would certainly do that.
When I read amendment 8, my first instinct was, “I wish I had tabled it,” because I think it is great. We want to foster a culture where we invest in and develop our people. That is true whatever someone’s role is in the health and care service. Of course, that is really important in the NHS, and we all have a clear picture of what that looks like, but it is even more important in social care. We undervalue the role of social care in so many aspects, obviously and most tangibly in pay and conditions, but we also do not invest in people. Imagine how much more attractive a career in care would become if someone’s training prospects went beyond the limited ones offered by whoever their employer happens to be and instead a wealth of other opportunities and courses backed by top higher education providers in their community was opened up.
My family’s life was transformed by the impact that night school had on my mum’s skills. She progressed from being an unqualified person working in childcare and turned that from a job into a career. That was completely transformative, not just for her life but for mine and my sister’s. How terrific would that sort of picture be for people entering the care profession. It would be a wonderful thing. So there is a lot to go at here, and I am very interested in hearing the Minister’s views on how we can try to foster that culture, if not through amendments 7 and 8.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the agenda raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood in his amendments 7 and 8 and the need for integrated care systems to ensure that NHS organisations for which they are responsible conduct and resource clinical research.
I think all would agree that the UK life sciences sector is world-leading. That was evidenced during the pandemic by the way in which early PCR testing was brought forward for covid, by the recovery trial and by vaccine development and so on. In this country, however, the location of existing activity is all too often limited. We have world-renowned centres of excellence, often associated with teaching hospitals. I would do nothing to weaken that. The Government’s levelling-up agenda needs to extend involvement in such activity across the country. But at the same time, it can strengthen what Britain has to offer to patients and the world as a whole, bringing economic benefit to the country as well as to the NHS through increased income.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for tabling his amendments and allowing us to have this debate. As has been mentioned, he was both my distinguished predecessor in this role and a very distinguished Minister for universities and research.
Amendments 7 and 8 relate to requiring ICBs to work together with higher education institutions and to their research duty. With the consent of the Committee, and with yours, Ms Elliott, I will start with amendment 8 and revert to amendment 7. Amendment 8 would alter the statutory duty placed on ICBs to promote education and training when exercising their functions to assist the Secretary of State and Health Education England in the discharge of their statutory duties. The Government believe that integrated care boards should promote education and training for people who are employed or considering becoming employed in the provision of NHS services, and that is what proposed new section 14Z41 of the National Health Service Act 2006, in clause 19, achieves that. This provision mirrors the duty currently imposed on clinical commissioning groups. In discharging the duty, ICBs will invariably work with higher education institutions as well as other educational providers as they consider appropriate.
At this point, the Department does not think that it necessary to mandate specific details of how ICBs should discharge that duty under proposed new section 14Z41, particularly as NHS England will have a power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions, which should serve to clarify the system. The draft guidance published by NHS England and NHS Improvement in August 2021 states that the delivery of ICBs’ responsibilities will include working with educational institutions to develop the local future workforce across the health and care system. We believe that that guidance sends a strong signal to the system of the importance of the issue, reinforcing the statutory duty that ICBs will be under to promote education and training. Furthermore, it is worth noting in that context that ICBs will not be the only place in the system where engagement with higher education institutions will be taken forward.
HEE works extremely closely with higher education institutions and other education providers both nationally and through non-statutory regional people boards, jointly with NHS England, to ensure that the education and health systems are producing the right number of people with the right skills for our NHS. For example, Health Education England has already offered to support ICBs through the provision of workforce development support.
I will now turn to amendment 7, before wrapping both amendments together. I start by reassuring my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate that the Government remain fully committed to supporting research as part of our NHS. Currently, clinical commissioning groups are under a duty to promote research; the Bill places the same duty on integrated care boards. That duty is discharged in a variety of ways—for example, with some CCGs having research strategies or research offices, providing details on how people can participate in research locally, or being partners in research organisations. Rather than being direct funders or directly conducting research themselves, the role of integrated care boards is to facilitate and enable research.
A duty to promote research gives greater flexibility for integrated care boards to determine how best and most effectively to engage with and encourage research in their local system. For example, NHS Liverpool CCG is the host organisation for the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, while NHS Norfolk and Waveney CCG has a dedicated primary and community care research office, which works with a range of stakeholders, including academics, to develop and support the delivery of healthcare research across the area.
The amendment would modify the research duty on integrated care boards by replacing a requirement to promote research on relevant health service matters with one to “support the conduct” of that research. It also contains an additional requirement for ICBs to work with universities and other research settings to support the development of the health research workforce and careers.
We believe that there would be relatively little practical impact from changing the duty to one of supporting the conduct of research, and that there would be the potential to cause some confusion to staff moving from CCGs to ICBs as to what was expected of them. On the question of developing the health research workforce and careers by working with universities and other research settings, there is a risk in highlighting universities in particular, as that might imply an exclusion of other education facilities, although I know that that is not the intent. Furthermore, I have already highlighted the effectiveness of the proposed education and training duty, which includes the research workforce. Finally, the duty in relation to promoting the use of evidence and research is already part of the existing ICB duties.
I hope that, given those reassurances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will not feel that he has to press his amendments to a vote. I look forward to continuing to speak with him as proceedings on the Bill continue, to ensure that when it becomes law, we end up with something that accurately reflects what we need in order to carry on being a powerhouse of innovation and research.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister for his considered comments on these amendments. They are probing amendments, and I do not intend to press them to a vote. I hope, however, that the Department will consider not only the discussion that we have had in Committee today, but a letter that was sent to the Minister’s office on 14 September from Universities UK, the Medical Schools Council and the Council of Deans of Health, which have all signalled their support for a form of words in an amendment that recognises the potential difficulties about placement planning and the opportunities represented by putting measures in the Bill about ICBs demonstrating integrated working.
I have been in Bill Committees before—I am now legislating to take out a lot of what I legislated for 10 years ago, when I was dealing with what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. These Bills do not come around very often, so we have a fantastic opportunity, as the oral evidence sessions demonstrated, and I fully appreciate it. I have removed and re-tabled one of my amendments, to clause 33, as a result of the feedback from the oral evidence sessions.
There is a tension about how prescriptive we should be when the very culture of the Bill is about locally led practice and delivery and ensuring that we give health service managers and clinicians the opportunity to decide what is best for their local areas, so I do appreciate that prescription here may be unnecessary, but I felt it was important that I raised this as an opportunity to make a change in the Bill.
When it comes to clause stand part, I would like to speak more generally on clause 19 about the value of research, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has spoken about. I think we have an opportunity—it is one that I do not want to miss—when it comes to embedding research within the future of the NHS. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 19, page 25, line 37, at end insert—
“14Z58A Power of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to obtain information
(1) The Domestic Abuse Commissioner may require an integrated care board to provide the Domestic Abuse Commissioner with information.
(2) The information must be provided in such form, and at such time or within such period, as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner may require.”
This amendment places a requirement on Integrated Care Boards to share information with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner at their request.
This is the first of a couple of amendments relating to domestic abuse. I hope it is not necessary, but it is my best avenue for establishing a point. I am really hoping for a one-word answer from the Minister—in my experience, a one-word answer is better than a two-word answer—and I hope that we can make quick progress with the amendment.
In England and Wales, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created the post of Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who is in the vanguard of holding to account authorities and agencies to ensure that their process and plans promote our national attempts to tackle domestic abuse. Currently, the post is filled by the excellent Nicole Jacobs. She has the power to obtain information from public bodies such as the local police, the local council and the Care Quality Commission, so that she can express her views as to whether those organisations are acting in line with well-evidenced best practice in the decisions that they take. That is an important way in which we can be assured that public policy decisions on the ground from day to day reflect the national consensus on what we are trying to achieve.
Currently, NHS bodies are in scope of the commissioner’s powers, and I want to clarify that ICBs and any relevant sub-committee would also be in scope. The composition of the boards will not matter, and there will be no shielding behind commercial confidentiality. The body will sit consistently with other, similar bodies, and the commissioner will be able to get the information she needs to do the job that we have asked of her.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I share his view that it is crucial that integrated care boards co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I think I speak for the whole Committee when I say that we agree that the health and social care system has a crucial role in preventing and tackling domestic abuse, and in supporting victims who experience this horrendous crime. Indeed, before the last reshuffle, when I moved from Justice to Health, I was one of the Ministers working with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), on the genesis of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act. Therefore, we wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s role in the Act.
The commissioner has a vital role to play in monitoring the response to domestic abuse, sharing best practice and challenging bodies, including in health and social care, to go further and to do more. The commissioner will require information, support and co-operation from integrated care boards as well as a range of other public bodies. That is why the Domestic Abuse Act contains a duty to co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and we have made it clear that that will apply to integrated care boards and their component parts. It will also apply to requests for information from the commissioner. That is a little more than one word, but I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Nottingham North that there is already such provision, as there should be. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
More broadly, the Department for Health and Social Care will be taking steps to ensure that integrated care boards also have the right guidance and support to ensure that they fulfil their duties in relation to domestic abuse, as well as violence against women and girls, and sexual violence more broadly. We will be following the Government’s recent violence against women and girls strategy by engaging with current ICSs, the wider sector and the commissioner, so that we identify best practice and share that guidance across the system to ensure that all parts of the system play their part.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer and clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
This clause inserts 31 new sections into the NHS Act 2006. It is the cornerstone of the integrated care board provisions, as it sets out the functions and duties that ICBs are required by legislation to fulfil. Clause 19 contains a number of provisions and duties in respect of ICBs. Given the importance of these provisions in the Bill, I will take Members through them, if they will forgive me, in a little detail.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for that herculean effort in listing all the powers and responsibilities of ICBs. For a permissive Bill, the fact that it sets out 12 duties suggests that the pendulum has swung a little bit further than the Minister was perhaps prepared to admit on Tuesday. Of course, the number would have been even higher had our amendment been accepted, but there we go; a dozen is still an impressive amount. However, it is really about what that means in practice.
The Minister referred to the duty whereby ICBs are required to promote awareness of the NHS constitution. In the context of the debate that we have just had on NHS waiting lists, it strikes me as similar to the scene—it might be familiar to many Members—at the end of each “Bullseye” episode, when the speedboat that the unlucky contestant had not succeeded in getting was brought out, so as to say, “Look what you could have won!” In this case, it is, “Look what the NHS constitution says about waiting times. By the way, we are not delivering on that for you.” That is the nub of some of the duties—how will they be enforced in practice? The Minister referred to mechanisms for NHS England intervention, although we would have liked that to be further strengthened with specific reference to waiting lists.
I note that in proposed new section 14Z59(4), NHS England has retained the ability to terminate the appointment of an ICB chief executive, but also to direct the chair of the board as to which individual to appoint as their replacement and on what terms. That is quite a strong power. The way I read that, if NHS England decides to get rid of someone, it, and it alone, will decide who will replace them. That really goes against the spirit of what we have been discussing for the last couple of days. Would the Minister be able to allay my fears in that respect, or at least put into context the circumstances in which that clause might operate?
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about proposed new section 14Z47 and ICBs’ ability to offer grants and loans on whatever terms they see fit. It now seems that the “B” in ICB stands for bank, or possibly building society. Obviously, at the moment these bodies do not exist in law and so have no capital resources to draw on to create such grants or loans, but of course that will change in due course. Again, will the Minister advise the Committee in what kind of situations that might be a possibility?
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the powers and responsibilities in proposed new section 14Z52, on health and wellbeing boards’ comments about forward plans. Like much of this, it is a process-driven, tick-box exercise where people have to “take regard” and explain why they are not doing something that everyone else has asked them to do. A whole lot of this raises the question: in a disagreement, what are the levers to get proper accountability and change that the whole of the system, apart from the ICB, wants to see?
Chris Skidmore
Although I entirely support clause 19 as an essential ingredient of the Bill that will provide certainty and legal confidence to ICBs, I wish to draw the Minister’s attention again to the duty to promote research. The past year has demonstrated the increased engagement, across all healthcare settings, in research and those activities relating to the pandemic.
Research demonstrates the enormous benefits not only to patients, but to organisations that see improved outcomes, lower mortality rates and increased confidence in care as a result of being research-led organisations. It also shows the staggering gross value added that is produced within the NHS—£2.7 billion in 2018-19, through the National Institute for Health Research clinical research network that supports clinical research activities. For every patient recruited on to a commercial trial between 2016 and 2018, the NHS in England received more than £9,000. When a drug is replaced by a new one—a trial drug—there is another saving of nearly £6,000.
Research not only improves lives; we know it saves lives. I am a passionate advocate for expanding our research and development capacity across society if we are to succeed as global Britain. That is one reason we have that cross-Government target of raising the amount spent on R&D, both public and private, to 2.4% of GDP by 2027.
I want to come back to this idea of the duty to promote research. I recall serving on the Bill Committee for what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012, when the duty to promote research was first written into legislation, with the duty on CCGs. That has now been transferred across in the text for ICBs, in proposed new sections 14Z39 and 14Z40 to the National Health Service Act 2006.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned, the duty to promote may not be strong enough. I do not have an amendment to hand, but I wanted to raise this point more generally so that the Minister and his Bill team might give it some consideration. Given that ICSs are established as the strategic system leaders for the NHS and partner organisations to deliver integrated care and take that whole-systems approach, research will have to be a core element of ICSs’ regional plans if we are to maximise the strengths of the NHS, our world-leading science capability and the opportunities I have spoken about.
I therefore urge the Government to consider whether there might be an opportunity to change the duty to promote into a duty to conduct and resource clinical research during the passage of the Bill. It is important to stress that a duty to promote has to be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure: staffing levels, research capability, digital resources, access to services, efficient trial approval processes, the ability to reliably recruit patients, guidance and dedicated staff time for research. The whole idea of “promotion” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. There might be an opportunity for us to be more detailed in creating a duty to conduct and resource clinical research.
Such a duty—this has been raised with me—would present the opportunity that research brings to highlight clinical inequalities within the NHS. We need to be able to measure research activity; we cannot manage or even promote research activity unless we are able to measure it effectively. With that comes the whole question of clinical auditing—making sure that there is an effective auditing process in place to ensure that research-led activities are able to be effectively measured and therefore effectively managed. I am sure that that will be raised in the other place during the passage of the Bill. I act as a canary in the coalmine to provide the Minister with due warning that I am sure these debates will come up during the passage of the Bill in the other place.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
I have some questions for the Minister about the cross-border joint committees. I would, of course, be happy if he could answer them this afternoon, but he if wishes to have a period of further consideration I would be content for him to write to the Committee with the answers.
Clause 19 sets down the prescribed functions of an integrated care board that can be exercised jointly with the local health board in Wales. This is to be the responsibility of joint committees. The clause replaces the regulations in the National Health Service Act 2006, which provide that any prescribed functions of a clinical commissioning group can be exercised jointly with local health boards. The immediate questions for me are quite obvious—the who, what, why and how sort of questions—and I have not seen any details on this matter as yet, although I might have missed something.
As to my questions to the Minister, first, the why is quite clear: people from Wales access specialist services in England, as I am sure the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd would point out if I did not. People from border areas, but also from the far north-west of Wales where I live, access services in Manchester and are very glad to do so. Indeed, people from England access services in Wales as well, although that is less remarked on. Cross-border traffic is usually couched in terms of dependency from Wales, but it might interest the Committee to know that in 2019, 13,500 people from Wales accessed GP services in England, while at the same time, 21,000 people from England accessed GP services in Wales. That might, of course, be something to do with the free prescriptions provided by the Labour Government in Wales—I could not possibly comment.
To be clear, as a Plaid Cymru Member and a nationalist, I think co-operation is not just desirable but essential to ensure that fair and effective cross-border arrangements are in place. There will, no doubt, be opportunities to compare and contrast and to learn from each other. As I said, however, I would like the Minister to address some of my questions. This is not an exhaustive list.
First, to what degree have the Welsh Government played a part in drawing up the arrangements for joint committees? I am sure there have been discussions. For example, how will the membership of joint committees be decided? There has been a good deal of concern in debates in this Committee about private providers having seats on ICBs, as we have already heard. Pertinently to this matter, the private sector has a lesser role in the provision of health and social care in Wales. We are not talking about identical services here. The private sector might have a greater prominence on the other side of the border. Has it been agreed with the Welsh Government that private providers are to have seats on joint committees or not? If so, what safeguards will be in place to prevent the conflicts of interest that were referred to on Tuesday?
What structures will be in place to ensure that there is national Welsh consistency in decision making between the joint committees along the border? Will there be a national framework, although perhaps that is the responsibility of the Welsh Government rather than the Government here in Westminster, for coming to agreements on the delivery of services, or will it be up to the local joint committees, with the danger of a postcode lottery? As I said, I think this might be a matter for the Welsh Government rather than the Government here in Westminster. It has been agreed, I hope, so I would like to know what was agreed.
Lastly, in respect of the detailed points, to whom will the joint committees be accountable: to their respective ICBs or health boards, to the Government, or to the ICB on one side and the Welsh Government on the other? How will that be done? Indeed, when consultation—wide consultation, I hope—is undertaken, will it happen across the border as well? Will Welsh patients be able to have their say? There are more questions that I will pursue, and more will surely arise as the joint committees begin their work. I hope the Minister appreciates that these matters need further explanation.
Finally, I have three broader points. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether there have been discussions on these points and what has been decided about the services provided over the border. First, I am worried about divergence in health policy between Wales and England. There is a wellbeing approach to health in Wales, as I said in the debates on Tuesday. Might any difficulties arise from that? There might be some difference between what is available in Wales and what is available over the border.
Secondly—this is a particularly important matter where I live—has there been any discussion on whether services provided from England into Wales are consistent with the Welsh language requirements of the Welsh health service? I think there is a problem here, and some services provided into Wales from England are really aware of this. I think of the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital in Gobowen, which has Welsh-language services for people coming in from Wales. The hospital is just outside Oswestry, not far from the border. That is an issue to be examined, and perhaps to be answered by the Minister today or in a letter.
Lastly—this is more of a point in law, or possibly a philosophical point—can ICBs, which are ultimately the responsibility of the Government here in Westminster, be accountable to the Welsh Government, who have their power devolved from London? To put it more directly, can the Welsh Government peck up the pecking order towards bodies over in England? That has been a real question for services provided from outside Wales by Government bodies or agencies. Over many years, there has been quite a debate about bilingualism in the services provided into Wales by the Department for Work and Pensions. Again, that might not be a problem, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on this issue and on the other questions that I have raised.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for his comments. I hope I can reassure him that the issues he raised, and the issues that he has aired in the Committee today, will continue to be reflected on carefully by officials and Ministers during the passage of the Bill.
I will try to address the specific points raised by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Arfon. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on the appointment of chief executives and the termination of appointments. That power is broadly akin to the current power that CCGs have, and we are simply moving across the power that NHS England has over CCGs to reflect the new environment of integrated care boards.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister, but does that not expose our fear that, really, ICBs are just bigger CCGs?
Edward Argar
No, because at the heart of ICBs is an enhanced integration and partnership-working model, which will be a significant step forward to facilitate improved patient care in our constituencies and localities.
The power to make loans is analogous to the power that exists for CCGs.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on forward plans and health and wellbeing boards. The ICB will have an obligation to consult the health and wellbeing board, including in respect of whether it takes into account the latest joint health and wellbeing strategy and provides the HWB with a copy of its plan.
On Wales, I fear that I may have to write to the hon. Member for Arfon with some of the answers, but I shall try to give some now so that he has at least something today. We are seeking not to make a policy change or anything like that but to carry the existing situation for CCGs across into the new arrangement. We have been consulting and working closely with the Welsh Government. I suspect that, as we heard from the witnesses, some in the Welsh Government may suggest that we should consult more closely, while others will say the consultation is adequate. I believe I have a good relationship with the Health Minister in the Welsh Government—I spoke to her only yesterday about a number of aspects of the Bill—and at official level conversations are constantly ongoing.
The hon. Member for Arfon touched on joint committees, which will involve ICBs and their Welsh equivalents. We would not expect private providers to serve on them because they will in effect exercise an ICB function. On Tuesday, I made it clear to the Committee that it is not our intention that private providers should serve on ICBs, so they should not serve on joint committees either. We will have further discussions with the Opposition Front-Bench team and others as to whether we can find a way to make that clearer in the legislation.
Finally, accountability remains essentially unchanged. The NHS in Wales is accountable to the Welsh Government and ICBs will be accountable to NHS England and, therefore, to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Arfon touched on the challenge of divergence or disparity of provision. I suspect that, in a sense, it comes baked into a devolution settlement that when power is devolved down there is sometimes a divergence of approach or there are different services. That is in the nature of any devolution settlement where specific services or functions are devolved. For example, as we have seen in our exiting from coronavirus regulations, the devolved Administrations have the right, under the settlement, to pursue the approach that they deem to be most effective.
I hope that I have addressed a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Arfon. I see my officials frantically scribbling down his other questions; we will endeavour to check Hansard and write to him with anything we have missed.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Integrated care partnerships and strategies
Dr James Davies
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 20, page 29, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) When appointing members to the integrated care partnership, the integrated care partnership must pay particular attention to the range of services used by children and young people aged 0-25.”
This amendment would require integrated care partnerships to consider representation from the full spectrum of services used by babies, children and young people, including education settings.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 54, in clause 20, page 29, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) include specific consideration of how it will meet the needs of children and young people aged 0-25.”
This amendment would require an integrated care partnership to specifically consider the needs of babies, children and young people when developing its strategy.
Dr Davies
I move the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury.
These probing amendments would require integrated care partnerships to involve in their joint committee the key partners—including schools and colleges—responsible for meeting the needs of babies, children and young people. The intention is to understand how we can best ensure that children’s needs are given equal priority at ICS level. The Bill provides a genuine opportunity to reduce child health inequalities and improve children’s health outcomes, which is all the more pressing following many children’s severe adverse experiences over the past 18 months.
The Government’s drive towards integrated services and greater collaboration, both within and beyond the health and care system, is very much to be welcomed, but if ICSs are to achieve their aims of improving population health and reducing inequalities, they must give equal weight to the needs of children when they plan and commission services. Why? Because children are a distinct population with their own workforce, infrastructure, developmental needs and legislation. Children’s health is affected by a complex ecosystem of factors, with many interrelated systems encircling the child. Their health is determined not only by primary and secondary health services, but by their nursery or school, children’s social care teams, the local authority SEND workforce, school nursing, health visitors and many other partners.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury for tabling the amendments and to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd for stepping in to give the Committee a chance to discuss them. I agree completely with what he said about the Bill being a real opportunity on child health in this country and I hope that we can take it.
We should be saddened by what Barnardo’s said in its written evidence:
“Children growing up in England…face some of the worst health outcomes in Europe”—
particularly those growing up in poverty. That is really saddening, not least because even prior to the pandemic, according to Action for Children, over 4 million children were living in poverty, including a staggering, breathtakingly sad 46% of children in black and minority ethnic groups. We must seek to do better. These things should stop us in our tracks, given the wealth that we as a country have, the technologies we have, the schooling we have and the assets we have, yet we cannot give our young people, particularly the poorest children, the best start in life. That is really sad.
The only enhancement that I would make to the amendments is that, rather than making them about ages nought to 25, I would extend the range to include the six months prior to birth, because we know how important those services are. I hope, in that spirit, that we may hear some enthusiasm from the Minister and his Government about implementing all the recommendations of the Leadsom review. I know that it will be hard, because it will involve acknowledging some dreadful decisions over the past decade, such as the reduction in Sure Start but, nevertheless, that report has real potential to be the bedrock for a return to something much closer to proper early intervention in this country. We might not have the saddening and completely avoidable outcomes that we have, so I hope that we hear some good news from the Minister on that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member—I cannot pronounce that—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, on whose behalf my hon. Friend for Vale of Clwyd spoke. I also wish to put on the record my gratitude to Lord Farmer and his team for the work that they have been doing in this space. I have had the pleasure of meeting them, and—to reassure the shadow Minister—I have already met once, or possibly twice, with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) to discuss her review. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds has also worked with her on it, and we continue to work together to try to find ways to move that forward.
I hope that all Members agree that the creation of integrated care boards and ICPs represents a significant opportunity to support and improve the planning and provision of services to make sure that they are more joined up and better meet the needs of infants, children and young people. We acknowledge that these amendments understandably intend to ensure that the needs of children and young people aged 0 to 25 are represented on the ICP and are considered by the ICP when developing its strategy. While we entirely agree with the intentions behind the amendments, we come back to the point that we wish to provide local areas with the flexibility to determine what will work best for their systems, their priorities and how they develop their plans and membership. Overly prescriptive approaches in the Bill would risk making it harder for systems to design the approaches that will work best in their area.
Turning to amendment 54, we would not want ICPs to create plans for children disconnected from the wider healthcare system. We know that the very best systems consider how their health systems are meeting everyone’s need, including where there are transitions between different stages of life. However, I do hope that I can provide some further comfort for my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. We are working on bespoke guidance for babies, children and young people, which will set out clearly how ICBs and ICPs are obliged to deliver for them. This will cover the importance of the ICB forward plan and the ICP strategy and how they can set clear objectives for babies, children and young people. The Department is working closely on the drafting of this guidance with NHS England, the Department for Education and, indeed the relevant Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford)—I presume that she is still the relevant Minister as we speak. We will also be working with all stakeholders, including the National Children’s Bureau, in the coming months. I suspect that this is a theme and an issue that we will return to at various points both in Committee and indeed in the further passage of this legislation.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd on this matter. I entirely understand where he is coming from, but ask that, on this occasion, he does not press his amendment—or the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury—to a vote.
Dr Davies
I thank the Minister for that response. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury is particularly keen that these matters are covered within statutory guidance, but, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 20, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations which set out the procedure to be followed should an integrated care partnership believe that an integrated care board has failed in its duty under this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish a procedure for the resolution of any dispute between an integrated care partnership and an integrated care board concerning the implementation of a strategy produced by the integrated care partnership.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 83, in clause 20, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) Where—
(a) in exercising its functions a responsible local authority or integrated care board diverges from an assessment or strategy mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b) in exercising any functions in arranging for the provision of health services in relation to the area of a responsible local authority NHS England diverges from an assessment or strategy mentioned in subsection (2),
that local authority, that integrated care board or (as the case may be) NHS England must—
(a) (i) within 30 days, make a public statement of its divergence from the assessment or strategy, and
(ii) within 60 days, publish its reasons for the divergence, together with any supporting evidence.”
Justin Madders
I will talk briefly about amendment 83 which has been grouped with amendment 47.
Amendment 47 focuses on the whole discussion that we have had, and that we will continue to have, around integrated partnerships and what they will be able to do to deliver for their communities. I do not know if “Marmotisation” is a word; if it is, this could be seen as the first step towards that, but we will see how it works in practice. We must be clear, however, that this is a first step. The names of the partners being bandied about shows that this Bill is about the integration of not just health and social care but the whole wider public sector and other partners, and shows, too, that health issues permeate almost every walk of life. This certainly does not, as evidenced by the Prime Minister’s comments last week, constitute a solution to the integration of health and social care.
Putting that aside, there is an opportunity here to do something different. However, for all the froth and grand statements about partnership working we fear we may be looking at giant CCGs with less GP involvement—we have made this point a number of times so I will not labour it. What we are presented with is a reorganisation of the NHS, not a panacea for integration. We have tried a couple of times already to elicit from the Minister what is missing from the Bill in terms of the integration that the Prime Minister believes necessitates a White Paper. I think the Minister might struggle sometimes to understand what exactly is going on in the Prime Minister’s head in relation to this—or indeed anything else that is going on in his head—but we await his response on that with interest.
I would like to make some general points on the relationship between the NHS and local authorities, because that is important. The Bill acknowledges that greater interaction is needed, but the big question is whether it actually delivers that solution. If there is to be a genuine generational shift from thinking of the NHS as dealing with sickness to contributing to overall wellbeing, that will be welcome, although if our amendment on patient outcomes had been accepted that would have been a better start. There have been some discussions around SDPs and ICSs in the Bill, and that gives us hope that there might be something here we can work with.
The need to bring services together and integrate is blindingly obvious, but it is also very hard to do as the following example demonstrates. A patient with a long-term condition such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and with both healthcare and social care needs, has an acute episode and is admitted to hospital and is then discharged back into their home, which unfortunately suffers from a chronic damp problem—something many Members will know about from their constituency casework. The housing provider—a local authority, perhaps, or an arm’s length management organisation or registered social landlord—is doing its best, but it does not have enough resources to get to the root of the problem, so there is a liaison meeting where this case is discussed between the NHS and local councillors. The councillor for the area where the individual is located asks the chief executive of the trust whether it would be a good idea for some of the health budget to be invested in social housing so that people such as this individual would not be readmitted for a problem that is essentially caused by the property they are living in. The chief executive responds by asking why they would throw money away on something like that, even though a more holistic view shows that would be of benefit for everyone in the long run.
That illustrates why we need to work harder on integration, and it is not an isolated incident. As any councillor who has been in post for any number of years will know—if the Minister and I totted up between us how many years we have served, it would probably be quite a lot—sometimes it is difficult to have the level of interaction with the NHS that we would like. As an aside, I might add that children in care meetings or care around the child meetings are incredibly important, but often the GP does not attend because they have many other priorities.
We have talked about this many times, but the vaccine roll-out has been an exemplar of how local government and the NHS can work together. That was a specific task at the time of the national crisis. It is clearly more difficult to repeat that kind of synergy on a day-to-day basis, but it does show what can be done.
In Wales, the Government have a far-reaching strategy around the wellbeing of future generations. They have made a big leap, moving the NHS away from market thinking and focusing on the way it delivers its service to the public. Both Scotland and Wales have accepted the need for that approach, and their integrated joint boards, joint integration boards, health boards and local authorities have all been talking about integration for some time. Of course, they have the sense to make their health boards coterminous with local authority areas. That would have been a very wise move. We have already had some chat about devolved involvement and I am sure that we will return to that.
Alex Norris
Amendment 83 builds on my hon. Friend’s argument about creating some balance between the integrated care partnership and the integrated care board, so I will not repeat it. I simply underscore the fact that the ICPs have the money, power and accountability at the moment, but there is a risk that they become a closed shop and not bodies about integration at all.
We are told that integrated care partnerships will be the way in which the broader health and care family and the community will come together as they lead and play a pivotal role. We need a safeguard in the Bill to ensure what we would do if the relationship breaks down. The amendment is a version of what Sir Robert Francis from Healthwatch said about one possible way in an evidence session. I am not prescriptive about this, but I am keen to hear what the Minister might suggest to give us comfort on this. If the ICPs are to function as promised, their plans ought to have some sort of status, so that if the integrated care board chooses to diverge, it must make a public statement that it is going to within 30 days and then publish its reasons with evidence within 60 days.
There is an equivalent provision in NHS England for responsibilities held at a national level. If nothing else, this is basic accountability. It does not restrict any activity, so there is no risk in it. Even if a partnership does not like the decision made or value the reasons given, it cannot remove the chair of the board. Although the constitution has already prevented that, at least we will know what has happened, so the safeguard is quite modest. There is a blizzard of different ways to do it, but I hope that we can have some comfort on ensuring a balance between the partnership and the board, if not at this stage, then by the time we come back on Report.
Karin Smyth
Will the Minister share with us what he thinks the difference is between ICPs and health and wellbeing boards?
Edward Argar
I will confine my comments to amendments 47 and 83, because we will address the wider themes when we have the clause stand part debate.
Amendments 47 and 83 stand in the names of Opposition Members. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, has asked a number of questions, which I will try to address before turning to the substance of those amendments. I am not personally aware of any analytical piece about the impact and effectiveness of health and wellbeing boards, but anecdotally from my background in local Government before I came to this place—and, indeed, as a Member—I certainly see the value that they bring to their communities through their work. The shadow Minister is perhaps being a little inadvertently unfair to the legal profession in suggesting that the phrase “have regard to” is weasel words, because my understanding is that “have regard to” is a well-known, much-used legal phrase in drafting, and it carries with it an obligation to do exactly what it says: to have regard, and to show that.
Finally, the hon. Member has pressed me again, and I fear I will give him the same answer—he and I have done this before—as I have given the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, in various delegated legislation Committees over the past year relating to our exit from the EU. I think the Prime Minister has been entirely clear in what he has set out: this legislation lays important foundations for the closer integration of local authority and NHS-provided care, on which we will of course build, because we are an ambitious Government with a clear agenda to further improve our health and care systems.
With those points made, I will turn to the detail of the amendments, which address the relationship between ICPs and ICBs—as certain Opposition Members have touched on—and address divergence from health and wellbeing board and ICB assessments and strategies. Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to establish a procedure to resolve any disputes between the ICP and the ICB, while amendment 83 would add an additional requirement on NHS England, integrated care boards, and local authorities to make a public statement and publish their reasons when they deviate from the integrated care strategy prepared by the proposed integrated care partnership, and the joint strategic needs assessment and joint local health and wellbeing strategies prepared by health and wellbeing boards.
I do appreciate the concern—the genuine concern, I think—from Opposition Members about the need to ensure that ICPs and local authorities are genuinely closely aligned to both the ICP and the health and wellbeing board plans. We do intend for these assessments and strategies to be a central part of the decision making of these bodies: that is why, as I say, we are introducing a duty for those bodies to have regard to them. However, we do not think the additional conditions suggested by these amendments are necessary, as we believe there are already means in place to avoid such disputes. First, the ICB will be a required part of the ICP. It will be intimately involved in pulling together the integrated care strategy, so it should be fully signed up to the elements of the plan that fall within its area of responsibility, as it will be partly drafting that plan. As a result, we consider the likelihood of disputes in that context to be low.
Secondly, there are already duties on both ICBs and local authorities to have regard to the strategy in discharging their functions. The duty to have regard means that to diverge from the plan, they must be able to reasonably explain and justify why they have done so. If they cannot, they would be open to challenge, and in the case of an ICB, they could be open to direct intervention from NHS England for having failed to discharge their functions to have due regard properly. Thirdly, we would also expect that both health and wellbeing boards and ICPs would consider how their strategies and assessments are applied in the system, and would want to keep progress under regular review. Those committees themselves provide an appropriate framework for regularly assessing and considering how to address any divergence.
We are also concerned that it would be difficult to rigidly determine if and when NHS England, an integrated care board, or a local authority had diverged from these strategies and assessments in the exercise of their functions, especially if plans were high-level and strategic. By creating this specific requirement and setting a specified timeframe, I fear we would risk creating a great deal of bureaucracy as these bodies attempt to determine if, when, and to what extent they may have diverged. Instead, we believe it is more appropriate to leave it to ICPs working with the ICB and local authorities to develop and design mechanisms to review progress locally.
As a further safeguard, NHS England has the general power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions, which could be used to set out how an ICB should consider the integrated care strategy, joint strategic needs assessment and joint health and wellbeing strategy in exercising its functions. Guidance may also suggest ways of resolving any issues that arise in the ICB in the exercise of these functions. We would expect NHS England to consider doing so, if that was necessary.
Justin Madders
The Minister has made some interesting points. I will have to come back on the reference to “weasel words”. I was a lawyer for a number of years, and when it comes to their use, I think that lawyers are probably second only to Members of Parliament in being able to use them.
There were many occasions when we were negotiating and drafting documents. Once, I wanted something to happen and another person said, “Well, we don’t want to actually make that an absolute commitment, but we intend to do it.” We always ended up with the compromise of reasonable endeavours. Best endeavours was another one. Often that led to one side being slightly disappointed, but that was usually the point of compromise. But that, I would suggest, is actually going further than what is in the current legislation, which is to “have regard”. That really is the nub of this, because we do not think that is enough to give the ICPs the teeth that they need and the strength and leverage that they might need if they are to be truly effective.
The Minister said that if there was a divergence, he would expect an ICB to put forward reasonable explanations as to why it was not going to follow a particular strategy. But that would then lead to the conclusion that if it was not able to do that, it was acting unreasonably, which of course could give rise to judicial review. That, I am sure, is a road that the Minister does not want ICBs and ICPs to go down. I do not think that would be in anyone’s interest, so we are actually, once again, trying to help the Minister out by coming up with a solution that avoids litigation and dispute and gives us confidence that we will not see a repeat of the lack of genuine engagement that we have seen in some areas in the past, but will see a real force, in legislation, to encourage the wider public sector to have real influence on the modelling of health policies and strategies in the future. Therefore we will—with your permission, Ms Elliott —press amendment 47 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
The clause introduces the integrated care partnership known as an ICP, as a joint committee of the integrated care board and local authorities in its geography. It gives the partnership its core function of preparing the integrated care strategy. The ICP was developed with the Local Government Association and NHS partners in recognition of the fact that the system has been calling for two different and important types of integration: integration within and across the NHS to deliver healthcare services within a defined locality, and integration between the NHS and local government and wider partners.
The ICP is intended to bring together health, social care and public health to develop a strategy to address the needs of the area also covered by the integrated care board. If the ICP wants to go further, it can also involve representatives from the wider system where appropriate, such as voluntary and community groups, and social care or housing providers. That will be up to the ICP, and we will welcome locally driven innovation to reflect local circumstances.
When preparing the strategy, the integrated care partnership must take into account the NHS mandate, any guidance from the Secretary of State and any relevant local joint strategic needs assessment. The ICP must also involve the local Healthwatch, as well people who live and work in the area. The strategy will need to look at how local authorities and NHS bodies can work together using arrangements under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England, when providing services in the area, must have regard to the relevant integrated care strategy when exercising their functions, as well as, more locally, any joint strategic needs assessment or joint local health and wellbeing strategies. This will enable more joined-up planning and provision, both within the NHS and in local authorities. As a result, we would expect to see more integration of the services people receive, more efficient and effective commissioning, and closer working between local authorities and the local NHS.
The clause makes it a legal requirement for all ICBs and local authorities to establish an ICP for their area. These partnerships will promote and facilitate integration across health and care throughout England, thereby contributing to delivering on the ambitious aims put forward in the Bill to further integrate health and care systems.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee as I have already said most of what I wanted to say. The Minister just talked about the ambitious aims to achieve integration. Obviously, they were not that ambitious; if they had been, we would not need another White Paper.
Justin Madders
We can never be too ambitious, can we? I will be interested to see those working practices. As hon. Members can probably gather, we are somewhat sceptical that the ICPs will really be the transformative and influential bodies that we want them to be. I will keep a close eye on what kind of partners end up on them. If we started involving every potential body in the Cheshire and Merseyside one, we would probably need to hire out Anfield to fit everyone in. It might be more entertaining than the football fare on there—we could have a Division on that. We will probably revisit this in future days, weeks and months. We will not oppose the clause but we wish to put on the record where we think its shortcomings are.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
NHS England’s financial responsibilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause provides for a number of financial responsibilities of NHS England and provides powers for the Secretary of State to direct NHS England in relation to those responsibilities. Clause 22 provides the ability to amend the provision in clause 21 that imposes a duty on NHS England to ensure that its expenditure, together with that of integrated care boards, does not exceed the sums received in a year.
On clause 21, proposed new section 223C of the National Health Service Act 2006 places a duty on NHS England to ensure that in each financial year, the expenditure of NHS England and integrated care boards does not exceed the aggregate amount received by them. It should be noted that that is in the context of the historic settlement for the NHS reached in 2018, which will see its budget rise by £33.9 billion by 2023-24. Proposed new section 223CA simply replicates a provision in the 2006 Act, which enables the Secretary of State to specify the banking facilities that NHS England may use.
Proposed new section 233D of the 2006 Act enables the Secretary of State to give directions to NHS England concerning resource use. Any directions given by the Secretary of State under that proposed new section must be published and laid before Parliament. Proposed new section 223E empowers the Secretary of State to direct that the capital and revenue resource used by NHS England and ICBs for specified matters does not exceed a limit set.
Clause 22 could be commenced at a later date than clause 21. It would expand the duty on NHS England to ensure its own expenditure, as well as that of ICBs and English NHS trusts and foundation trusts, did not exceed the sums received by those bodies in a year. The clause is essential to ensure that achieving financial balance is inclusive of the finance of NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It recognises that NHS England must be mindful of the need to ensure that public money is spent as effectively as possible and in the best interests of the public we serve. However, we recognise that the NHS is moving out of an unprecedented period, so we will not commence the clause until it is ready. The provisions will help to ensure that there is clear accountability for public spending and that the NHS lives within its means.
Justin Madders
I will talk briefly about clauses 21 and 22, although with your indulgence, Ms Elliott, I will step over into clauses 23 and 24, because we cannot really look at these points without having some regard to those clauses. I promise I will not repeat the same points when we get to them.
We know that ICBs and NHS trusts will have spending limits, and that in theory they cannot go into deficit in any year, but the combined deficits of trusts before the pandemic was several billion pounds. Foundation trusts are in a slightly different position. Monitor is going—clause 26, which I suspect we will not get to today, goes into that, and it reads quite brutally in isolation—so it needs to be clear in the Bill how performance management and financial oversight will work in its absence. We still have questions about that, particularly how accountability will work with those new systems.
We see in these clauses a basic tension that NHS England will apply totals to systems, but individuals within the systems all have their own duties and responsibilities. We might think it is the ICB plus all the providers that deliver the services required, which are paid for by the ICB, but I am not sure that is how it will work in practice.
If I am correct, an integrated system is not defined in the Bill, so how do we control something that does not exist in law? Where accountability lies is very vague. The terminology used in proposed new section 233M, which is where the Bill tries to constrain aggregate financial spending each year, is:
“Each integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”.
That suggests some kind of joint responsibility, but where community health services are provided by Virgin Care, that does not appear within that wording. GPs and their spend are considered outside, even though they are commissioned by the ICBs, so how do their costs fit into this system? There have to be some answers on that.
Karin Smyth
I echo my hon. Friend’s words. The Minister is going to have to go back to the drawing board on this, although I can see what the clauses are trying to do. Financial directors I have spoken to commend the idea of working together under some sort of shared control. We have had controls before, but clauses 21 to 24 —I may be straying beyond my knowledge of the writing of Bills and financial movements—come under the heading, “Integrated care system: financial controls”, and the entire section is about controlling ICBs and NHS trusts.
We have not had a system defined. We know that control totals are difficult and that autonomous trusts have regulatory rules. We would be here all weekend if we started to talk about foundation trust controls, and what those trusts can and cannot do with their budget. Clauses 21 to 24 test out the definitions of roles and responsibilities, and the tensions throughout the Bill over trying to apply a systems view to disparate organisations with different duties and responsibilities. The Minister has been trying valiantly to say that there is clear accountability through NHS England, but all of us here as Members of Parliament, and as I keep repeating, understand what local accountability is in a system and this is not it.
We do not know what an ICS is, and we have all agreed that that might be okay—we are kind of in favour of permissiveness—but what divides the Committee and, I suspect, people farther afield is that the Government view is that permissiveness is okay, and it is up to the NHS England regions and the Secretary of State. We would like to impose some greater local accountability earlier.
The terminology in proposed new section 223M, on page 34 of the Bill, is clear, and refers to:
“Each integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”.
That part of the Bill deals with aggregated spending on revenue and capital. I do not want to overload people’s brains at this time of the evening, but the Bill really is a mess in respect of capital. Our buildings are crumbling and the backlog is huge. We have talked about NHS properties in community health partnerships. The architecture still exists, but it is not clear how that system works. I think poor old Sir Robert Naylor’s edicts and pieces of wisdom are just propping open doors in offices in the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are certainly not being developed and they are not being developed in the Bill.
Will a trust finance director have to seek permission from the ICB to spend their capital, or even to know what it is? If that is the case, it makes a nonsense of the good financial management of some very large institutions. We would all like a bit of financial rigour in the system, but I am not sure the Bill allows us to have any. It is as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said: for community services, we have the Virgin Cares, but even a community interest company would sit outwith the NHS trust definition. Such companies are regulated by the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, which is separate from some of this. The regulation for some of these bodies is problematic, and GPs are obviously outside it, even if ICBs start to commission them.
The aim is to allow NHS England to control aggregate spending, but to do that there has to be some direction. Lo and behold, on page 35 of the Bill there are more direction powers for NHS England. We have alluded to the fact that provider expenditure gets divvied up, and some ICBs also commission specialist services; there will have to be some NHS England-defined calculation of how on earth all that fits together. Someone somewhere will need a very large spreadsheet and will have to try to balance the flows of money around the system.
I have asked a lot people, including experts, whether anybody starts to understand financial flows. That is obviously important because we are talking about our taxes and we need to know how they are being spent, who is spending them and who is moving the money between each of these organisations. What about when these bodies cross different boundaries? Will the Minister say whether the trust or the foundation trust gets to argue about which part of its base is allocated to which ICB and vice versa? I am certainly glad—I often am—that I do not live in London and am not trying to work that out for some of the large teaching hospitals that cross many boundaries. There used to be a role for strategic health authorities to try to match what providers said was in their accounts with what commissioners said they thought they had given them. I do not think they matched that often, and the structure in the Bill is much more complicated than that. How it will work in practice matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has already asked some of the questions. This issue is very complex and involves big sums of money, and ultimately it is about patient care, so who is going to hold it all together? Where is the collective leadership and who will be the top people in these ICSs? The advert for the ICS chairs has gone out, and the pay is £50,000 to £80,000 for three days a week. The requirement on those people is clear; let us see how many of them are not already well known to NHS England. That is deeply problematic, if they are going to work—and we all agree that we would quite like them to work.
In the new system, can commissioners and providers both be blamed for the same things? As my hon. Friend said, can they be put into special measures? Where are the levers? What is going to happen, other than NHS England commissioning expensive consultants to say to people, “You know what? It’s looking a bit complicated and some of you haven’t got the right bits of money in the right places,” and trying to bash some heads together? All that will be done behind closed doors.
When we get down to the money, permissiveness becomes a bit of a work of fiction. This part of the Bill needs to be looked at again, between its leaving this place and arriving in the other place, to get a bit more sense into it. As we all know, the guidance is going out there. This has been worked on by NHS England, so it could come back in fitter form. As I said to the witness from Oxfordshire last week, joint work and integration often fall apart ultimately because of the money. Any local authority financial director, any foundation trust financial director, any good hospital financial director and any community interest financial director will be looking, quite rightly, at their own bottom line at the end of the day, as that is their job.
It is entirely up to NHS England how it navigates this. It looks like clever financial leverage work, and I really do not think that it will work and it all needs to be looked at again. I return to my theme that this is why we need somebody independent and highly skilled working on behalf of the local community to make the ICS work, and not to have it, as a result, an NHS England outpost deciding how it moves money around the system. We need to understand the financial flows, and ensure that they work much better than is laid out in the clauses.
Edward Argar
I will be relatively brief because I am conscious of the fact that we have agreed to get through quite a few more clauses today, although I will try to address the points that hon. Members have made. One of the key issues at the heart of what I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, was saying is around what happens if an ICB or a foundation trust spends beyond its limit. How does that work? What is the process? I am pleased that this brings some welcome clarity, rather than the fragmentation we sometimes see in accounting cashflow, following the cash processes at the moment.
First and foremost, local systems will be informed of their resource envelope at the start of the year and will be required to agree a plan that matches, or is within, that envelope. Therefore, all will start the year with a plan that sets out what is being delivered and how much funding they will receive to deliver those services. However, if overspends emerge within year, that should initially be resolved within the system by the individual organisation either finding offsetting savings or securing savings elsewhere within that system envelope. Through the financial duties imposed by the Bill, the system is encouraged to be collectively responsible for managing its funding envelope, moving away from what we often see at the moment, which is fragmentation in understanding how the money flows, and each organisation considering itself to a degree in isolation.
If the overspend cannot be managed within the system, NHS England and NHS Improvement can use the powers in the Bill to hold the system to account through mechanisms such as the system oversight framework and providing support via the recovery support programme, as well as more informal support from the local region. Additionally, individual trusts or FTs that are not working collaboratively within the system can be held to account using the provider licence and enforcement options available for breaches. Finally, of course, in extremis the Department of Health and Social Care can provide cash support to NHS trusts and FTs to ensure that services continue to be delivered.
The second concomitant part of the shadow Minister’s question was what action NHS England or the ICB can take in response to financial difficulties. Financial performance will be monitored by both of them, and in the first instance any difficulties will be resolved locally. However, as I have set out, tougher mechanisms or sanctions can be imposed on trusts that are not meeting their reporting and financial accounting obligations under the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Financial responsibilities of integrated care boards and their partners
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 23, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the means by which an integrated care board, NHS trust or NHS foundation trust which believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety may object to the limit set.”
This amendment would introduce an objection mechanism when an Integrated Care Board, Trust or Foundation Trust believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
Justin Madders
With this amendment, we are probably having another bash at the debate we have just had to some extent, but we are also making an important point about patient safety.
Edward Argar
Clause 23 provides for NHS England to set overall system financial objectives for ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, which must operate with a view to achieving these objectives. This includes the ability to set limits on local capital resource use and local revenue resource use for ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.
Clause 23 removes the sections in the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to financial duties of CCGs and replaces them with new sections setting out the financial responsibilities of ICBs and their partners. Improving population health requires the breaking down of silos. Traditional financial control focused on individual providers and organisations artificially creates barriers and fragmentation that get in the way of high-quality care.
The new approach will help to break down those barriers by enabling NHS England to set joint system financial objectives for ICBs and partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, which must operate with a view to achieving these objectives. This includes the ability to set limits on local capital resource use and local revenue resource use for ICBs, and for partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. NHS England can also give directions to ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts on resource apportionment.
I turn to amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I am grateful to him for tabling it as it gives us an opportunity to air a number of issues. It would require NHS England to produce guidance to set out a process whereby ICBs, NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts could object to their capital and revenue resource limits. Although I understand the motivation behind the amendment, which is about ensuring that the NHS has sufficient funds to deliver services safely, I do not believe that it is needed. The ability for NHS England to set system limits is important to enable systems to effectively plan their services and it enables NHS England to meet its obligation on delivering system balance and its broader obligation to taxpayers.
The decision to allocate revenue funding to systems is based on a weighted capitation formula, which produces a target allocation or “fair share” for each area, based on a complex assessment of factors such as demography, morbidity, deprivation and the unavoidable cost of providing services in different areas, meaning that systems will get funding linked to their individual needs. NHS trusts and foundation trusts will be represented on ICBs, so they will play a role in deciding how resources will be allocated within the system. They can raise concerns about proposals, including with regard to patient safety, as part of the decision-making process, although we do not consider that these clauses would put patient safety at risk. Capital allocations already include a funding element to address emergency or patient safety needs, based on planning information from systems. The funding element is intended to be used to address any issues that could arise, including in the context of patient safety.
Furthermore, clause 24 futureproofs the ICB financial duties provisions. It provides for some of the provisions in clause 23 to be replaced and is designed to be commenced at a later date. Once ICBs and their partner trusts are deemed ready to take on greater financial accountability, clause 24 can be used to replace clause 23 with a new joint expenditure limit duty on the ICB and its partner trusts. At a time when it is considered appropriate, the clause will require ICBs and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts to exercise their functions in a way that ensures their expenditure when taken together does not exceed their income. The intended effect is that each local area is mutually invested in achieving financial control at a system level, meaning that public funds can be spent in a more sustainable, joined-up and effective way. This should enable a nimbler approach to expenditure where needs across the system can be addressed more flexibly and holistically.
Should unexpected needs for funding arise, there is another safeguard in place to allow NHS services to continue operating safely, as the Department can issue cash to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. For example, if emergency support is needed to address patient safety issues, trusts can apply for additional cash funding to safeguard delivery of care. It is for those reasons that I invite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw his amendment. I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I do not know whether it is too late on a Thursday afternoon, but I did feel like I had wandered into an episode of “Yes Minister” there. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I will read the transcript of what the Minister has said with some care over the next few days. I am not entirely clear that he has addressed the central points that were made, but we will no doubt return to this at some point anyway. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)
Health and Care Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. There have been quite a few changes on the Government Benches in the Committee. We congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), on her promotion and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), on her transfer. If there was a Sky Sports News transfer deadline day reshuffle pack, I can see Jim White in wheels of excitement about the number of changes at the Department of Health and Social Care. We are delighted that the star striker remains in his place.
On a more serious note, the composition of the Committee has changed. Was that in order? Was some kind of approval process from the House required before that could take place?
Justin Madders
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray. Derek Wilton on “Coronation Street” used to say, “I shall be on the cocoa by the time Trevor McDonald has finished”—a reference to people retiring for the night at around quarter-past 10 or half-past 10. We got an email at 10.22 pm last night with an updated selection list from the Chair. I do not think there are any substantive changes, but in a case where there are dramatic changes to selections and groupings at short notice, is there any rule or procedure about how much notice must be given?
The Chair
There is no minimum notice requirement, but I am sure there will not be an issue in future.
Justin Madders
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray; I have had a few days to think about these points. The Minister very helpfully said he would write to me about the workforce amendment we put forward last week. Over the weekend, I was talking to some members of the public who are very interested in the Committee’s proceedings. They asked when that letter might be published. I know the Minister is very busy and has a lot of new inductions for his colleagues to get through, as well as his work on the Bill, so I am not going to ask when he will release it, but would it be appropriate to add that letter to the page on the Government website where all the Bill information is contained?
The Chair
I am sure the Minister has heard your point of order, Mr Madders.
Clause 25
Integrated care system: further amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Government amendment 14.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Mrs Murray, it is—even more than usual—a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship: I am still standing before you in this Committee and opposite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, as seems to be our fate. He has served in his Front-Bench role longer than I have in mine, and that is going some.
Clause 25 gives effect to schedule 4, which contains minor and consequential amendments relating to the introduction of integrated care boards. The majority of the amendments relate to replacing existing references to clinical commissioning groups in legislation with references to integrated care boards. The schedule is necessary to ensure that existing primary legislation that refers to CCGs will continue to operate effectively once ICBs are established. Without it, references to clinical commissioning groups would be erroneous and the new commissioning bodies, ICBs, would not be referenced where they need to be across the statute book.
Following from that, Government amendment 14 is minor and technical. It is simply to ensure that the legislation hangs together properly. It makes no change to the status quo, but reflects that clause 15 of the Bill replaces section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 with a slightly amended proposed new section 3. A consequential amendment is therefore needed to section 187 of the 2006 Act so that it refers to the correct subsections. Previously it referenced subsections 3(1)(d) and (e), but those same subsections have now been moved to 3(1)(e) and (f) in proposed new section 3.
The amendment simply updates the cross references in section 187, without which section 187 would refer to incorrect subsections, which could result in regulations made under section 187 allowing for charging for the wrong services. That is, quite clearly, not our intention, and we are simply continuing the status quo and clarifying that matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Integrated care system: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment made: 14, page 151, line 34 in schedule 4, at end insert—
“107A In section 187 (charges for designated services or facilities), for ‘section 3(1)(d) or (e)’ substitute ‘section 3(1)(e) or (f)’.”—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on clause 15 of the Bill, which changes the numbering in section 3(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26
Abolition of Monitor and transfer of functions to NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 27 to 32 stand part.
Edward Argar
NHS England and NHS Improvement, comprised of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority—the TDA—requested the primary legislative changes to support the merger of their organisations, and these clauses are fundamental to fulfilling that ambition. In recent years, NHS England and Monitor, as part of NHS Improvement, have been working closely together with a view to acting as a single organisation with a single operating model. They already have aligned board and committee arrangements and joint senior executive appointments through the joint working programme. Despite the progress made, there are limits to the extent to which they can collaborate under the current statutory framework.
Establishing a single statutory body responsible for the health care system in England has several clear benefits. First, it will create a more joined-up approach across the NHS to provide national leadership and speak with one voice to set clear and consistent expectations for providers, commissioners and local health systems. Secondly, it brings services, support and improvement under a single regulatory and legislative framework. That will deliver improved care for patients, enabling better use of collective resources, removing unnecessary duplication and ultimately making better use of public money. The merger will provide clearer lines of accountability so that the public can be assured that any service they use meets the same requirements around safety and quality.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the problems that we have found in Nottingham around driving integration was the duplication of lots of different regulators and metrics, which meant that organisations were often working to different purposes. This obviously tidies that up a bit in terms of regulators. Does the Minister envisage going further in the future?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that question, which reminds me of some of the questions that he used to ask me in this room about what the future held when we discussed delegated legislation. I am always cautious not to predict the future, but hopefully it will be helpful if I set out the principles that I think should apply. I agree that unnecessary duplication that does not bring clear and tangible benefits to patient safety or improve outcomes is clearly undesirable. Therefore we will seek to streamline where appropriate, but without compromising patient safety or the outcomes that patients experience. While not predicting the future, I hope that gives him some reassurance of the direction of travel as I see it.
Clause 26, along with other provisions in the Bill, including clause 29, makes the legal changes necessary to bring these organisations together as one legal entity. Clause 26 abolishes Monitor and introduces schedule 5, which contains amendments that transfer Monitor’s functions to NHS England in order to fulfil the Bill’s intention to merge Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England to form a single body. The schedule transfers powers and duties from Monitor to NHS England and repeals provisions that are no longer necessary in the light of the merger. For example, Monitor’s functions in relation to NHS foundation trust mergers and acquisitions in sections 56 and 56(a) of the 2006 Act, and in relation to licensing providers in sections 81 to 114 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, will all transfer to NHS England.
We acknowledge that bringing together the commissioning functions previously exercised by the NHS commissioning board, and the regulatory functions previously exercised by Monitor, under a single organisation could be perceived as giving rise to conflicts of interest. The Bill will therefore ensure the proper management of any such conflicts, and we will work with stakeholders on robust processes that will safeguard the separation of responsibilities and improve transparency. For those reasons, clause 27 seeks to insert new section 13SA, which deals with minimising conflicts between the body’s regulatory and other functions, into the National Health Service Act 2006.
The clause places a duty on NHS England to minimise the risk of conflict or manage any conflicts that arise between its regulatory functions and other functions. In the event that a conflict were to occur, NHS England would be under a duty to resolve or manage that conflict and to ensure appropriate transparency. NHS England must include within its annual report details of such conflicts and how it had complied with its duties to manage them under new section 13SA of the 2006 Act.
Clause 28 amends section 100 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which relates to the modification of licence conditions for providers. Licences are the basis by which NHS Improvement and, in future, NHS England set conditions on providers as to the terms on which they can operate. The clause requires that when NHS England makes a major change to the standard licence conditions, as permitted under section 100 of the 2012 Act, it must assess the likely impact of the change or publish a statement explaining why such an assessment is not needed.
The clause also provides that the impact assessment carried out by NHS England must be included in the notice of the modification that is sent to the relevant licence holder and others, as required by section 100(2) of the 2012 Act. This new requirement is intended to make it clearer why NHS England is altering a standard licence condition, which we think is in the interests of providers and the smooth running of the system.
Clause 29 abolishes the NHS TDA and works in harmony with clause 26, which abolishes Monitor and other provisions in the Bill that confer functions on NHS England in relation to providers, in order to merge the two organisations into NHS England to form a single body. In transferring functions that were formerly delegated to the TDA, we have considered the mechanisms and processes associated with those duties and assessed the best fit for the system, to ensure that the relationships already in place are not unduly affected. Clause 29 revokes the directions that established the TDA, and subsections (3) and (4) include consequential amendments that remove references to the TDA. They will no longer be relevant once the TDA is abolished.
Clause 30 makes a consequential amendment to NHS England’s general functions to reflect its oversight of NHS trusts and foundation trusts due to the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement. The clause ensures a joined-up approach to decision making, allowing NHS England to understand the services required to best serve patients. It amends section 1H of the National Health Service Act 2006 so that for the purpose of discharging its duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England, NHS England must exercise its functions in relation to English NHS trusts and foundation trusts, as well as in relation to ICBs, which will replace the current reference to CCGs, so that services are provided for that purpose.
As part of the merger of NHS England, Monitor and the NHS TDA, and as a consequence of the abolition of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, clause 31 gives the Secretary of State the power to make schemes to transfer the staff, property, rights and liabilities from Monitor and the TDA to NHS England. These transfer scheme provisions follow a similar protocol used within the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for the transfer of assets, rights or liabilities on the abolition of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Health and Social Care Information Centre. The transfer schemes used then proved effective and efficient, ensuring a smooth transition and no impact on the services they delivered.
Finally, clause 32 contains a regulation-making power that allows the Treasury to vary the way in which any relevant tax has effect in relation to the transfer scheme. Regulations made under this power can be used to ensure that no taxes arise, and that there are no changes to the tax positions of either the transferee or transferor body. It is appropriate to avoid unnecessary tax complications relating to a transfer scheme between public bodies. The types of taxes that can be varied are set out in the clause.
Without this clause, the transfer of assets or liabilities between the bodies mentioned in clause 31—namely Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England—could give rise to unintended tax liabilities. As I have highlighted, this merger has clear benefits and is central to the Government’s plans for establishing a more integrated, responsive and accountable health and care system.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his detail on those clauses, which have been very helpfully grouped. Although we have not put forward any amendments, we do want to raise some general concerns—mostly around what these clauses do not do.
As we have heard—although I do not think the Minister used quite the same terminology as we would have—these clauses have got rid of the worst trappings of the market architecture, which were characteristic of the Lansley Act. As we have heard, they enable the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement, although I do not think that NHS Improvement is actually mentioned anywhere in the Bill. All references are to Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority. It is almost as if the Government want us to forget that NHS Improvement ever existed—or probably want us to forget who was chairing it.
The abolition of Monitor sounds another death knell for the Lansley Act, but does leave some of the market mechanisms in place. However, since they were ignored anyway, I can understand why the Government have not bothered to go the whole hog.
Clause 26 finally turns the Monitor off at the mains—although I think it is fair to say that it stopped working some time ago. NHS England is now the undisputed, supreme leader over commissioning and both flavours of providing, so the Bill not only tears up the Lansley reforms but quietly changes the 2003 amendments. Monitor was set up as the regulator of foundation trusts, and was to be the approver of applications to become a foundation trust.
Foundation trusts have had many incarnations, but were once heralded as the vigorous, autonomous new organisations that would shake up the NHS and bring choice and competition into healthcare. They were beyond the reach of those nasty bureaucrats who ran the rest of the NHS. However, as I think we have seen today, it has not quite turned out like that. There must be a clever saying somewhere that “All health service reforms end in failure”, just like all politicians’ careers—although the Minister is clearly an exception to that!
It is fair to say that we are seeing the end of the foundation trust experiment. There is no evidence that the new foundation trust model did any better than the old model. Of course, the first few anointed foundation trusts did outperform non-foundation trusts, but that was because they were already the best-performing trusts. That was why they were allowed to become foundation trusts in the first place. It was, really, a self-fulfilling prophecy, but, as time has moved on, it has been harder and harder for trusts to excel to the level originally envisaged.
Foundation trusts did have some good characteristics; they did have a better go at accountability to their governing bodies. Given this Bill’s focus on involving patients and the public in the wider health system, perhaps this system also has some positives—something to commend it. It might not have been a bad idea to have an equivalent model for the governance of ICBs, but I will not return to that now. I know the Minister has not warmed to our suggestions of greater accountability, but I will leave that for him to consider if he brings forward amendments on Report.
The Lansley Act favoured foundation trusts and made the optimistic—and what turned out to be highly inaccurate—assumption that, in time, all NHS providers would become foundation trusts. As so much happened with that Act, however, it turned out not to be the case at all. Foundation trusts are now no different from the old-school, old-style NHS trusts—a “distinction without a difference”, as Lord Stevens once quipped. For all relevant purposes, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are performance-managed in exactly the same way.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right in what he says. Given Monitor’s role, NHS Improvement’s role and local scrutiny of what is happening within the system—it is almost independent in some cases—there is a real gap here now. I have called them cartels before, although my hon. Friend will perhaps not use that word. With the absence of Monitor, where is the transparent and independent scrutiny? What is the new regime, and how will that accentuate the patient voice? We have also been unable to highlight how many millions of pounds have been wasted in the intervening years from 2012 with regards to how the previous Act was pushed through, and the terrible waste that has arisen as a result. Surely the patient voice must be really important in holding trusts to account.
Justin Madders
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will not waste opportunities to refer to the waste of public money as a result of the Lansley Act, but the wider point is one that the Opposition have made already in Committee and will continue to make. There is clearly a gap where accountability ought to lie. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about why the governing model for foundation trusts cannot be expanded to all remaining trusts. We would particularly want to see far greater patient involvement in the integrated care systems in the Bill. Clearly, we have had that debate unsuccessfully, but I hope that we will perhaps have an opportunity to return to it once the Bill returns from the other place.
I will say a few words on the licensing scheme. Given that the Bill marks an end to the whole era of markets and competition and a move, at least in theory, to a model of collaboration and co-operation—not a cartel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South might call it—why is it necessary to license NHS bodies that are now fully under the control of NHS England and the Secretary of State? That does not seem to be a particularly good use of anyone’s time, and it will create more unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy.
We will do our best to help the Minister in reducing obstacles to delivering patient care, so we will not oppose these clauses. However, we think that they have probably not gone far enough. They are clearly a necessary tidying-up job, but the Government should do the job fully and properly.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister. He should be optimistic—perhaps not on this issue, but more broadly—about the reception of some of his suggestions. I think I managed to take him aback slightly last week with one suggestion, although it was perhaps not the one with which he expected me to be willing to engage. I always listen to and consider carefully what he says.
The shadow Minister made a number of points. He mentioned the references to Monitor and TDA and said there are no references to NHS Improvement. That is because NHS Improvement is not the named body in law—that is simply a legal distinction. The named bodies are the NHS TDA and Monitor, which we understand and know as NHS Improvement.
I gently chide the shadow Minister. His reference to the chair of NHS Improvement, Baroness Harding, was a little unmerited. She has worked tirelessly. Colleagues will have their views, as is entirely appropriate in this place, but his reference was uncharacteristically uncharitable.
Karin Smyth
Given that the Minister, who I think is an honourable man, has mentioned that, does he think it acceptable for the chair of NHS Improvement to take the Conservative Whip in the House of Lords, as was outlined in the pre-screening scrutiny commission by the Health and Social Care Committee? Does he think that is acceptable, as other Ministers have not done so?
Edward Argar
I believe that all appointments, including that one, are conducted entirely appropriately, in line with Cabinet Office guidance.
I move on to the shadow Minister’s substantive points, which he perhaps made more in hope than anything else. We are not resiling from the value that choice and competition can bring, but we recognise that it is not the only driver of improvement and that collaboration plays a key role, so the position is perhaps a little more nuanced than he might like to suggest or wish to see. What we are seeing here is a reflection of the reality. We are ensuring that the way the system has evolved in practical terms over time is reflected by updating the appropriate legislation.
The shadow Minister mentioned a number of specific points around foundation trusts, and I hope I can give him some reassurance. We are not abolishing foundation trusts or their rights. The licensing system that we are talking about allows for equivalent management of both types of trust in a consistent way, and the NHS will still have the power to authorise new foundation trusts in the future, if they meet the appropriate criteria.
Justin Madders
I think the Minister probably has the gist of what I was getting at in my comments. Can he tell us how many applications for foundation trust status are currently in the pipeline?
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister is an able parliamentarian. I hesitate to say with certainty, but my belief is none at present. However, I caveat that by saying I would not wish to mislead the Committee. If I have got that wrong, I will of course let him know.
There is nothing that stops the evolution of trusts into foundation trusts, if they so wish and meet the criteria. What we are saying here is that it is not one size fits all. We will not force anyone down that route, but the option remains for NHS England. I would argue that the way the system has evolved is a reflection of the strength of that system and the framework that we have put in place around it. On a serious note, I know that the point about foundation trusts is of considerable interest to the shadow Minister. When we reach clauses 51 to 57, which cover this issue and the operation of foundation trusts, I suspect that we may get into rather more detail about how they actually operate. I might even be able to confirm that my understanding of the figure for which he asks is correct.
The shadow Minister has made his points clearly, but I hope the Opposition will agree to these clauses. They are technical clauses in essence, and the shadow Minister has rightly used them to air broader issues that are related. They are technical clauses to reflect the reality of the evolution of the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Report on assessing and meeting workforce needs
Chris Skidmore
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 33, page 40, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once every two years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.
(2) This report must include—
(a) an independently verified assessment, compliant with the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics, of health, social care and public health workforce numbers, current at the time of publication, and the projected workforce supply for the following five, ten and 20 years.
(b) an independently verified assessment, compliant with the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics, of future health, social care and public health workforce numbers based on the projected health and care needs of the population for the following five, ten and 20 years, consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.
(3) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.
(4) The organisations listed in subsection (3) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”
This amendment would require published assessments every two years of current and future workforce numbers required to deliver care to the population in England, based on the economic projections made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, based on projected demographic changes, the prevalence of different health conditions and likely impact of technology.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 33, page 40, line 6, leave out
“at least once every five years”
and insert “annually”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need annually.
Amendment 40, in clause 33, page 40, line 7, leave out “the health service” and insert “health and social care services”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need for both health and social care services.
Amendment 41, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) Health Education England must publish a report each year on projected workforce shortages and future staffing requirements for health and social care services in the following five, ten and twenty years.
(4) The report must report projections of both headcount and full-time equivalent for the total health and care workforce in England and for each region, covering all regulated professions and including those working for voluntary and private providers of health and social care as well as the NHS.
(5) All relevant NHS bodies, arm’s-length bodies, expert bodies, trade unions and the National Partnership forum must be consulted in the preparation of the report.
(6) The assumptions underpinning the projections must be published at the same time as the report and must meet the relevant standards set out in the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics.
(7) The Secretary of State must update Parliament each year on the Government’s strategy to deliver and fund the long-term workforce projections.”
Amendment 42, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The annual report must include an assessment by the Secretary of State of safe staffing levels in the health service in England and whether those levels are being met.”
Chris Skidmore
I wanted to speak to amendment 94, which is the product of a revision on my part. I initially tabled an amendment to clause 33, but it was as a result of the oral evidence sessions when the clause was discussed at length by a number of organisations that I decided to re-table amendments with further detail.
Clause 33 is one of the shortest clauses in this substantial Bill, but it is one of the most important. When it comes to looking at how we plan the NHS workforce for the next five years as the clause suggests, or the next 10 or 20 years, we face significant demographic changes in the United Kingdom. We have an aging population with sadly more co-morbidities and chronic conditions, such as diabetes, than ever before, which puts increasing pressure on not only the health service, but the health and care service. That is the omission. The clause has no mention of the care service, which needs to be dealt with.
The clause is rather perfunctory. At the moment, the duty on the Secretary of State is to,
“once every five years, publish a report describing”
—not necessarily detailing or taking any action—
“the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England”
—not the care service.
Secondly, the report would be prepared by NHS England and Health Education England alone, not mentioning any of the other wider workforce organisations. They would,
“assist in the preparation of the report”
but only,
“if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.”
The Secretary of State holds all the cards about how the report is published and what type of data is used.
Amendment 94 sets out that we should have a report every two years. The first amendment I put down actually wanted an annual report. I know there are some amendments on annual reports, but it was very clear from organisations, such as NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, that they saw an annual report as being too bureaucratic. They would have to start the next report having just finished the previous one, hence I withdrew the amendment. In that spirit of the Committee, it is important that Back-Bench Members listen and change our amendments where possible.
I have tabled some amendments saying that the Secretary of State must lay a report every two years. We have seen with the pandemic that five years is too long a period to anticipate unknowable events and uncertainties within the system. Having a two year report would reflect better on the pressures that can occur within a system over a shorter period of time. Amendment 94 also addresses two specific issues around what this report would look like and how it is put together, because ultimately a report is only as good as the data it utilises. Where are we getting that data from? If the clause allowed NHS England and Health Education England simply to assist in the preparation of the report without any understanding of what data measures are used in such reports, we would miss an opportunity to embed detailed demographic research into our understanding of the workforce needs of the NHS and care population.
Karin Smyth
The right hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. He and I share a health economy, two universities and a thriving region, but we still have problems. People in my constituency cannot get the sorts of jobs and apprenticeships that they need. How would his amendment deal with the geographical discrepancies across the country through a single two-year report, and how would we account for the different training demands in different parts of the country?
Chris Skidmore
I think there is a subsection here about how clause 33 relates to clause 19 and the duties on ICBs as the placemaking organisations that can provide the training opportunities for the future. I also think there are great opportunities in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for potential further devolution of the skills budget through a mayoral system. That skills budget will already be devolved in some of the metro Mayor areas, so I hope that it will also be devolved across wider areas that do not necessarily have a city population. The Government are clearly looking to fill that gap. Those are also the skill needs of the healthcare population, which is why, when it comes to the duties for the ICBs, I am keen that they take on board the wider non-healthcare resident population, whether in universities, colleges or elsewhere, to bring in expertise on creating training pathways for the future.
Without going off-piste, I think there are future opportunities for more flexible qualifications. We have the lifelong learning allowance. We are looking at how to allow individuals to retrain for the future, creating apprenticeship opportunities, in-work opportunities and course-based opportunities. This is not just about providing nurses and doctors; it is also about allowing nurses to move up the scales and retrain when they are in the NHS, which would help to lower the attrition rate.
Retention is one of the greatest challenges we have—it is not only about training—and I am sure that the intention of clause 33 is also to get to grips with retaining the 20% of the workforce who leave over a five-year cycle. It would do so much better if it took into account statistics consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s long-term fiscal projections and if we were able to look at the needs of the population. That is what subsection 2(b) of my amendment suggests—looking at workforce numbers
“based on the projected health and care needs of the population”
as well as the demographic numbers of the workforce.
The amendment suggests a number of organisations that should be able to contribute to the report, including health and care employers. I return to the point that the care sector is not reflected in clause 33, and it really should be. Trade unions also play a vital role in identifying needs; that may be strange coming from a Conservative MP and I may disagree politically with unions, but they have the data and the opportunity to provide feedback from their members, which is really important. I have mentioned the royal colleges in discussions on previous amendments. Universities are critical for identifying ways of integrating healthcare and education practices. I also suggest
“any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of the report, taking full account of workforce intelligence…and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”
The amendment would therefore allow for place-based opportunities, as the hon. Member for Bristol South has said, in delivering on the clause’s workforce planning.
I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote. It is a probing amendment, which I hope the Minister will take seriously, especially given the length of time the issue was discussed in the oral evidence sessions.
I am sure all Members have received briefing packs from various organisations. Clause 33 comes up as one of the priorities. The organisations’ intentions are not vexatious; they are not raising the issue to make a campaign point against the Government. The tone of the Bill is one of collaboration and partnership. As was mentioned in the oral evidence sessions and the early sittings of the Committee, the Bill is unique. It is not a top-down reorganisation—it is filling in the jigsaw puzzle that has been constructed from below upwards, providing the legislative cherry on the top of a cake that has already been baked by local healthcare communities who know what they need. What they need is certainty on workforce planning. The Bill provides the legislative certainty of consistency at national level that will trickle down to local level.
I urge the Minister to listen to the requests for more frequent reporting on workforce planning, better use of data in producing the report and a widening of opportunities to be partners in that report. The Minister and Department have done a fantastic job in allowing the partnership model to evolve. We have moved away from institutional top-down accountability, where there was a competitive spirit between institutions. We have broken that down; the ICPs and ICBs now provide an opportunity for greater partnership working, for the benefit of patients and the outcomes that need to be delivered. This is the missing piece in the legislation.
We need to move workforce needs to a partnership model and away from the top-down approach that clause 33 very much suggests. The Secretary of State holds all the cards on the planning of the report and does not even necessarily have to work with NHS England or Health Education England. In the spirit of the Bill, I urge the Minister to open up the clause and consider the proposal in amendment 94 on Report or in the other place. It is an important change that would make the Bill even better. I urge him to give it due consideration.
Justin Madders
I will speak to amendment 94 and the other amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, since they are grouped together and we are clearly all talking about the same thing. There is probably only a cigarette paper between many elements of these amendments and, I hope, the Minister’s position when we get to the end of the debate.
One reason why there are so many amendments and they are all fairly similar is that it was clear from the evidence sessions that this is one of the few areas on which there was complete agreement among the witnesses. Clause 33 is simply nowhere near good enough. Given the importance of workforce issues, which is the most crucial issue facing our NHS and social care system—as the right hon. Member for Kingswood mentioned, social care must be included within this—it is strange that we have really quite a tepid offering in the Bill.
It feels as though the whole question of workforce is firmly in the Department’s “too difficult” box. It knows it has to do something; it knows that without the tremendous efforts of the staff the NHS would simply collapse, but rather than coming up with an effective strategy, it has produced this fig leaf of a clause to create the impression that the issue is being taken seriously and dealt with.
Justin Madders
It is now in the Minister’s inbox, and he will know that what is currently in the Bill does not cut it in terms of the challenges we face. As I often do, I place on record our thanks and admiration for the whole NHS workforce, for turning from theory into reality an organisation that demonstrates the benefits of collectivism and socialism and is one of the nation’s proudest achievements—I certainly expect the Minister to agree with the latter part of that sentiment, if not the former.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again: without its workforce, the NHS is nothing. It is not only the doctors and nurses, but all the others who contribute to the delivery of a comprehensive and universal service, free at the point of use: the radiographers, the porters, the cleaners and the allied health professionals. I will not list them all, but we should acknowledge that a number of different people contribute towards even the most straightforward engagement with a patient, and we are grateful for each and every one of them and the service they give.
I briefly refer hon. Members to the report by the Health and Social Care Committee on workforce burnout and resilience. It conducted an inquiry into the issue and found that staff shortages were
“ultimately the biggest driver of burnout.”
It was presented with much evidence from staff about feelings of low energy or exhaustion, increased mental distance from or negative feelings about the job, and reduced professional effectiveness. Excessive workload was identified as the key predictor of staff stress, workers’ intention to quit and patient dissatisfaction, and was also highly associated with the level of errors.
I draw this Committee’s attention to some of the conclusions in the report. Paragraph 22 states:
“It is clear from our witnesses that although the People Plan presents comprehensive ambition to address the failings in the culture of the NHS, and address the needs and wellbeing of NHS staff, its delivery will depend on the level of resourcing allocated to these priorities. Without adequate funding the laudable aspirations of the People Plan will not become reality.”
Paragraph 23 states:
“We recommend that the Department publishes regular, costed updates along with delivery timelines for all of the proposals in the People Plan.”
That is something we are trying to turn into reality with our amendments.
Turning to the specifics of amendment 40, paragraph 24 of the Select Committee report states:
“The absence of a People Plan for social care serves only to widen the disparity in recognition and support for the social care components of health and social care. The Government should rectify this as a matter of urgency in their upcoming work to reform the social care sector; and it is essential that it is included in the social care reforms promised this year.”
Some reforms have been promised, but we still await the further White Paper on integration, which we have touched on many times.
“The adult social care workforce has stepped up to the plate during the pandemic. They deserve the same care and attention that the People Plan pledges to NHS colleagues.”
We wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments stated there.
Karin Smyth
I entirely concur with the comments of my hon. Friend, who asked: if not now, when? The right hon. Member for Kingswood described this as a short clause, but one that is hugely important. I do not want to quote everyone who has given us evidence, but we all agree that this is a major issue for the service and has been for a number of years. It is the major omission from this Bill, which has had all sorts of other things added to it but does not look at this issue seriously. This is a massive missed opportunity, unless the Minister takes on board some of what has been said today and supports some of these amendments, to indicate to the service, post pandemic, that this message has been heard loud and clear. The Secretary of State seems to want to take on a lot of responsibilities, and this is something quite significant that he could do something about. He could give that indication.
As I said to the right hon. Member for Kingswood earlier, we have to recognise the differences between health economies and parts of the country. Fairly recently, the Government expanded medical training places in parts of the country where there is a low take-up, and to which people are not moving to work. We know that if we train people locally, they stay local and if the Government would like a quick and easy way to level up—however they want to define it—that is it.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to all the hon. Members for tabling the amendments. They relate to increasing the Government’s accountability for assessing workforce planning and setting workforce projections. Before I turn to their substance, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston suspected, I entirely agree with the latter half of his sentiment about the achievement that is the NHS. I am not sure I would necessarily attribute that to unbridled socialism, which tends to fail where it is tried. However, as Opposition Members will know and as set out well in the book written about Nye Bevan by their right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), which I re-read over the weekend, the genesis of the NHS was a complex one, which owed much to all parties in the House.
Justin Madders
I am glad the Minister has time to be reading such excellent tomes over the weekend. Can he remind us what the Conservative party did when voting on the original National Health Service Act 1946?
Edward Argar
Could the hon. Gentleman remind me what the Labour party did when in government, resulting in the resignation of the architect of the NHS?
The point I make is a serious one. The genesis of the NHS which, quite rightly, we are all proud of and recognise as a great achievement, is far from as simple as sometimes it might be portrayed by both parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that while the new hospitals we are building, the developments in drugs and therapeutics, and the new technology and new kit are all hugely important, they are limbs of the NHS. Its beating heart is its workforce and he is right to highlight that. I join with him, as I often do on these occasions, in paying tribute to all those who make up that beating heart.
Continuing to grow the workforce remains a top priority for the Government. Although I may disappoint some hon. Members, I am genuinely grateful to those who tabled amendments and spoke to them today, because this is a crucial debate, and I suspect the matter will continue to be raised, not just during the passage of the Bill but, rightly, more broadly. As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who brings a high degree of expertise to this subject, as the only hon. Member or right hon. Member to have occupied both the office that I now occupy and that of Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. He brings to the Bill the perspective he has gained from both those offices.
When I got this job back in September 2019, which seems like an age ago, I was responsible for workforce for a few months, until that responsibility was taken on by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) at the beginning of 2020. One of my first visits was to the University of Lincoln, which had just opened its medical school. That medical school had been campaigned for very hard by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who was out of office at the time, and by the then Opposition Member for Lincoln.
The hon. Member for Bristol South is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local medical schools. Lincolnshire, for example, has a challenge in attracting and retaining a workforce. We are already in the early stages of seeing a growing workforce of people there who are likely to start their careers in Lincoln. When I visited, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was remembered with fondness. I did not take it personally that they almost seemed disappointed to see me and not him, but that is a reflection of the affection in which he is held and the respect for him in this sector.
As the shadow Minister rightly said, yesterday I again resumed responsibility for the NHS workforce and I look forward to working with him constructively on these matters, which is the way we tend to work. We will consider the role that all stakeholders can play in identifying the needs and opportunities around the workforce. I always value input and I echo the words of my right hon. Friend, which I hope will find favour with the shadow Minister, that that includes input from professional bodies, think-tanks, NHS bodies and the trade unions. There may be times when we disagree, but I look forward to working with all of them constructively and courteously, as I do with the shadow Minister.
This year, we have seen record numbers of nurses and doctors working in the NHS, and the total number of NHS staff has increased to almost 1.2 million. There are over 17,800—2.9%—more professionally qualified clinical staff working in NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups than in June 2020, including over 2,700, or 2.3%, more doctors and over 8,900 more nurses.
We continue to make good progress towards meeting our manifesto commitment of 50,000 more nurses by March 2024. Encouragingly for future workforce supply, applications for nursing and midwifery courses in England were up 21% this year compared with last year, and we have seen the highest number of students accepting places in the past 10 years. Through Health Education England, we will continue to invest in the NHS and social care workforces, and an additional duty is not required for this to happen.
I will not repeat the point that the shadow Minister very kindly made about the July commission. I will certainly look into the status of the response to that report. He will recognise that even when we do not agree, which is not that often, although there are such times, I endeavour to be efficient and courteous in responding to such matters, so I look forward to picking up on that with my new responsibilities.
Justin Madders
I certainly did not intend to upbraid him for not responding, given that he took over responsibility only yesterday. He will be aware of the importance of the report and of an official response.
Edward Argar
I am, of course, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that prior to the reshuffle I was looking at a number of issues related to the recovery of our workforce. A fit, healthy and supportive workforce is crucial to that. I have read and considered the report, and, with my new responsibility, I will endeavour as swiftly as I can to ensure that the Government respond as appropriate to the Committee, and to Committee reports more broadly, in a timely fashion.
We believe that the proposed duty in clause 33, which inserts proposed new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006 in order to require the Secretary of State to produce a workforce accountability report at least every five years, addresses one of the main issues in the current system: the need for greater transparency and accountability for the various bodies involved in the workforce planning process in England. The proposal in the Bill is to ensure that there are proper structures and accountability for ensuring that the necessary workplace planning and projections are carried out and co-ordinated effectively by the various bodies in the system. For example, the report will set out the role and responsibilities of the new ICBs and how they will support the delivery of effective local and national workplace planning.
Draft guidance issued by NHS England, which covers the role of ICBs regarding the workforce, sets out the direction of travel in that regard. It sets out the ICBs’ responsibility to develop system-wide plans to address current and future workforce supply for the local area, with demand and supply planning based on population health needs. The guidance also refers to their responsibility to provide workforce data to regional and national workforce teams in order to support aggregated workforce planning and to inform prioritisation of workforce initiatives and investment decisions.
I fear that my remarks may be a little more lengthy than usual, but I think that that reflects the importance and breadth of this issue. Turning to the other amendments in the group, amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish the report on assessing and meeting the workforce need annually, rather than at a minimum of every five years. I acknowledge the witnesses’ comments, which the shadow Minister has rightly highlighted, but we need to be a little cautious. We cannot predict all future evolution and needs, which is why we have mandated the report to be published at a minimum of every five years. That flexibility allows us to provide an updated report in order to reflect any changes to roles and responsibilities earlier than the statutory required period, if necessary, but requiring an annual report would impose an unnecessarily prescriptive and, I fear, rigid arrangement on the production of this document and would be disproportionate to the level of change in roles and responsibilities that we expect to see in the system on an annual basis. I therefore suspect that it is a matter for debate as to what the most appropriate timescale is—we have therefore set a minimum period, rather than a maximum period.
Amendment 40 seeks to go further than our current duty on reporting workforce accountabilities, by requiring the report to set out the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs, both of the health service and of social care. As the shadow Minister has alluded to, and as he and I agree, our 1.5 million-strong social care workforce is an absolutely essential and valued part of the social care system and, indeed, our broader healthcare system in this country. Social care workers are on the frontline, caring for and supporting people at the heart of their communities.
I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I fear that we will not be able to accept it today. The scope of clause 33 as it stands has been carefully drafted to ensure that it reflects the statutory role and responsibility of HEE, which will assist in the production of the report. As a result, the workforce accountabilities report will cover the NHS in England, including primary, secondary and community care; the regulated adult social care workforce where sections of the workforce are shared between health and social care—for example, registered nurses and occupational therapists; and the regulated public health workforce, including doctors and other regulated healthcare professions. Regulated professionals in adult social care are therefore already included in the scope of the report, but HEE has no specific remit for the wider, unregulated adult social care workforce. I can reassure the Committee, however, that the Government are working hard to bring forward a White Paper for adult social care. As the shadow Minister rightly alluded to—he repeated his comments, so I will repeat mine—the proposal set out by the Prime Minister will build on the strong foundations for reform and integration that will be laid through the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not tempt the Minister to tell us what will be in that, but his confidence that it will be an improvement on the current position is noted. Does he anticipate that the White Paper will also include a very clear commitment to a workforce strategy, along the lines that we have discussed?
Edward Argar
I do not know whether the shadow Minister has seen what I was about to say, but after two years of doing this together, he has become relatively psychic. I anticipate that the White Paper will set out in detail how we propose to fund social care professionalisation, as well as initiatives or plans to improve workforce wellbeing and further reforms to improve social care recruitment and support.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I know it is not the done thing for Whips to contribute to debates, but because I have been a care worker, this part of the Bill is close to home for me. I wanted to touch on the word that the Minister used when he spoke about “assumptions” about workforce planning. Does he agree that actual independence takes away the need for Ministers to make assumptions, and that is why the amendment is important? Otherwise, Ministers are in danger of marking their own homework when it comes to whether they have met the workforce projections that they say they have met.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady alludes to it not being normal form for a Whip to intervene, but her contribution is, as ever, extremely valuable in this context—particularly given the work that she did before she became a Member of this House—and I am grateful to her. My counterpoint would be that we need to be cautious about a separation of projections and planning from the reality of day-to-day delivery. The system, as envisaged, will bring together an actual knowledge of what is going on on the ground with those projections and data delivery.
I suspect that I will not convince the hon. Lady, but I recognise and acknowledge the expertise that she brings to the area. Back in my days as a councillor, I was a cabinet member for adult social care and saw at first hand the amazing work done by care professionals and by volunteers in the care sector. Notwithstanding any political disagreements we might have, I pay tribute to her for that.
Finally, regarding the consultation requirements in amendments 94 and 41, I assure the Committee that consultation already happens throughout the workforce planning and delivery process. To give a recent example of such engagement, HEE completed a call for evidence as part of its refreshed “Framework 15”. That call for evidence closed on 6 September and received responses from a wide variety of bodies. Between October and April of next year, engagement and consultation will continue through various events led by HEE. I am sure that as I assume my new responsibilities, I will occasionally be questioned on those by the shadow Minister, either across the Dispatch Box or in written questions and letters, as is his wont and, indeed, his right.
At local level, ICBs will be under various workforce-related responsibilities and obligations, as I have set out. As part of that work, we can expect ICBs to work with local stakeholders in their area. We expect all this stakeholder consultation to continue, but we want engagement to be flexible, in keeping with one of the principles—the permissive principle—behind the Bill.
Let me turn to the issue of safe staffing. Amendment 42 would significantly amend our proposed workforce accountability report so that it would have to cover an assessment by the Secretary of State of safe staffing levels for the health service in England and whether those were being met. The effect of the amendment in reality would be to require the Secretary of State to make such an assessment but, in so doing, risk detracting from the responsibility of clinical and other leaders at local level for ensuring safe staffing, reflecting their expertise and local knowledge, supported by guidance and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. We do not support the amendment as drafted, for various reasons.
First, there is no single ratio or formula that can calculate the answer to what represents safe staffing in a particular context, and therefore against which the Secretary of State could make an objective assessment. It will, as we have seen over the past year and a half, differ across and within an organisation. Reaching the right mix, for the right circumstances and the right clinical outcomes, requires the use of evidence-based tools, the exercise of professional judgment and a multi-professional approach. Consequently, in England, we think that the responsibility for staffing levels should remain with clinical and other leaders at local level, responding to local needs, utilising their expertise, supported by guidelines from national bodies and professional organisations, and all overseen and regulated by the CQC.
Secondly, the amendment would require the formulation of safe staffing levels against which the NHS workforce could be assessed. I fear that that would be a retrograde step, as it would inhibit the development of the more productive skill mixes that are needed for a more innovative and flexible workforce for the future. That new workforce is crucial to successful implementation of the new models of integrated care that the Bill is intended to support.
The specific wording of the amendment is incredibly broad and would require the Secretary of State to assess safe staffing levels across all healthcare settings, across the whole of England, for all medical and clinical staff. Such a duty would be burdensome not only for the national system but, potentially, locally—for local clinical leaders. It would move us away from that local accountability and expertise.
I assure the Committee that we will continue to engage with stakeholders and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, to look closely at this area. I want to reassure Members, including Opposition Members, that we have heard their concerns and the views that they have expressed in relation to workforce in today’s debate and reflecting the evidence of witnesses. I am grateful, as ever, for the tone in which the shadow Minister has raised his concerns and put his points. We will carefully consider these issues and continue to ensure, and to reflect on ensuring, that we work to address them through the Department’s wider work on workforce.
Let me just say, before concluding, that while we were doing the changeover between clauses, I did a very quick check and I believe I was correct in my answer to the shadow Minister that no applications were currently pending for foundation trusts. I wanted to clarify that it turns out I was right—I suspect he thinks he was right in his assumption as well.
For the reasons that I have set out, I encourage hon. Members not to push these amendments to a Division but to continue engaging with me and other Ministers.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister not only for his kind words to me personally, but for his considered response to this set of amendments. It is clear that he is mulling over this, and I would like to give him time to think about potential opportunities for changing the clause. I know how these things work; I have sat in the very same seat that he is sitting in. I know he has to spin off various pieces of paper that have been provided to him by departmental officials. The officials who are sitting here have listened to this debate and will want to go back to the Department to discuss with their colleagues what has been mentioned in Committee today.
There is a gap between the sector’s expectations of what workforce planning might look like and what is currently written in the Bill. The Minister has proven my amendment to be defective. It is already highlighted in the legislative remits of Health Education England that it has to consult the social care sector and also the wider sector. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I do think there is an opportunity. If we can plan in advance and create systemic frameworks, we will save ourselves time—a stitch in time saves nine. We have an opportunity to provide certainty and security for the workforce and to provide a sustainable framework, although I am not sure whether the five years is sustainable.
As I have mentioned before, I was here 10 years ago on the Committee for the Health and Social Care Bill, which became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We are now removing parts of that, and the Minister at the time, in the very same seat, argued until he was blue in the face that there would be a benefit. We can learn from that experience, but the lived experience of professionals suggests we need to be more frequent in our assessment of the workforce needs of the NHS and the care sector.
We know that the demographic train that is coming down the tracks is going to hit us. We have seen what has happened with gas supply prices and the energy sector; we knew nine years ago that we had only about four days’ gas supply, and yet no action was taken. If we transpose that over here, we know that we face workforce issues, if not a crisis, in the next 10 years. That will all come down the tracks in a perfect storm of increasing healthcare issues, an ageing population and an attrition rate in a workforce that cannot currently keep up with demand.
There are supply and demand issues. We need more frequent assessments to ensure that supply and demand meet each other, and we need investment in the workforce and in training. Although I will withdraw amendment 94, I am keen for the Minister to consider what further action might be taken on Report or in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Justin Madders
I would just like to say a few words about amendments 40 to 42, if that is acceptable, Mrs Murray. We wish to press amendments 40 and 41 to a vote, with your permission. It is clear from the evidence that there is a demand for something to be done. It is interlinked with patient safety and cannot be ignored. Our main concern is: if we do not do this now, when will we?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 40, in clause 33, page 40, line 7, leave out ‘the health service’ and insert ‘health and social care services’—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need for both health and social care services.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
‘(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before the functions in this section are exercised.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult the Welsh Government before the functions on workforce assessments in this clause are exercised.
I will be brief, given that much of what I would otherwise have said has been covered in the debate on the previous group of amendments. I will just say to those on the Front Benches, in their discussion of the genesis of the NHS, that success has many parents. Aneurin Bevan of Tredegar was the father of the NHS, based on his experience of the provision of health in that area, but it was also based on the foundation that was set up by my predecessor but three as Member for Caernarfon, David Lloyd George.
Having got that out of way, the amendment would place a duty to consult the Welsh Government on workforce assessments. Although the amendment is a probing one, I am concerned that the devolution settlement remains somewhat complicated and sometimes unclear, even in its current iteration. As a piece of history and a reference to how that settlement can cloud matters, I will mention a question I asked a former Labour Secretary of State for Health, Mr Alan Milburn, some years ago about nurses’ pay. His response, which I committed to my memory, was “It is one of the abiding joys of my life that I have no responsibility for things Welsh.” Unfortunately for both Wales and him, he actually had responsibility for nurses’ pay at that time. Even Secretaries of State are not perfect, let alone Ministers of State and others. That situation has now been resolved.
The danger is always that the remaining integration of parts of the Welsh health service and health service in England might be overlooked. I referred to that earlier in respect of services and people from Wales—and people from England, for that matter—accessing health services on the other side of the border. People in north Wales specifically will recognise the names of individual hospitals in England. I refer briefly to Alder Hey on the Wirral, which provides services to children with severe conditions. There is the Royal Liverpool; the Christie in Manchester, which provides specialist cancer treatment; and the hospital in Gobowen, which has for a long time provided orthopaedic services. Recently, severe casualties and people who have suffered road traffic accidents have been helicoptered to Stoke for specialist treatment. As I said the other day, around 13,500 Welsh people access GP services in England, and 21,000 or so people from England access GP services in Wales. Those are the 2019 figures.
The workforce-training and education aspects of cross-border arrangements must be considered because staff are mobile. People from Wales access training in England and then return to Wales, and it works the other way around as well. In my own constituency specifically, the school of nursing at Bangor University has for a number of years trained nurses from all over the UK and elsewhere. We are now establishing a medical school that will certainly be training doctors who will return to Scotland, England or Northern Ireland.
The other positive opportunity that proper workforce planning would present the health service throughout the UK is in the specialisms that we hope to develop in Wales—particularly in my area of north Wales. Those specialisms include, for example, treating injuries arising from accidents on our coasts and mountains, for which we already have some specialism. There are also particular issues around mental health and multilingualism, particularly in talking therapies and work with children and older people.
There are opportunities for people who might be trained in Wales before going over to England, and vice versa. For the reasons that I have outlined, I think it essential that those matters be taken into consideration in workforce planning.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mrs Murray, and to follow the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Arfon.
The hon. Gentleman’s points about interdependency are important. Of course, we cherish and build on the devolved settlement, but we understand that we still have important relationships, not least at our borders. I thought that his point about specialised care was a thoughtful one, too: we know that as conditions or treatments become complex, there will be specialisations, and we would never want artificial barriers to get in the way of people accessing specialised care. His point about training was also good and jumped out to me.
Yesterday, I spoke to a surgeon in my community who took great pride in working in the hospital where he was born. In between, he had gone away; I am told that there are parts of the world other than Nottingham—I dispute that fact—and he wanted to go and see some of them. That will inevitably involve crossing borders, and it is important that that is reflected in the Bill. That will happen from nation to nation, but in the future it will happen from integrated care system to integrated care system. Where there is divergence, we need to be thoughtful of it.
The statement of values relating to cross-border care said:
“no treatment will be refused or delayed due to uncertainty or ambiguity as to which body is responsible for funding an individual’s healthcare provision.”
That is an important principle because it sets out that it is the job of the system rather than the individual to understand and navigate the separation between different bodies that may diverge but which work together in common purpose. That is easy to say, but hard to do at times. As I say, that is something that we will see between integrated care systems in time, too. That is true for patients, but also for staff, whether those staff work in Wales but live in England or vice versa, and for the important interrelationships between border integrated care systems on the Welsh border and the NHS in Wales.
There will be devolved and separate competencies between those bodies, but the human beings who make those systems go live side by side in communities, sometimes even next door to each other. A decision taken in one place, of course, impacts on everybody; we see that a lot in social care. Local authorities are under so much pressure at the moment, both in the resources that they have to fund social care and finding individuals to staff that care. There could be price wars at the borders that mean that individuals move between organisations more frequently than they would in a system that was better planned. We have to be mindful of that.
During the evidence sessions, we heard about the safe staffing legislation for nurses in Wales. That is the sort of thing that would already impact on border CCGs, and will do on integrated care systems in due course. That will only grow as the considerable workforce pressures that we discussed in the previous debate bite down even harder. Again, we must be mindful of that. It is crucial that there is a collective approach—a minimum approach—where the NHSs in neighbouring nations have due regard to each other. If the workforce becomes a zero-sum game, we will all lose in the long term.
I was heartened in those proceedings to hear about the contact between the Minister and his colleagues in Wales. I know that he takes matters seriously in Wales and across the United Kingdom, which is good. We might hear more about how that works with regard to the work- force. In the meantime, we support the inclusion of this measure in the Bill and the fact that it will be a priority.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arfon. Although I represent an east midlands constituency, in sunny Leicestershire—the hon. Member for Nottingham North would argue that Nottinghamshire is sunnier—I have a huge affection for Wales. In every speech he gives, the hon. Member for Arfon brings to the fore his pride in Wales and his constituency. In the vein of highlighting successful politicians representing Welsh constituencies, I take this opportunity to put on the record a tribute to my former Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who has become the PPS to the Secretary of State for Wales. I congratulate her on that appointment. It is well deserved; she has looked after me very well during her time in this House. I am grateful to her and put my congratulations to her on the record.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the amendment before the Committee. It would require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before the functions contained in clause 33 were exercised. Clause 33 would insert proposed new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006, which, as we have just debated, would require the Secretary of State to publish, at least once every five years, a report describing the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs of the health service in England.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, alluded to a point regularly made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. Although politicians and people in this House might see neat administrative boundaries drawn on a map, the reality is often much more complex. Certainly, those boundaries should not be seen in their everyday lives by constituents and others, who on occasions rightly need to exercise their right to access specialist services in England; I dare say there will be occasions where the counterpoint is true, and people living on the English side of the border may access health services on the Welsh side. We need to recognise that and work pragmatically with that reality.
Although in many other areas of the Bill we will work closely alongside the devolved Administrations, we do not agree that there is a formal need to impose an obligation in the legislation to consult Welsh Ministers before the Secretary of State exercises the specific power in proposed new section 1GA. I will turn to how we work with the Welsh Government in a moment.
Hywel Williams
I am not entirely reassured by the Minister’s words; possibly the best response is, “We shall see”.
I make one further point, if I may, in reference to his former Parliamentary Private Secretary: people from Ynys Môn are known in Welsh as people from “Gwlad y Medra”, which translates as “the land of I can do it”. Clearly, she can do health, and we look forward to seeing her performance at the Wales Office as well. I add my congratulations to her. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Can I clarify, Mrs Murray, that we have a hard finish at 11.25 am?
Edward Argar
I will endeavour not to be on my feet at that moment.
Clause 33 inserts new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce systems. Under the duty, the Secretary of State is required to publish, at least once every five years, a report describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England. A duty is also placed on HEE and NHS England to assist in the preparation of the report, if asked by the Secretary of State to do so.
As we have discussed this morning, the report will describe the workforce planning and supply system for healthcare workers, including those working in the NHS and public health, alongside regulated healthcare professionals working in social care and other sectors in England. The report will be published at a minimum—I emphasise in each of my remarks that word “minimum”, although the shadow Minister may feel that it is not sufficient—of every five years. However, I can commit to that publication cycle being kept under review by the Secretary of State, should circumstances change.
Clause 33 will provide greater clarity and transparency on how the workforce planning and supply system operates in England. The report produced under it will describe in one single document the workforce planning and supply roles and responsibilities of relevant national bodies, including the Department, HEE and NHS England, the new integrated care boards and individual employers, and how they work together in practice at national, regional and local levels.
Clause 33 will complement our ongoing non-legislative steps and investment in workforce planning in England. In July 2021, the Department commissioned HEE to work with partners to review longer-term strategic trends for the health and social care workforce. This important programme will review, renew and update the existing long-term strategic framework for the health workforce—HEE’s framework 15—and will genuinely help to ensure that we have the right numbers, skills, values and behaviours to deliver world-leading clinical services and continued high standards of care.
Alongside the work that we are already doing with NHS England and HEE, clause 33 will further improve accountability for all the bodies involved on the important subject of planning for and meeting future workforce supply and demand.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee for long; I have said more than enough on the subject—not persuasively, clearly.
The Minister made the point that I did not think that a minimum of five years was sufficient for a report on the workforce, and that is absolutely correct—and I am not alone, by any stretch of the imagination. Every stakeholder and every person who gave evidence to the Committee said that five years was simply insufficient to deal with the magnitude of the challenge that we face. If the Department really wants to grasp the nettle, it should be taking heed of what those stakeholders said.
The workforce is a very complicated and ever-changing issue. It is part of a world market in healthcare staff. What the right hon. Member for Kingswood said about his amendment was important: simply to dip into other parts of the world when we are running short is not a solution. Not only is it morally difficult to justify, but it does not represent a long-term solution—we are as prone to losing staff to other parts of the world as anyone else. People will remember that the junior doctors’ dispute resulted in an exodus to Australia and other parts of the world. Going around the world and dipping into other countries’ healthcare resources is not a solution to the challenges that we face. We are not going to divide the Committee on clause 33, but we think that it is insufficient.
I repeat the Health and Social Care Committee’s finding that
“workforce planning was at best opaque and at worst was responsible for unacceptable pressure on staff.”
That really cannot be ignored. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road. I hope that when the clause gets to the other place, there is more success in putting the onus on the Government to deal with the challenge.
Edward Argar
I hear what the shadow Minister says, and I hope that I can give him some reassurance: the Government will continue to reflect very carefully on the points made both in the debate today and in our evidence session.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
As I said this morning to Mrs Murray, and I will repeat this afternoon for your benefit, Mr McCabe, it is a pleasure, particularly following the reshuffle, to still be serving under your chairmanship.
Clauses 34 and 35 would allow the Secretary of State to confer the exercise of his public health functions on NHS England or integrated care boards, and would allow those functions to be further delegated or subject to other collaborative arrangements, as defined elsewhere in the Bill.
Clause 34 substitutes proposed new section 7A for the existing section 7A in the National Health Service Act 2006, originally created as part of the 2012 health and care reforms, and amending the 2006 Act. To date, section 7A has been used to support the commissioning of key national NHS public health programmes, including our world-leading screening and immunisation programmes. The Government’s intention is that it should continue to do so. These public health services are embedded within, or have a clear affinity with, local NHS delivery mechanisms—a clear example being the delivery of childhood vaccinations by general practitioners.
Proposed new section 7A fulfils the same purpose as the original, in that it enables the Secretary of State to delegate the practical exercise of his public health functions to other bodies, but it is updated to keep pace with the thrust of the Bill and enable a wider range of delegation and collaboration arrangements. Not to do so would risk leaving public health programmes behind, with unnecessary restrictions on, for example, the range of bodies that could enter collaborative arrangements. The clause also consolidates amendments to section 7A made previously by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 in respect of inclusion of combined authorities as bodies to which the exercise of public health functions may be delegated.
In addition, to ensure that the delegation or joint exercise of functions does not lead to reduced accountability for delivering services, we have proposed appropriate safeguards that make further provision on joint working and delegation arrangements. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations which functions can and cannot be delegated, impose conditions in relation to the delegation or joint exercise of functions, and specify the extent of such arrangements. Furthermore, the parties will be able to agree terms regarding the scope of the delegation arrangement. NHS England will also have the ability to issue statutory guidance in relation to functions that are being delegated or jointly exercised under those provisions. Subject to those safeguards, the clause supports the aims of greater health and care integration and a focus on improving population health outcomes.
Clause 35 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State, by direction, to confer the exercise of any of his public health functions on NHS England or ICBs. The clause, again, goes with the grain of the Bill more generally in resetting the relationship between the Secretary of State, as rightly accountable to Parliament, and an enlarged NHS England with an expanded set of responsibilities, which include direct commissioning and oversight of some health services.
The Bill is moving away from a focus purely on competition, and is instead re-emphasising the value alongside it of integration and collaboration. That includes being very clear on the role that the Government have to play. To that end, there is a suite of proposals in the Bill that assert the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene, set direction and make decisions, not as a substitute for clinical expertise, but in setting that clear direction and being accountable. I suspect that, if not on these clauses, then on those we will debate in a moment, that will come to the fore in our discussions.
Clause 35 is, to an extent, illustrative of that and relates closely to, for example, clause 37’s power to direct NHS England. As the law stands, and indeed as it would stand with the changes proposed by clause 34 alone, the Secretary of State’s ability to delegate the exercise of his public health functions effectively depends on securing agreement with the body being delegated to. That arrangement has generally worked well since its inception as part of the 2012 reforms, and as far as possible the Government intend to continue to operate in that way. However, the power gives Minsters a backstop if agreement is not reached in a timely way or is unreasonably withheld. It also enables them to give clear instructions where needed or where it would be more efficient to provide a direction rather than set up a whole arrangement.
Delay and confusion can and do affect the health of those relying on public health services, so the backstop power reflects the proper relationship, as we see it, between the Secretary of State and the public health system. It also sits alongside other mechanisms, notably regulation-making powers, in relation to local government’s exercise of public health functions. However, it is important to emphasise that directions must be published as soon as practicable, and the power would, of course, have to be exercised within the normal bounds of ministerial decision making, accountability and transparency.
Furthermore, any decision to exercise the power will be premised and guided by general public law principles and in line with the Secretary of State’s general statutory duties. Those duties will of course form part of any Secretary of State’s reasoning on whether it would be appropriate to exercise the power. In particular, they would need to consider section 2A(1) of the NHS Act 2006. As such, the Government believe that clauses 34 and 35 embody a proportionate addition to the Secretary of State’s powers.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister says, the clauses relate to public health. We might previously have anticipated that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) would have fielded them, but obviously she has moved Departments. I want to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to her for her service as Public Health Minister. We worked well together, particularly in the proceedings on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. We have disagreed over the course of our work, and that is good—disagreement is good in a democracy—but we always disagreed well. I wish her well in her new role, although I might highlight the irony that, after all the work she did in public health to reduce fizzy drinks consumption, the top of the order of business at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the moment is presumably trying to restore carbon dioxide supplies to get those fizzy drinks going again—I am sure she will seek for them to be sugar-free, if nothing else.
Today is also my first opportunity to formally congratulate and welcome the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to her new role as Public Health Minister. I have long thought that it is pretty much the best job in Government, and gives the Minister the chance to shape and improve the lives of millions, if done well. From my work with her as a near neighbour, I know that she will give the job her all. I look forward to working with her and scrutinising the work that she does.
Of course, the job of Public Health Minister has been made an awful lot harder by the preceding decade. The other day I spoke about the bill for a decade of austerity falling due, and that is manifest nowhere more than in the provision of public health services and the impact of cuts on those services. In his introduction to these clauses, the Minister characterised the legislation as protecting the status quo, but the status quo relative to where we were in 2012 is very different: public health funding for 2019-20 was down 15% on where it was prior to the changes in the 2012 Act. If we set that against a growing and ageing population and all the attendant extra spending challenges that go with that, the real-terms impact is much greater. That has meant significant cuts: a cut of nearly half for support for health at work, the place where many of us will fall sick; a cut of a quarter for NHS health checks, a core preventative tool; and a cut of a quarter for smoking cessation programmes, despite how effective they are. Of course, the areas with the greatest needs have suffered the most and experienced the greatest cuts. Those cuts do not even fall equally.
For all the talk that we hear from the Government about prevention—we see it in these proceedings, the White Paper and the Bill—the reality is that Government policy over the last decade has made things much harder for our health system by creating extra demand. That is devastating not only for those individuals who have missed out, but for the system too. There is much greater demand on our health system as a result of the decisions that we have taken, and that is sad.
We have talked a lot about the 2012 Act, and much of what we are doing in Committee is removing its provisions, because they were not very good. However, one area where there seems to be no disagreement—no suggestion from the Government or the Opposition that we might change the position—is the idea that public health should go back home to local government. That is still an area of consensus that we can build on—of course it is. It means that our excellent public health staff, spearheaded by our world-class directors, can influence not only traditional public health-type services, but the whole range of services that shape the public’s health: licensing, planning, leisure, social care and much more—all those important things our local authorities do. It is just a shame and a wasted opportunity that this period has been characterised by cuts, particularly to those with the greatest need, rather than by investment in our communities.
I shudder to think of two things. The first is the amount of time that those skilled staff have spent on what is euphemistically called “service redesign” but is actually cuts. What could that amount of wasted time have been better spent on? The second is the professionals in that field who have chosen to leave because they do not want to be part of that. That is a real shame, and has really hindered our approach to tackling public health.
The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on clauses 34 and 35; at the end of the day, we would much rather that public health funding was spent at a local level than at a national one. We think it will have greater impact, and frankly we can get better value from it by combining it with local services. However, I want to test the clauses a little, starting with clause 34.
What we have seen in proceedings so far—I think this is sitting 10—is that, in reality, this is not an integration Bill; it is an NHS reorganisation Bill under an integration banner. I heard the Prime Minister himself promising a further White Paper, and presumably a further Bill, on integration in the future. The Minister has said that this Bill paves the way, but this was never a paving Bill. I challenge anybody to find in the White Paper or any publication from the Government relating to this piece of legislation the word “paving”—that is, until the Minister introduced it after the Prime Minister’s rather unhelpful intervention.
We heard from the Minister himself, when explaining to the Committee why a councillor cannot chair an integrated care board, that NHS bodies do not permit councillors to do so. He is telling us that this is about NHS bodies, not about partnership bodies. These are NHS bodies; they are accountable to NHS England and they can be altered by NHS England.
It has been a settled point of public policy for the past decade that public health is delegated to local authorities, for all the good reasons I mentioned. This may well be just my understanding, but I do not want to let this clause go without testing it: proposed new subsection 7A(2) provides for the range of eligible bodies that the Secretary of State can delegate the powers to. The first is NHS England, which would make sense in the case of big, national programmes such as the ones the Minister talked about in terms of vaccination. Another is a local authority, which makes sense for all the reasons I have given.
Yet another is a combined authority, which I suspect was not a feature of the 2012 Act—I do not think, although I might be wrong, that combined authorities were yet a twinkle in a local government leader’s eye at that point. However, with a combined authority, any arrangement would surely be by the consent of its members, rather than by delegation to the combined authority itself. Combined authorities are generally skeleton structures that act as an agglomeration of interested parties, rather than significant entities in themselves, so surely a local authority would receive those powers first and then, by agreement, transfer them to combined authority level with its partners.
Finally, there is an integrated care board. What is the reason for that? If these things get delegated to local government, why would they be delegated to an NHS body? Is that not an attempt, rather than repealing the provisions in the 2012 Act that moved public health back to local authorities, to do it on a de facto basis without addressing the point? That might be an unintended consequence, so I hope the Minister will address that and say that that is not the case.
Last Thursday, we dealt with the counterpart conversation to this one. We have debated multiple times the provision for health functions of the Secretary of State or NHS England to be delegated to the integrated care boards. That is in the spirit of what this legislation is about— local decision making—but at no point was there ever a proposal for any of those functions to be delegated to a local authority or combined authority. That, again, gets to the root of the problem with this Bill, and the core reason why the Government’s frequent integration efforts stall, spin their wheels and do not go anywhere. Local authorities are not treated equally, whether that manifests in social care—a very visible inequality in our health system—or in public health, as in this case. They ought to be equal partners, but they are anything but. Again, I hope the Minister can address that issue.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister has made a number of serious points—I am not sure how one spins the wheels when the car is stalled, but none the less I took his point. First, at the heart of this Bill is the fact that we seek to strike the appropriate balance between what is clearly a national health service, accountable to the Secretary of State and Parliament, and local flexibilities and local integration. The debate we will have for the next two hours or so will probably be about whether we have struck that balance appropriately, but that is the core of what we are seeking to do here.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the importance of local authorities in this space. He and I share a common view on that, and he is right: one of the few things in the 2012 Act that I suspect he would have agreed with was the recognition of the public health function of local authorities. We are not seeking to do anything in the Bill to undermine that function in any way. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I believe that the Bill provides for multiple layers of integration. Within a local NHS system, at an ICB level and then at an integrated care partnership level, there will be increased integration with local authorities and others, laying the foundations for the ambitious programme that the Prime Minister set out when he spoke earlier in this Session about the health and care levy.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about combined authorities. My recollection—I may be wrong—is that they date to about 2016, rather than 2012, and my understanding of the power is that it does not go against what he was saying, but provides for the continued evolution of the system and enables that delegation to take place. In practical terms, I would envisage that, where local authorities combine and work together, they would have their own arrangements, and we are not seeking to cut across those local working arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the ICBs, saying that they are NHS bodies and asking whether this is a threat to local authority delegation of public health functions. My reading of that is that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks on these clauses, there are some public health functions that are NHS and delegated through CCGs, such as GPs participating in child immunisation programmes—hence the reference to ICBs, because they will be replacing CCGs in the new world.
Understandably, the hon. Gentleman talked about funding for public health. On his comments about the bigger picture on funding and spending levels more broadly, I simply remind him of the note left by a previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury:
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
We cannot get away from that context in this space, but more broadly he is right to highlight the importance of public health. The past 18 months have shone a light on public health; under Governments of all political complexions, public health has not always enjoyed that prominence in public debate, external media and other commentary. One thing that I hope will follow on from the terrible events we have endured over the past 18 months is a greater understanding and appreciation of public health and its measures, and for public health to enjoy the support it needs to do its job. I think all Members would agree that one of the few positives has been the recognition of the value of public health and prevention.
I think that those were the main points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I see these clauses as permitting a further evolution of the system and a recognition of the need, ideally, where we can, to further delegate powers from the Secretary of State to lower down within the system. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will feel able to support the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Power of direction: investigation functions
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 36, page 42, line 33, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing in subsection (2) supersedes Part 4 of the Health and Care Act 2021.”
This amendment will ensure nothing in new section 7D of the NHS Act 2006 about the Secretary of State’s powers to direct HSSIB supersedes what is in part 4 of the Bill.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe, and to see the Minister back again. We heard about his increased workload this morning; I also saw him on the Treasury Bench during the urgent question. I wonder where he finds the time—he should speak to his trade union rep if he feels there are too many demands being placed on his time. We will do our best to ensure that this afternoon is as stress-free for him as possible; if he accepts our amendments, that will go some way towards enabling that.
I will not speak for long on amendment 108 because we will be talking extensively about the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch later on in the Bill. Concerns have been expressed in briefings received by the Committee and in evidence about some of the relevant provisions in the Bill, particularly on access to information. Clause 36 looks at the proposed power over bodies that have investigatory powers, which include HSSIB. It is difficult for us to accept the clause as it stands without having gone through all the details on HSSIB, because we cannot possibly know whether our concerns will be resolved about how it will operate in practice. That is why we have put forward amendment 108.
The amendment would ensure that the powers in clause 36 do not in any way impede the important principle that HSSIB will be an independent body established by the Bill. In conjunction with further amendments, which we will no doubt get to in part 4, we can all be confident that HSSIB’s independence is sacrosanct. That is important for not just us as parliamentarians, but everyone within the NHS who may have reason to come across HSSIB. It is also important for patients, of course, because they will ultimately be the judges of whether HSSIB has been a success. It would be helpful to understand what the approach will be in relation to maternity investigations. HSSIB has a potentially important role in identifying how providers can sustainably and systematically improve the quality of such investigations and then provide appropriate support. However, ensuring proper accountability, clarity and independence remain important, and this amendment seeks to ensure that those matters are enshrined on the face of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I made it in rather slower time down to the Chamber to listen to the statement. After one of our sittings last week, I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North was on his feet asking a question in the Chamber before I had even made it out of this room, which shows a certain speed that I can only seek to emulate.
I appreciate that the amendment is linked to the independence of the Health Services Safety Investigation Body. The Government are clear that HSSIB will be independent, which is why it is being set up as a non-departmental public body, with a chief executive—to be known as the chief investigator—and executive and non-executive members. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that clause 36 is a temporary measure to ensure that the current Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch can continue to exist in the interim phase before the new body is established.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement means that the NHS Trust Development Authority, of which the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is a part, will be abolished. We need the important investigation function that the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch provides to continue until HSSIB is fully operational which, subject to parliamentary approval, is planned for spring 2023.
The power set out in clause 36 is designed to enable the Secretary of State to direct NHS England, or another public body, to carry out the investigation function in the interim period. I reassure hon. Members that the HSSIB will be independent. Clause 36 is not designed to infringe upon its independence and cannot be used to direct the new HSSIB in how it exercises its functions; it is there simply to ensure the continuity of current investigations until the 2023 start date. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to consider not pressing the amendment to a vote.
Justin Madders
I am reassured to some extent by the Minister’s words, but we have seen over the past 18 months that temporary powers do have a habit of becoming rather more permanent than was originally intended. I think it would be perfectly possible for the Government to include some sort of sunset clause to ensure that the intentions set out by the Minister are adhered to, but we may come back to that. As things stand, we maintain our criticisms, and it would be remiss of us not to push this matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will be brief, because I believe that in responding to the shadow Minister’s amendment I set out the intentions behind the clause and the reasons why it is drafted as it is. Notwithstanding his desire to push his amendment to vote, all I can say is that I will continue to reflect on the points he has made. I cannot promise the outcome, but I will reflect on what he said. Having made the case when I addressed the amendment, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
General power to direct NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I suspect that, with this, we get to the main event of this afternoon’s proceedings.
I begin with clause 37, which introduces powers for the Secretary of State to give directions to the newly merged NHS England. This merger, which is widely welcomed, of three different bodies with different accountability arrangements into one has inevitably required us to look at the appropriate accountability arrangements for the future, and the extent to which the accountability arrangements have evolved and kept up with the evolution of the organisation. The powers in the clause will ensure the appropriate balance between democratic accountability to the Secretary of State and the NHS’s clinical and day-to-day operational independence.
Clause 37 will give the Secretary of State new powers over a newly merged and larger NHS England. It does not give the Secretary of State any new powers over other NHS bodies. It gives the Secretary of State precisely no new powers over clinical decisions. The clause is about ensuring appropriate accountability mechanisms between the democratically elected Government and one of the biggest arm’s length bodies, if not the biggest. That is a principle of democratic accountability in a publicly funded national healthcare service, and I am sure it is accepted not just by the leadership of NHS England, but by Opposition Members, even if they may not feel that the clause reflects their interpretation of it.
In practice, NHS England will continue, as now, to make the vast majority of its decisions without direction, consulting the Government and others as it needs to. The Government’s primary means of shaping the NHS agenda continues to be the mandate to NHS England, which has been an established means of providing direction to NHS England since 2013.
As we have learned in recent times, events can move fast, and the mandate may not be adaptable to all circumstances—and nor was it designed to be when it was conceived. The powers in the clause are designed to supplement the existing mechanisms, such as the mandate, to give the Secretary of State the ability, where he or she deems it appropriate and in the public interest, to provide direction and to intervene in relation to NHS England’s functions. Of course, the Department’s title is “Health and Social Care”, and while NHS England will rightly continue to be focused on the NHS, the Government must take a wider view—and this wider view may lead us, on occasion, to a different conclusion about the appropriate course of action from that held by NHS England colleagues.
There is already a strong and close working relationship between Ministers and NHS England. The clause helps to formalise that in a way that is more transparent for everyone to see, building in the normal expectations of ministerial decision making and accountability by requiring Ministers to issue directions in writing, and to ensure they are published and made in the public interest. Any decision to exercise this power will be premised and guided by general public law principles and broader statutory duties.
To ensure the NHS’s continued clinical and day-to-day operational independence, proposed new section 13ZD also sets out specific areas where the power of direction in section 13ZC cannot be used. The Secretary of State is unable to use this power to intervene in the appointment of individuals by NHS England, in individual clinical decisions or in relation to drugs or treatments that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has not recommended or issued guidance on.
We believe that clause 37 is crucial for ensuring that we have the right framework for national oversight and accountability of our health system, and of one of the largest arm’s length bodies, responsible for over £130 billion of public money. The clause ensures, in proposed new section 13ZE, that appropriate levers are in place—as there are for other arm’s length bodies—for Ministers to respond and take swift action if NHS England fails to carry out any of its functions. It also ensures, in proposed new section 13ZF, that Ministers have the levers they need to direct NHS England to provide information. Without it, we would be expanding the functions, responsibilities and powers of NHS England without ensuring that there are appropriate accountability arrangements in place for this large integrated body.
The changes that clause 37 introduced are proportionate, in our view. They reflect the evolution of NHS England in recent years, changes to the wider system and the appropriate expectations on Government to support, challenge and steer the system, while also leaving it free to determine operational matters.
Clause 62 amends the National Health Service Act 2006 by repealing the duty on the Secretary of State and NHS England to promote autonomy. The rationale for doing so comes is two parts. First, the response to the pandemic has further highlighted the importance of different parts of the health and care system working together in the best interests of public and patients. By repealing the duty to promote autonomy, the clause further enshrines integration and collaboration at the heart of the legislative framework underpinning the system.
The second reason for repealing that duty is to ensure compatibility with the duties elsewhere in the Bill on NHS organisations, including NHS England, to consider the effects of their decisions on the better health and wellbeing of everyone, equality of care for patients and the sustainable use of NHS resources. To avoid any conflict in duties, it is important to remove NHS England’s duty of autonomy, as these new duties require NHS England to co-operate and work closely with other partners, rather than autonomously. Repealing the duty of autonomy will also make it easier for NHS England to facilitate co-operation within the system—when commissioning services or issuing guidance, for example.
Neither the provisions in clause 37 nor those in clause 62, or indeed anywhere else in the Bill, do anything to change the nature of NHS England as an arm’s length body. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member—I fear that I may not—that the removal of these duties does not mean that Ministers are about to start interfering in the NHS or in any other body exercising functions relating to the health service.
Integration is at the heart of the Bill. By creating integrated care boards and removing unnecessary bureaucracy that can get in the way of local organisations wanting to work together, we are putting more power and autonomy in the hands of local systems, and that is our intention here. We are seeking to strengthen local leadership and empower local organisations to make decisions about their populations. We believe that both clauses not only support that intention, but strengthen it, and I commend them to the Committee.
Alex Norris
The Minister rightly pointed out my mixed metaphor, so I will undertake to avoid metaphors in this contribution. It is hard not to feel like an undercard to the main event here—that is a simile, of course, rather than a metaphor, and I gave no such undertaking on similes.
I might surprise the Minister by agreeing with bits of what he said: we do not intend to divide the Committee on clause 37 and we do think that there is an important distinction between the powers in clauses 37 and 38, which I think will come out in the debate. However, if we went out to Parliament Square now and straw-polled people walking by, asking them who they thought was responsible for the NHS in England at a national level, I think we would wait a very long time before anyone gave any answer other than the Government and, by extension, the Secretary of State.
Alex Norris
And of course the Minister, through appropriate delegation, and we are all the better for it. The Minister can quote me on that—but not on a political leaflet, as that would be very challenging for me.
Covid has shown that the public think that the politicians they elect are accountable for the decisions taken in the interests of their health, however they might manifest in ordinary life, so I think the repeal of the duty to promote autonomy, set out in clause 62, probably follows inevitably from that. We want an expert-run health service that works together and follows the best available evidence and science, not one that is unaccountable and diverges from the interests and expectations of the public at large.
That leads me nicely to clause 37. It is possibly a tautology to say that if someone is held responsible for something, they ought to have responsibility for it, as the clause set outs. To put that bluntly, with more than £100 billion of spending—40% of the Government’s revenue budget—going into that area, people will expect political accountability. If NHS England is not seen to be acting in the public interest at the highest possible levels, there ought to be a mechanism, by exception, to correct that. It is the exceptional part that is really important.
That is defined negatively in the clause by what the Secretary of State may not do—for example, hiring or firing an individual, which I think is right, or directing the healthcare of a specific person. I do not think the Secretary of State would want to be in that position with important cases of individuals who are in the public sphere, or have the ability to act outside NICE guidelines on drugs or treatment, as happens in such cases. I do not think that is a good system, hard though it may be when prominent cases come to our attention.
That gives us a common-sense reading of what these clauses provide for the Secretary of State. Yes, the buck stops with the Secretary of State and his political colleagues as a collective if there are major failings in the health service or major failings of Government and of leadership, but the clause does not give Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose—undoubtedly with political pressures in mind—whether to involve themselves in the detailed running of the service. I think that will be covered in clause 38.
A concern raised by the Nuffield Trust in evidence was that there should be a stronger mechanism by which such decisions can be scrutinised. Will the Minister address that? I heard what he said about publication of information about the Secretary of State’s decisions, but why not provide for a parliamentary mechanism by which decisions could be scrutinised? That would ensure public confidence that there is no Executive overreach or direction at a low level of how our healthcare service operates, which I do not think would be at all desirable. I hope that the Minister will address that in his remarks.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I would like the Committee to take a moment to mourn the loss of the principle of autonomy as a guiding driver of the health service over some 20-plus years. That principle is part not just of the Lansley reforms, but of previous Labour reforms, and indeed of reforms by the Government before that. The idea was that the system would become more efficient and responsive with more autonomous units, rather than a great mass of health authorities, hospitals and systems that are rarely understood by local people, and that the competition of autonomous units would drive financial and service efficiency, for example. This is quite a moment, and I do not think we should just let it pass.
When I was a member of a primary care trust, which I may have shared earlier, our local region had “earned autonomy.” That meant that if we did certain things particularly well—bringing waiting times and waiting lists down, or fulfilling financial balance requirements, for example—the local team, board and chief executive would earn more autonomy to do more. In modern parlance, things became more permissive, and they were trusted to do something.
Justin Madders
I am a little confused, because my hon. Friend is talking about the end of autonomy, but everything we have heard from the Government is about how permissive the Bill is and how it will leave people free to make their own decisions. I must be missing the point somewhere, mustn’t I?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which we will come on to when we discuss the following clauses. If there is no autonomy, but we are trying to be permissive, we come back to the vexed issue that the Minister alluded to earlier: where the balance lies between national and local accountability. We will come to that in further clauses.
I will not long mourn the loss of autonomy—I am not sure it really worked—but it is a principle for people to locally manage the units. As I said in relation to financial management in a previous session, if it is very clear that a chief executive or a finance director has responsibility for their bottom line, that drives a certain amount of focus and responsibility. I find it a little extraordinary for the Conservative party to be promoting the lack of autonomy. I hope hon. Members will take a moment to reflect on the seismic change we now have in the direction of our public services and the next era of the NHS.
Edward Argar
There are a few points that I will seek to address. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for highlighting the accountability of the Secretary of State—he also highlighted me. I remind colleagues that in my ministerial capacity, as a junior Minister, I am in legal terms but an extension of my Secretary of State; all the powers are vested in him and I am but a legal extension of him. Colleagues may dwell on that as they wish, but possibly not too much.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North set it out well. If we went out into Parliament Square and asked three dozen people who they believe is accountable for the NHS and the delivery of health services in this country, they would say it was the Government, or possibly the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I think that is right, and that is why we must ensure that the accountability is reflected in the responsibility and the ability to exercise that responsibility and accountability over how the NHS operates.
On the promotion of autonomy, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North alluded to and as I set out, if we are seeking to promote integration and co-operation, as the Bill does, that therefore sits slightly ill with a duty to promote autonomy, and this is about how we reconcile those two matters in legislative language. He talked about a parliamentary mechanism in this context. I emphasise the need for the directions to be published in writing and to be in the public interest.
As we know, such documents are always able to be debated in the House. Were something to be done that he thought inappropriate, I can bet my bottom dollar that I would be standing at the Dispatch Box answering an urgent question from him 24 or 48 hours later. There are mechanisms in this House by which Ministers can be held to account for decisions they make. That is why I believe that this move aids transparency. Rather than informal conversations and discussions, as happen in any organisation, the clause will require that, where a disagreement occurs, there is a clear direction for it to be published transparently, for shadow Ministers and others in this House to question and challenge it, or to raise, within or outwith the House, their concerns in front of the public.
The hon. Member for Bristol South quite rightly alluded to how PCTs operated. Like her, I sat as a non-executive member of a PCT board. I remember those days. If I remember correctly, not only did she sit on a board; she also has extensive experience in running healthcare services as a senior leadership figure within the local NHS, so she knows of what she speaks.
I do not think that what we are seeing here is quite as the hon. Lady characterises—a huge change in the direction of our party’s policy or the direction of travel. We are putting in place a pragmatic and sensible measure, to reflect the focus now on a duty to co-operate, which a duty of autonomy sits slightly ill with, as I say, and to make sure that we have clear accountabilities. We recognise in theory and in legislation what is already deemed by the public to be there in reality, which is the accountability of the Secretary of State and the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Reconfiguration of services: intervention powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 102, in schedule 6, page 180, line 12, at end insert—
“relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee” means any Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in an area to which the proposal for a reconfiguration of NHS services relates.”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 103.
Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 180, line 41, at end insert—
“(3A) Before taking a decision under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult all relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committees, and
(b) have regard to, and publish, clinical advice from the Integrated Care Board’s Medical Director.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult any relevant Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (as defined by Amendment 102), and to have regard to and publish clinical advice from the ICB Medical Director, before intervening in local service reconfiguration.
Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 180, line 43, at end insert—
“(aa) publish a statement demonstrating that the decision is in the public interest,”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement demonstrating that any decision they have made on a reconfiguration proposal is in the public interest.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
If I may, I will turn to the amendments first and then the substantive clause. I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendments. I said that the previous clause was coming to the main business of the afternoon, but I now suspect that was but an hors d’oeuvre to the discussion we may have on this clause and this set of amendments.
Amendments 102 and 103 would require the Secretary of State to consult all relevant health overview and scrutiny committees before making a decision on a reconfiguration. Amendment 103 would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to, and publish, clinical advice from the ICB’s medical director. It is of course vital that local views are represented in any reconfiguration. However, although I understand the rationale behind these amendments, I do not think they are strictly necessary. The new power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement plays in service change decisions; we expect the vast majority of reconfiguration decisions to continue to be managed by the local system, and system players will be encouraged to resolve matters locally where possible.
The Secretary of State will continue to be advised by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which is being retained. The focus of the IRP is and will continue to be the patient and quality of care in the context of safe, sustainable and accessible services for local people. It has also provided the system with advice based on its experience to date around critical success factors.
If I may go down a slight rabbit hole here, I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the work of the IRP. Certainly during my tenure in this post, I have consulted it and seen its advice on a number of occasions, and I am grateful for the work its staff do, the speed with which they do it and the benefit I have gained from that advice in making decisions or advising the Secretary of State on particular decisions.
In practice, the Secretary of State will always need to seek appropriate advice from clinicians, local leaders or other experts before making any decision, and all decisions made using the powers inserted by clause 38 and schedule 6 must be published. This will ensure transparency and allow for proper scrutiny of the way the power is being used.
Schedule 6 also includes the requirement for NHS commissioning bodies, including integrated care boards, to give the Secretary of State any information or other assistance required to carry out any functions under the schedule. It is envisioned that the Secretary of State will obtain information from NHS commissioning bodies when making reconfiguration decisions. This will include any representations that an HOSC, stakeholder, patient group or any other interested party have made, if applicable.
All decision making on reconfigurations, at both local and ministerial level, will continue to be guided by the four tests laid out in existing guidance that reconfiguration should be assured against: strong public and patient engagement; consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice; a clear clinical evidence base; and support for proposals from clinical commissioners.
As such, we believe that clause 38 and the guidance that the Secretary of State is required to produce under the powers in schedule 6 will provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that the Secretary of State receives appropriate advice before using the powers in this clause. As a result of not accepting amendment 103, we will also resist amendment 102, which is consequential on amendment 103.
Amendment 104 would require the Secretary of State to publish, alongside any decision they have made under this provision, a statement demonstrating that the decision is in the public interest. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for all his or her decisions. Ministers are expected, as a core principle of the constitution, to act in the public interest, and this is reflected in the ministerial code. In addition, the Secretary of State’s scrutiny and direction-making process on this and any other matter must already take into account the public law decision-making principles, all relevant information and their legal duties, including the public sector equality duty, that adhere to such decisions.
The Secretary of State is also under a number of duties set out in the National Health Service Act 2006, including a duty to promote a comprehensive health service, to secure continuous improvement in quality of services, and to have regard to the NHS constitution. As I have already set out, the Secretary of State will continue to be advised by the IRP, and will seek appropriate advice from clinicians, local leaders or other experts.
As for paragraph 4 of schedule 6, the Secretary of State already has a duty to publish any decision they make on a reconfiguration and to notify the NHS commissioning body of the decision. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment—I suspect that I will be unsuccessful in that plea, but I make it none the less.
I will now address clause 38 and schedule 6. The clause inserts proposed new section 68A and proposed new schedule 10A into the National Health Service Act 2006. It also introduces schedule 6, which includes a new intervention power to allow the Secretary of State to call in a reconfiguration of NHS services at any stage of the process, without the need for a referral from a local authority. A reconfiguration of NHS services is a change in service provision that has an impact on the manner in which a service is delivered at the point at which the service is received by the user, or the range of health services available to individuals. That could be, for example, a change in where a mental health in-patient unit is based, building a new stroke unit, or restructuring a whole hospital trust.
The new intervention power will enable the Secretary of State to act as a scrutineer and decision maker for reconfigurations, to intervene where, for example, they can see a critical benefit or cost to taking one or other course of action, or to take action where there is significant cause for public concern. We do not expect or intend to use the power with any regularity, and where it is used, it will be done so transparently. As I have emphasised, the Secretary of State must publish any decisions made about reconfigurations.
Schedule 6 sets out the scope of the reconfiguration powers as they pertain to NHS commissioning bodies, NHS services, NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It introduces a new duty for the relevant NHS bodies to notify the Secretary of State of any proposed or likely reconfiguration. The Secretary of State will be able to take any decision that could have been taken by the NHS commissioning body. That includes the ability for the Secretary of State to decide whether a proposal should proceed, the results the NHS commissioning body should achieve, and the procedural steps that should be taken. As I set out earlier, decision making will continue to be guided by the four reconfigurations tests. The new power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement play in service change decisions.
As the shadow Minister set out, the public expect Ministers to be accountable for the health service, which includes reconfigurations of it. The clause ensures that decisions made in the NHS that affect all our constituents are subject to democratic oversight. Without it, the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene and take decisions will remain limited, often coming at the end of a long local process. As now, he would not be alerted to a potential change in services until the change became an issue and he would remain powerless to intervene without a formal referral by a local authority.
I am conscious that that existing arrangement satisfies few in Parliament, including Opposition Members, on the occasions when they make representations about the process. However, it will be for this debate to see whether Members feel that the proposed new arrangement satisfies them—I will not prejudge that for a minute, looking at the faces of the Opposition Members. I therefore commend clause 38 and schedule 6 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I congratulate the Minister on his valiant attempts to defend the powers that he wishes the clause and schedule 6 to give his boss.
The Opposition are pretty realistic and do not think that the clause will survive the parliamentary process in its current form. It would save a lot of time if the Minister was to indicate now that he had taken note of the many concerns expressed and that things will change. However, as the clause remains on the face of the Bill, we will have to go through the long and important reasons why it will not be able to stand in its existing form. The Minister will continue to defend the indefensible until it no longer needs to be defended.
We have heard evidence as to why the powers in the clause are not needed and, indeed, why the Secretary of State would not want such powers. Again, we are trying to help the Minister and his Department out by pointing out some of the pitfalls. The clause really is the total antithesis of everything this Bill is supposed to be. The Minister has told us many times that he wants to take a permissive approach, but the truth, as exposed by this clause, is that being permissive is okay until it is not, and then we have the power grab, the micromanagement and the sound of bedpans dropping all the way up to the Secretary of State’s desk. That is the logical conclusion of the clause.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I want to speak generally to the clause and the schedule, rather than in support of any amendments. I thank the Minister for setting out the continued role of the IRP and the four tests that have been put in place. I am sure that all of us on the Committee have at some stage in our local communities faced a healthcare service reorganisation. They are very painful processes, as the hon. Member for Bristol South will recognise. We had a reconfiguration across both trusts in Bristol that began, I think, in around 2004 and has yet to be properly completed. They are incredibly painful processes that can leave local communities feeling disaffected and disempowered, whoever is taking the final decision.
We need to think carefully about the potential unintended consequences of the schedule as it stands. I have not tabled any amendments; I just want to raise potential concerns about the detail. In Bristol and south Gloucestershire, Cossham Hospital was provided to the local community by Handel Cossham, who was the Member of Parliament at the time for the east and south Bristol region. He was the only Member of Parliament who, I think, technically died in the Palace; he collapsed in the House of Commons Library and died of a heart attack. I think in those days they could not even claim that he had somehow survived.
Handel Cossham donated in his will land to the people of Kingswood, on which they built Cossham Hospital, named after him. Even before the NHS came into creation, therefore, Cossham Hospital was there, having been built in 1905. The local people of Kingswood, even though it sits in the Bristol East constituency now, felt very passionately that this was their hospital; it was not the NHS hospital. Yet there was a proposal to close Cossham Hospital, which was then reversed. In consequence, the decision was taken to close Frenchay Hospital in favour of a new hospital in Southmead. Frenchay Hospital was meant to become a community hospital, but a U-turn was taken by the healthcare authorities at the time—the clinical care commissioning groups and North Bristol Trust, which squabbled over who was in control because the land had been handed over from North Bristol to the CCG.
I benefited, when I was elected in 2010, from the “Save Cossham Hospital” campaign, which saw the very good Labour MP lose his seat. I faced battles when there were promises to put a minor injuries unit into Cossham Hospital and then there was another U-turn. Ultimately, no one has been held properly accountable, but the IRP published a report that demonstrated that North Bristol Trust had neglected its duty to communicate effectively with the public.
It is that element of communication with the public that I want to talk about in relation to schedule 6, because I have concerns. I agree with the Minister about removing the control of the health overview and scrutiny committees, because they became toxic platforms for councillors, who suddenly had to take decisions as local authority members. They did not know anything about them; all they knew was that their seats were at risk, so the committees were becoming highly politicised forums. People were turning up to the councils and demanding that councillors referred things to the IRP.
Perhaps the Minister can comment a bit more about the nature of who is doing the referral and who is contacting the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State will not necessarily be aware of all the reconfiguration decisions. Who is the active agent who is making the referral to the Secretary of State? Will it be a councillor, a member of the public or a Member of Parliament? My worry is that when we get to election time, the Secretary of State becomes a lightning conductor, and this will electrify decisions. For new colleagues in marginal seats in the red wall, this could be one of the decisions that creates the dynamic by which the general election is fought on various reconfigurations. The Opposition will claim that it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to deal with the matter and that he has let down local communities. That is the dynamic and toxic discussions that we have to avoid, if the provision comes into play.
I agree that the Secretary of State needs to have more information to hand and the ability to make decisions, but I am concerned about the definition in schedule 6, which states that
“‘reconfiguration of NHS services’ means a change in the arrangements made by an NHS commissioning body…that…has an impact on—
(a) the manner in which a service is delivered to individuals (at the point when the service is received by users), or
(b) the range of health services available to individuals.”
That is so broad that it could include the tiniest change. Mr Jones, a constituent of mine, might say, “Actually, this has impacted on my local provision of healthcare services for me. I want you to start a petition to the Secretary of State to change this.” I wonder whether there could be some conditionality placed within the definition that might touch on an overwhelming community interest, or something that might touch on the detriment of patient outcomes.
I believe that when we make reconfigurations, they are not necessarily done for financial reasons. They are done to deliver better patient outcomes, so we have to find a way for all political parties to demonstrate that when we put trust in professionals to take decisions, they are doing so because they recognise that there are ways in which reconfigurations can lead to better patient outcomes. We have to be able to move people in that journey. It is not just about the money when it comes to reconfigurations, and I understand that. As political leaders, it is worth supporting clinical decisions when they are the right ones for the benefit of patient outcomes, even if they are difficult decisions for us to take. Some reflection of that in the definition of “reconfiguration of NHS services” would be welcome.
Ultimately, it will come down to guidance, which is why the section on guidance is important. The Minister has mentioned guidance being published. Currently, paragraph 8 of schedule 6 only says:
“The Secretary of State must publish guidance for NHS commissioning bodies, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.”
I think we would all really welcome that guidance being extended to the local authority’s health overview and scrutiny committee, so that it can understand what role it is playing within this fiery dynamic.
What we really need to do with the clause is ensure that members of the general public understand what the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State are to any reconfiguration, and that they are set out very clearly to start with. Once we start going down the journey of a petition being collected, it gathers steam and therefore becomes a campaign. Suddenly, rather than having the Department of Health and Social Care, we have a new Department called the Department of Health and Reconfiguration Services, which is what we need to avoid. For the sake of the public and the community, we have to be able to demonstrate that reconfigurations will happen—that is the nature of the NHS. Decisions need to be taken when the facts change and the clinical outcomes change, and I recognise that fact. However, we have seen flip-flopping in Bristol eroding public trust. We need to ensure that, from the outset, people understand why the Secretary of State has these powers and the conditions under which he can take decisions, working with the IRP. We would welcome guidance, potentially for Members of Parliament and local authority members, so they are able to have advance conversations when constituents come to them saying, “I want you now to refer this to the Secretary of State” or “I’ve got a petition of 10 people who want to refer this to the Secretary of State.” They will then know exactly the context in which they can consult the Departments.
Those are the only points I want to make. I am not here to support any of the amendments, although I support the clause. I wanted to reflect on things that might be added in order to break down the granularity of detail, provide wider community context and make sure the public understand where the Secretary of State sits in this potential conversation around reconfiguration.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingswood. I feel the need for us to write a book or a pamphlet about the planned reconfiguration of health services in Bristol from my time on the board. I agree with a lot of what he said about the Kingswood-Frenchay area, but I hold the reconfiguration up as a good example of wider consultation, clinical leadership and patient and public involvement.
Some of the messiness we got into reflected healthy discussion of the issues. As he said, we are still going through the process, but at the end of those long days we managed to build two very good, specialised hospitals, particularly around A&E services, and therefore close an A&E service. Although not a clinician, I had lots of work in the Frenchay area at the time and it was a terrible place to work and deliver clinical services, having been built as temporary wartime provision, although it was much loved by local people. That is something we might reflect on at another time. The process continues. We have just closed the consultation on stroke services, and other good services, including primary community care services, have come about as a result of the reconfiguration. Reducing a hospital base from three to two is a major exercise, but it did happen.
The points made by the right hon. Gentleman were well made, as were those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. We could play good cop, bad cop, because I am disappointed that the Minister is not taking the very helpful hands that I have offered to find more ways around this, rather than saying that we just want to see the whole lot come out. It will come out eventually—I think we all know that—but along the way let us put some helpful things in place.
My amendments deal with health overview and scrutiny committees and clinical advice. I will not press them to a vote, but I would like the Minister to address them. I think they might appear in similar form in other places, at other times, so what we say is important.
The Government need to account for where and how they are going to get their clinical advice. Reconfigurations, both large and small, are important to local people, as hon. Members have said. The Cossham example is a good one. Some of those buildings do not belong to the NHS. They belong to local communities and pre-date the NHS. People love buildings and their associations. As we embrace technology, we can see that people like buildings because they are something they can grab hold of and understand.
Clinicians—and clinical advice about change—are crucial in allowing and facilitating change. As with politicians, if there are three clinicians in the room then often there will not be one single answer. The issues about what we should be moving towards are often not black and white. The whole vexed issue around the tests and where clinical advice comes from is problematic for the Government and the Secretary of State.
As my hon. Friends have said, the national clinical advisory team did independent reviews, and then that disappeared. We have looked at clinical senates. The Lansley test, which has been alluded to, wanted clarity about a clinical evidence base. In order to provide such clarity, a lot of clinicians need to come together, across specialities and across primary and secondary care, to agree and to then go and talk to the public, to make people understand why and when they are putting forward their propositions.
The timing is interesting, because the test assumed the support of GP commissioners. In this new world, there is no clinical leadership of these new bodies; they are managerially led. Some of the managers might be clinicians, but when the tests were established—this was also true of primary care trusts—the previous bodies in their previous incarnations were largely clinically led. We may dispute whether that was in actuality, whether those people were acting as clinicians, what sort of clinicians they were, whether they were clinicians in the field of the service reconfiguration we were talking about and so on, but that is an important point in terms of trust with the general public.
The new bodies are not clinically led. In my amendment, I suggest the ICB medical director, but that will be a pretty tall order for the ICB medical director even in my amendments. They are also supposed genuinely to promote patient choice. We talked earlier about the removal of autonomy, and what we are seeking to do in many of our amendments to the Bill is to put back the voice of the patient somewhere in this permissive integration world.
The other test was generally to enjoy public, patient and local authority support. While poor old Lord Lansley is not getting much praise in these meetings, some sort of provision for tests with the public, local authorities and clinicians, recognising the complexity that has been outlined particularly well by the right hon. Member for Kingswood, still living through some of this, is well made.
I do not think the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wants all this on his desk. In my time in this place I have watched with great interest, as I am sure we all have, as hon. Members across Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire and all across the south-west have all risen at various times to bring up the issue of their community hospital, their A&E and various other services in their part of the country. Those issues are keenly felt and will all need consideration. Somebody—largely clinicians, and then other managerial people in those bodies—will have to sift out those processes.
What is alarming people, as we heard in evidence from our excellent witnesses—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston outlined the key arguments—is that there is a gap. Who is filling it? How is it being filled? That is not just about process; it is about serious clinical engagement. That is why the Minister would be wise to pick up some of the helpful amendments that have been tabled, to alter this; otherwise it disappears completely. I think it was Nigel Edwards from the Nuffield Trust who said it is working pretty well at the moment.
We will all have our points in time where we disagree with things, and we will all want to bring in something else. That is partly our role as elected representatives, and I know the NHS does not like politics and politicians getting involved in these things sometimes, but it is the job of local representatives, whether local councillors or local Members of Parliament, to articulate on behalf of their constituents, to understand the debates and issues, to mediate them and certainly to challenge clinicians and managers of all types on the veracity of the proposals they put through.
The other thing I have said publicly is that sometimes the evidence put forward is not as robust as it should be. That external local scrutiny is well served by those of us who take a strong interest and ensure that the veracity of that information is solid. I have been able to go back to constituents—it is a brave politician who goes back to a constituent to say, “No, actually, I think we need to close that A&E,” but frankly, as we have seen from various reconfigurations across the country, at times that saves lives and is the right thing to do. Giving people locally the support to articulate that is also important.
Edward Argar
I fear we may not have consensus in Committee at this point, but none the less I will endeavour to answer some of the points raised. I am always grateful to the shadow Minister for his kind offers of help and assistance, and he will know that I always reflect carefully on the evidence we have heard and on the opinions of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I welcome his welcoming of the publication of the impact assessment in time for him to be able to quote it back at me. Finally, I thank him for his heartfelt and kindly offer of alternative approaches, given his concern for my workload were these proposals to be approved. I am touched on a number of levels by that, and equally by his suggestion that I and others have been engaged in the dark arts of spin—heaven forbid.
In the context of clause 38 and these amendments, right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, have raised a number of important points that bear further reflection. As we have said throughout this process, the challenge with this Bill is striking the right balance between being permissive and ensuring accountability at a national level, and we believe this clause plays a key part in doing so. I disagree with the shadow Minister’s view—although I respect it—that the clause does not strike the right balance, and I do not believe that the powers set out in it are disproportionate, as he has suggested. He has highlighted the role of the IRP. I mentioned my gratitude for its work in my opening remarks, and I was very clear that that work will continue. The IRP will continue to give the valuable advice it has given thus far.
I do not believe that the notification requirements will prove unduly onerous: a notification can be a very simple process. To the shadow Minister’s point about timeliness, process and definitions, we are working very closely with the NHS and other partners to produce guidance that will set out clear expectations about how and when the powers will be used, and how they will be exercised. In his remarks, he touched on a concern that Ministers might be beset by lobbying from the public and others. I would argue that such lobbying would clearly point to greater public engagement with such matters and increased transparency, which are things that we might welcome. For fear of upsetting my hon. Friend the Whip, the Member for St Austell and Newquay, I will pass over the invitation that the shadow Minister and others have extended to my colleagues on the Government Benches to break the Whip. I saw the expression on my hon. Friend’s face when that was suggested, so I strongly discourage any of my right hon. or hon. Friends from contemplating that course of action. Even though a reshuffle has only just happened, there is always another one at some point.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Health Service Journal, which I enjoy reading. All I would say is that we continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, as we have done throughout the process. Indeed, I think that in her evidence, Dame Gill Morgan highlighted the collaborative nature of the genesis of this Bill. I intend to continue with an open and transparent approach, discussing with colleagues and engaging with them and others, because we know that we can always learn by listening.
Justin Madders
I am finding the Minister’s response very entertaining, but he really does need to tell us exactly what is wrong with the current system that this Bill is going to fix.
Edward Argar
I will come to the shadow Minister’s point, but I just want to get through the points he made earlier in his preamble. He mentioned the quote in the Health Service Journal article from a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care, and I think that quote accurately reflects the nature of this Bill. I am grateful to those officials from the Department who ensured that the Health Service Journal got its quote.
I now turn to the substance of the shadow Minister’s argument and some of the gritter points that he, the hon. Member for Bristol South and others have alluded to. Fundamentally, he asked what challenge this Bill seeks to resolve. He asked a few other questions as well, which I will try to answer.
We believe that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in reconfigurations for which they are ultimately accountable, and that this proposal will increase accountability to Parliament and the community by enabling intervention at an earlier stage. Too often, controversial proposals are referred at the very end of the process after a huge amount of work, effort and expenditure, rather than at an earlier stage when there is already a divergence of opinion in the local community. The Bill gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to take a view—based on advice and on the IRP’s four tests, which will continue to be the basis of that—and to get earlier intervention, where appropriate. That is one of the key reasons.
I will carry on, and the shadow Minister will nod if I am missing anything. He touched on local authority engagement, who can refer, whether there is a diminution in power—I think the hon. Member for Bristol South might have mentioned that—and what qualifies the Secretary of State to make those decisions. He also referred to local knowledge.
Karin Smyth
We could spend a lot of time on this, but I think the Minister is saying that this could happen if there is a dispute within the public at any stage—perhaps at the outline business case, perhaps at the initial raising at the ICB or perhaps at the floating of the idea. That is clearly nonsense, if I may say so. Will the guidance define what “any stage” means?
Edward Argar
We anticipate the guidance setting out what is proportionate, the criteria and the appropriate point at which an intervention can be considered. I come back to the point that too often, under the current arrangement, proposals come forward right at the end of the process, after huge amounts of expenditure, effort and time, only to be overturned—potentially at the very last moment—on the basis of the referral. Having a measured and proportionate intervention power at an earlier stage is the right approach to save a lot of angst and possibly money, although we do not anticipate that the power will need to be used on many occasions, because the vast majority of reconfigurations are broadly consensual, or reach a local consensus.
The shadow Minister alluded to local authority referrals, and the hon. Member for Bristol South has highlighted the importance of local authorities and local accountability in a number of previous speeches and interventions. The new call-in power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement play in service change decisions. Decision making on all reconfigurations, as I said, will continue to be bound by the four tests against which reconfiguration should be assured: strong public and patient engagement; consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice; a clear clinical evidence base; and support for proposals from clinical commissioners.
The IRP will continue to provide the independent clinical advice to inform the Secretary of State’s decision making. His scrutiny and direction-making process must take into account the public law decision-making principles, all relevant information and all legal duties, including the public sector equality duty.
In that context, the Secretary of State will also continue to be bound by his duty on quality of service. That includes promoting the comprehensive health service and securing continuous improvement in the quality of services provided. The new call-in power for reconfiguration will allow the Secretary of State to support effective change and to be more responsive to the concerns of the public—and of Members of Parliament as their representatives—at an earlier stage.
Justin Madders
Reflecting on the Minister’s comments about why the provision is needed, my understanding is that the power to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage means that, in effect, local health systems will not spend an awful lot of time and effort coming to decisions that will ultimately be overturned. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any more detail or any thoughts about why, in a system that was generally thought to be working well, a decision could go all the way through that process and, at the end of it, be deemed to be wrong.
Edward Argar
One particular example comes to mind, but given that it is a live one, I will not use it. However, if I semi-anonymise it, there are decisions that are made locally and followed through, and only at that last moment is the process challenged—for example, whether a consultation was done properly—so it triggers a potential referral to the IRP, which could see that process overturned. An earlier power to intervene and an earlier opportunity to engage could in many cases avoid that problem and lead to a smoother process.
Let me make a final point. I would expect most reconfiguration decisions to be managed by the local system, and system players will be encouraged to resolve matters locally where possible and not to require any referral to the Secretary of State. Where cases are highly contentious and require ministerial input, our proposals will allow the Secretary of State to intervene. He is accountable in Parliament for reconfigurations. The shadow Minister made the broader point that if we ask who is responsible for the NHS, people will say the Secretary of State, or potentially the Prime Minister. That is already there in people’s minds. It is right that we have commensurate powers in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to properly discharge that function and accountability.
I remain touched by the hon. Gentleman’s kind concern about the volume of work I may end up having to do as a result of the measure. I do not quite share his concerns, but I am none the less touched by the thought.
I urge the hon. Member for Bristol South, perhaps in vain, not to press her amendment to a Division, and colleagues on the Committee to support the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 40 and 41 stand part.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 42 stand part.
Clauses 44 to 50 stand part.
Edward Argar
With your indulgence, Mr McCabe, and that of the Committee, I will start with clause 39, followed by clauses 40 and 41 and schedule 7, and then go through the remaining clauses in the group.
Clause 39 amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by repealing section 179, which abolishes NHS trusts in England. It is an uncommenced provision. The policy intention at the time was that all NHS trusts would become foundation trusts. However, since then the provider landscape has settled at around one third NHS trusts and two thirds NHS foundation trusts, and, as far as I am aware, no applications for change to a foundation trust are currently in flight. There is no intention to alter this landscape significantly and, as such, section 179 of the 2012 Act should be repealed. Doing so provides absolute legal clarity that the Secretary of State can create new NHS trusts under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Given the ongoing pandemic, and with the NHS having to deal with the broader challenge of treating an ageing population with ever more complex needs, we seek to ensure flexibility by allowing the Secretary of State to set up new trusts for any purpose, to ensure alignment within an integrated system. The ability to create new trusts, where they are requested by a local area, enables the NHS to be structured to deliver the best outcomes for population health and to respond to emerging priorities. Our aim is to ensure that the system is flexible and adaptable in the future, and wherever possible to avoid the need for complex workarounds to deliver system priorities. Although section 179 was never commenced, we want to remove any potential legal uncertainty over the Secretary of State’s ability to create new NHS trusts. Clause 39 removes the lack of clarity around the Secretary of State’s ability to do so.
Clause 40 repeals paragraph 10 of schedule 4 to the 2006 Act. This paragraph allows the Secretary of State to appoint trustees for an NHS trust to hold property on trust. The clause removes the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint such trustees. In practice, these powers have only ever been used to appoint trustees to NHS charities. Historically, NHS charities were charities regulated under charity law provisions but were also linked to NHS bodies and bound by NHS legislation. This means that they were charitable trusts established under the 2006 Act and had as their trustee an NHS body, such as an NHS trust or foundation trust. The 2006 Act also allowed the Secretary of State to appoint trustees to NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts, and to transfer property.
Since the publication of the Government’s response to the review of regulation and governance of NHS charities in 2014, it has been our policy for all NHS charities to move to independent status. Since then, all NHS charities have moved to independent status, including the 21 larger charities that had trustees appointed by the Secretary of State. Therefore, there are no NHS charities with trustees appointed by the Secretary of State, and all NHS charities are solely regulated by the Charity Commission. In light of the above, and as there is no further need for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to appoint trustees, clause 40 will remove such powers.
Clause 41 introduces schedule 7, which makes minor and consequential amendments relating to clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill. Clause 39 repeals section 179 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and clause 40 repeals paragraph 10 of schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006 and removes the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees. In order to implement the changes as a result of these clauses, schedule 7 makes consequential amendments to various other pieces of legislation, such as the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and the NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Act 2016. This ensures that the changes made by the Bill in relation to clauses 39 and 40 are consistently represented throughout other pieces of legislation. These minor and consequential amendments are necessary to clarify the Secretary of State’s ability to create new NHS trusts and to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint NHS trustees.
Clause 42 makes changes to the licensing regime for NHS trusts. The clause removes the exemption in the licensing regime for NHS trusts, meaning that all NHS trusts will require a licence from NHS England to operate. This reflects the intention that NHS England should manage both NHS trusts and foundation trusts, which already have to have licences, in similar ways. This has been NHS Improvement’s de facto practice for some time, and this amendment brings trusts within the scope of NHS England’s licensing and regulatory powers.
NHS England intends to use this as a means to manage all NHS providers more effectively and coherently, to ensure they are fulfilling their statutory duties and delivering high-quality, financially sustainable healthcare.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister’s admirably comprehensive coverage of the clauses, which I will try to meet in similar terms.
We recognise that the clauses address a number of technical changes to the status of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in this country. We do not oppose them as we think they are consistent with the broader aims of the Bill: moving us from a world of competition to one of collaboration. I recognise that there is a great deal of transposition in the clauses, so very little will be different in substance, and that is why I will probe the Minister, who may well have pulled his punches with them. Why did he not go further?
In reality, the clauses, which are a significant part of the Bill, tidy up previous Acts but do not change enough of their substance. Nothing in the clauses—as with far too much in the Bill—will make anybody better, shorten waiting times, ensure safer staffing levels, address crumbling facilities, or do anything about the other myriad issues faced by the health service and Ministers. The Bill is in danger of creating the illusion of acting without really acting, like repainting a building and pretending it is a new hospital.
On clause 39, I listened carefully to what the Minister said about there being no plans to unsettle or change the provider landscape, meaning it is necessary to end the assumption that all NHS trusts will become foundation trusts. I agree with that basic principle because the debate has moved on significantly from that. It is less about a competition-based system and more about a system of collaboration. Indeed, as the Minister said, notably, there is a greater focus on the ICS as the unit of understanding in the community rather than the acute hospital.
As a result of that, however—this is not in the Bill —we will have two tiers, or two different sets of trusts, littering the landscape. We will entrench a system of trusts that are simultaneously autonomous and not, competitive and not, responsible for their own bottom lines and not, and free to spend their accumulated capital and not. That is a mess. If we tried to explain to a dispassionate observer why different trusts could do different things, we would not be able to. Were we designing a system from scratch, we would never design it like that. I would argue that the Bill is the closest we will come to designing a system from scratch, so I am surprised that that two-tier system has not been addressed in a more meaningful way. That would send a strong signal that NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are fully part—not semi-detached parts—of the NHS. They are public bodies and we expect them to act like public bodies.
On clause 40, I do not think I had anything to ask the Minister beyond the points that he made. Clause 41 deals with consequential amendments.
On clause 42, and at the risk of asking a daft question, although I do not think it is, but we will find out, what is the point of licensing trusts? Is this not just creating a bogus sense of distance from the centre, when actually the rest of the Bill is designed to consolidate NHS England as the regulator, the funder and the powerful operator? Why create this licensed distance between NHS England and its providers, other than the fact that it has been custom and practice for the past 10 to 20 years to do so? Is the licence really going to be worth the bother of printing out, or is it not just a legacy of a model of independence and composition that successive Acts have featured, but from which there is now a universal keenness to move on?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his indication of broad support for our proposals. He is right: there is a significant degree of transposition and replication of what was there before, while recognising the new landscape. He asked why we did not go further; when we debated clause 38, he accused me of going too far. I suspect, from his perspective, that the question of balance has yet to be achieved, but I think we have struck the appropriate balance.
In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister said that while this is all useful and neat, it does not address some of the underlying challenges. I would argue that the Government have set out a very clear strategy for that in the NHS Funding Act 2020—I think I stood across from the shadow Minister for that one, which was a rather shorter piece of legislation—and, of course, the recent announcement by the Prime Minister, setting out the record additional funding going into the NHS.
On the specifics, I do not believe that foundation trusts mean a two-tier NHS. There are different models, and we are not proposing to stop the formation of foundation trusts—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has already enjoyed asking me a polite but pointed question in that regard. However, we are not going to compel it; we are not saying that that is the direction, and therefore we do not see the need for section 179. We are not saying that everyone must move in that direction. However, we will retain the ability for them to do so, should they wish.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North raised the issue of intervention, support and similar matters. There are different definitions of those concepts. For example, on the purpose of a default order, when one of those is issued, chairholders must immediately vacate their office. The order must
“provide for the appointment…of new members of the body and…contain such provisions as seem to the Secretary of State expedient for authorising any person to act in the place of the body pending the appointment.”
An intervention order may provide for the suspension or
“removal from office of all the members”
of the board,
“or those specified in the order, and for their replacement”.
An intervention is essentially quite a strong power. I would suggest that support takes a less prescriptive form and refers—as we would all understand the term—to support, advice or guidance. There is a difference in the level and severity of the interventions required.
On equivalent treatment in respect of foundation trusts and NHS trusts, one intention behind the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement is to bring together the way we support providers, trusts and foundations so that there is a single model of support and one licensing approach. NHS England will—I suspect through guidance—clarify further how that will work in practice.
I take the points made by the shadow Minister. He perhaps sees these provisions as an opportunity to go further and address other issues that he perceives to be challenges for the system. We have deliberately sought to make this a transposition. It is technical, but we think these technical changes are important to ensure that NHS England retains the powers it needs to support, intervene and make sure that the system works. Although I will, as always, continue to reflect on the points he makes, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 and 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
NHS trusts: wider effect of decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I hope I can reassure you, Mr McCabe, and the Committee that I do not intend to speak for anywhere near as long as I did on the previous group.
Edward Argar
I hear the cries of disappointment from the Opposition.
Clause 43 places a new duty on English NHS trusts, and clause 57 places a new duty on NHS foundation trusts, to have regard to the wider effects of their decisions. The duty, which was described in the NHS long-term plan as the triple aim, is mirrored for NHS England and the proposed integrated care boards. NHS England will be able to produce guidance on the duty that all bodies to which it applies must have regard. That duty is also given effect by clauses 4 and 19 in relation to other bodies, which we debated earlier.
As is indicated by the name, the duty has three limbs. First, NHS trusts and foundation trusts must consider the impact of decisions on the health, including mental health, and wellbeing of the people of England. Secondly, they must consider the impact on the quality of services provided or arranged by relevant NHS organisations, including their own. Thirdly, they must consider the sustainable use of NHS resources, including their own resources.
Decisions about particular individuals are excluded. It would not be practical or appropriate to apply the duty to decisions concerning services to be provided to any particular individual—for example, treatment decisions made by clinicians. The existing duties on those bodies encourage a focus on the interests of their own organisation and those who directly use their services. Although delivery of high-quality services remains critical, the new duty will complement other changes in the Bill to facilitate co-operative working and integration. It will encourage NHS organisations to continue to look at their communities beyond the people they directly provide services to and to consider collaborative, system-wide goals.
Following the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement, NHS England will be responsible for setting and modifying the conditions contained in the licences of NHS providers. Clause 65 adds a new purpose for which NHS England may set or modify licence conditions: namely, that of ensuring that decisions relating to the provision of healthcare services for the NHS are made having regard to all their likely effects in relation to the three limbs of the triple aim.
Given that I have just discussed the triple aim in relation to clauses 43 and 57, I will not repeat the same arguments. As a consequence of this clause, NHS England will be able to set licence conditions aimed at ensuring that NHS trusts and foundation trusts comply with the new triple aim duty. Conditions relating to the triple aim in licences will ensure that the objectives of the new duty are considered alongside providers’ other duties and licence obligations. That in turn will encourage trusts and foundation trusts to consider the wider effects of their decisions and work on collaborative goals to the benefit of the whole system.
These clauses are essential in encouraging the components of our healthcare system to work together co-operatively and considerately, with an awareness of the wider effects of their decisions. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I, similarly, will not go on at great length. The clauses are consistent with the stated aim to move from competition to a culture of collaboration. It is therefore right that under clause 43, NHS trusts will have regard to the impacts of the decisions that they make on their neighbours, with particular reference to promoting the triple aim.
I want to press the point about what is meant by “relevant bodies” in proposed new subsection (4). The Bill states that it means NHS England, the integrated care board, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. All of those, of course, make abundant sense. However, we are missing an opportunity to extend it more broadly to the health and social care family, within which the Bill is meant to promote integration. The obvious exclusion is local authorities.
In previous proceedings, the Minister chided me for jumping about in respect of whether he was going too far or not far enough. I am going to take the cheese on that. There is no inconsistency between saying that in one provision—for example, the powers of the Secretary of State—the Government are going too far, and in another—for example, the status of NHS trusts—they are not going far enough. Provided that those two things are not interdependent, of course the Government might be going too far on one thing and not far enough on another. I reserve the right to say that as I see it.
I might just go back to the Minister at this point on jumping around, because the Bill started as an integration Bill. It was going to be the great integration of health and social care, and what a moment this was going to be in British healthcare history—probably second only to 1948. Obviously, that fell apart straight away because there is not much about social care in the Bill—only two clauses out of 135. Then the Prime Minister said, “Don’t worry, we are going to come back with an integration White Paper in due course.” Presumably legislation would follow that. At that point, the Minister said that this was a paving Bill.
Alex Norris
Foundation is even lower than paving, so I am not sure that that is a recommending analysis. Then earlier today, the Minister said that of course integration could take many forms. It could be integration of many bodies, and in this case many bodies within the NHS could be integrated. I gently say that, if we are wondering what exactly we are integrating, the title of the legislation is the Health and Care Bill, so I would start with health and care. I think we are missing that opportunity.
The reason for local authorities not being on this list may well be that we cannot bind the NHS to other non-NHS bodies, but that makes my case rather than argues against it. It is therefore not an integration Bill; it is just an NHS Bill. We will come back—that is the point. I keep saying this for a reason. We will have to come back to address that point, because the reason we are considering primary legislation is that systems have outstripped the status of legislation on the statute book. However, if we do not go far enough to catch up with them, we will have to do so in the future. There is an aspiration to do that sort of integration not just within the NHS, but within the broader health and care family. I really think that while it is not too late, we ought to consider what more we could do to put local authorities into this conversation.
As for clause 57, it is welcome that these duties also apply to foundation trusts, but it again highlights the fact that we are going to get to a point where the difference between a foundation trust and other trusts will be a distinction without a difference. We really ought to think about revisiting that, and I hope we will get the chance to do so yet.
Finally, of course it makes sense to amend licences, even if it perhaps does not make sense to have licences. I hope that the Minister can respond in particular to the point about local authorities.
Edward Argar
I have always been clear that the Bill adopts an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to driving forward greater integration, not only within the NHS in a locality but between the NHS and local authorities. On multiple levels, this is a Bill about integration and partnership working, and of course one on which the Prime Minister, ambitious as he always is for this country, wishes to build and go further.
The shadow Minister asked some specific questions about local authorities. The reality is that there is a different evolution and genesis in our local government system and the social care that sits with it, compared with the NHS. Up until 1948, effectively we saw that both were local and place-based. The National Health Service Act 1946 and the establishment of the NHS in 1948 set the NHS on a different path, which essentially looked upwards. It was a national system, albeit place-based, and it was national in its accountabilities, whereas local government continues to be based around different accountabilities at a local level.
Although it is important that we do exactly what we are doing, as the Prime Minister continues to, which is to drive forward greater partnership working and integration, we have to recognise those different developmental paths and the challenges they pose. In that context, local authorities do have, as the shadow Minister knows from his time in local government, their own distinct duties and accountabilities. The triple aim should lead NHS bodies to engage with local authorities—for example, in considering the health and wellbeing of the people in England or in their area. It pushes and nudges the NHS to think more widely about how it engages.
Equally, it is important to note that there are other measures in the Bill, such as the ICBs and the partnerships, that bring together those two bodies with their distinct DNA. We want to make it easier for them to work together in partnership and to integrate further, but we do recognise those different accountabilities and approaches —one directly accountable through local councillors to a local community, and the other part of a national system. These measures, we believe, will drive the NHS to go further in having heed to those local factors. That may not fully answer the shadow Minister’s point, but I hope it goes some way to doing so. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 44 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Murray. With your indulgence, I will speak to each of the clauses in turn.
Clause 51 amends section 88 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Section 88 requires that Monitor—or, in future, NHS England—treats an NHS trust that has become an NHS foundation trust as having made an application and met the criteria for a licence. The clause will require NHS England to apply that provision when that queue of NHS trusts waiting to become foundation trusts do so—[Laughter.] I hope the Committee will forgive my gentle reference to what the shadow Minister said last time. On a more serious note, the clause will also require NHS England to apply it when a foundation trust is created as a result of the merger of an existing foundation trust with an NHS trust or another foundation trust, or the separation of one foundation trust into two or more new foundation trusts.
Clause 51 clarifies the situation when new foundation trusts are created, merged or separated and ensures there is no unnecessary bureaucracy as a result. It is an important clarification for NHS England on how to exercise its licensing powers in such situations, should they arise.
We are investing record levels of capital expenditure into the NHS to help it build back better after the pandemic. We intend to set capital expenditure budgets at integrated care board level, and we expect providers to work with ICB partners to agree capital expenditure, in line with the ICB capital plan. To ensure that the interests of the wider system are taken into account at individual provider level, clause 52 provides a new power to allow NHS England to make an order imposing capital expenditure limits for NHS foundation trusts.
That narrow and reserved power will ensure that a limit can be set only for an individually named foundation trust for a specified period, and would automatically cease at the end of that period. The power relates solely to capital expenditure and not to revenue expenditure. NHS England must also consult the foundation trust before making the order. There will be clear transparency, as the order will be published.
In applying to an individual foundation trust in particular circumstances, the power stands in contrast to the capital limits that apply to all NHS trusts. The power is likely to be used where there is a clear risk of an ICB breaching its system capital envelope as a result of non-co-operation by that foundation trust, and when other ways of resolution have been unsuccessful.
NHS England must set out in guidance the circumstances in which it is likely to set a capital limit and how it will calculate it. NHS England intends to work closely with foundation trusts to develop that guidance. I want to make it clear to the Committee that the clauses are not intended in any way as an erosion of the autonomy enjoyed by foundation trusts. Unlike NHS trusts, foundation trusts will continue to have additional financial freedoms, such as the ability to borrow money from commercial lenders. However, the clause is crucial for managing NHS capital expenditure across a system and to ensure that all NHS providers operate within the ICB capital limits. Without that control, other NHS providers may have to reduce their capital spending to ensure that the NHS lives within its allotted capital resources and that resources are spent in a way that best delivers for patients and the taxpayer.
The provisions in clause 53 are largely a consequence of the merger of NHS England and Monitor, in this case reflecting Monitor’s oversight role in relation to foundation trusts. Subsection (1) gives foundation trusts greater flexibility in their forward plans. Paragraph (a) removes requirements currently in the National Health Service Act 2006 concerning the content of the forward plan. Paragraph (b) removes the requirements for the forward plan to be prepared by the foundation trust’s directors and for the directors to have regard to the views of the foundation trust’s governors when preparing the forward plan.
Foundation trusts will no longer be mandated to set out information in the forward planning documentation around non-health service activity and income. The clause also removes the requirement for governors to be mandated to determine whether the foundation trust’s forward plan interferes with the trust’s health service activity.
As the Committee will know by now, and as a consequence of the abolition of Monitor and its merger with NHS England, NHS England will formally become responsible for the support and oversight of foundation trusts, which includes taking on Monitor’s regulatory and intervention powers. That change will enable improved oversight and greater flexibility across the system. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill make the detailed changes, including formally giving NHS England responsibility for giving directions in relation to the content and form of foundation trust accounts. That includes specifying information to be included in the annual reports and accounts of foundation trusts.
The clause is simply part of transitioning the provider-based functions of Monitor into NHS England, ensuring continuity of oversight of foundation trusts’ accounting and forward planning. NHS England will be able to provide fundamental advice and guidance to foundation trusts in the exercise of their functions. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will formally allow NHS England to monitor the performance of foundation trusts and to take steps to intervene where necessary, which may take the form of advice and support. As we discussed on a previous occasion, however, it may also involve NHS England requesting the trust to take action to remedy emerging issues. At the same time, the clause makes the requirements on annual plans more flexible, to reflect the direction of travel towards system-wide, rather than organisation-specific, planning.
I turn now to clause 54, which inserts proposed new section 47A into the National Health Service Act 2006 and allows an NHS FT to carry out its functions jointly with another person, should the foundation trust consider such arrangements to be appropriate. That would allow a foundation trust to exercise its healthcare delivery functions jointly with another foundation trust as part of a provider collaborative. The clause will make it easier for FTs to work with partners across the health system to develop integrated, seamless services in the best interests of patients.
Clause 55 amends sections 56, 56A and 56B of the 2006 Act, which relate to the merger, acquisition, separation and dissolution of NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts. It removes the requirement that an application to acquire or merge an NHS FT with another NHS FT or an English NHS trust be supported by the Secretary of State if one of the parties is an NHS trust. NHS England will now consider each application, but the Secretary of State’s role has been strengthened, as he must now approve such applications. However, NHS England will consider the applications and provide advice. That is in keeping with the policy intention that the Secretary of State should have a strengthened accountability role for NHS foundation trusts, in the light of the transfer of Monitor and NHS Trust Development Authority functions to NHS England. NHS England replaces Monitor in the relevant sections of the NHS Act 2006.
Like Monitor, NHS England has a duty to grant the application to merge, acquire or separate if it is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken to prepare for an acquisition or the dissolution and establishment of new trusts. Additionally, the clause adds a further requirement to each of the sections, which provides that NHS England must refuse an application if the Secretary of State does not approve it. That strengthens the role of the Secretary of State in the process, and it will be for NHS England to take note of the Secretary of State’s comments in taking forward its plans. The clause provides for enhanced oversight and places strategic decision making in the health system in the hands of NHS England, while also conferring a commensurate and important role on Ministers, in line with the direction of accountability set out in the Bill.
Clause 56 relates to the transitioning of the provider-based functions of Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England. That will allow NHS England to grant an application by an NHS foundation trust for dissolution. The clause confers the powers that rested with Monitor to transfer or provide for the transfer of property of an NHS foundation trust on its dissolution. Previously, on the dissolution of an NHS FT, Monitor had the power to transfer the property of the NHS FT to the Secretary of State. The clause amends that power so that, when making an order to dissolve an NHS foundation trust, NHS England now has the power to make an order to transfer, or provide for the transfer of, property and liabilities to another NHS FT, an NHS trust or the Secretary of State. The clause also includes a new duty for NHS England to include the transfer of any employees of a dissolved NHS FT in the transfer order.
Taken together, these clauses ensure that foundation trusts are able to play a central role in a more integrated and collaborative healthcare system. As part of that, the clauses also provide NHS England with the powers it will need to help support NHS FTs. I therefore commend clauses 51 to 56 to the Committee and propose that they stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mrs Murray. I am glad you enjoyed Tuesday so much that you came back for another round. We will do our best to inform and entertain as we go along.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Department’s position on the clauses. We really need to have another go, don’t we, at trying to understand the landscape for foundation trusts? I have already referred the Committee to the description of foundation trusts when they were first established, as vigorous, autonomous, business-like new organisations that would shake up the NHS and bring choice and competition into healthcare. As we know, there was no evidence that that model did any better than the previous standard trusts, once the high performers had been accounted for.
The Minister’s contention that the clauses do nothing to impinge on a foundation trust’s autonomy is quite the claim. The big change in the clauses is the stripping away of financial autonomy, as set out in clause 52, directly contradicting the many occasions when we have been told that the Bill is all about permissiveness, local decision making and accountability. In clause 55, we also see the Secretary of State giving himself yet more powers.
Clause 52(2) could, in effect, mean there was an indefinite block on foundation trusts using their own capital resources. Will there be any limitations on what is a broad power? I refer to the evidence from Dr Chaand Nagpaul, who touched on that:
“At the moment, we are seeing foundation trusts thinking about their budgets, community providers thinking about theirs, and general practice as well. There is not even collaboration between the community and the hospital. No foundation trust currently has the ability to say, for example, ‘We will go beyond our budget and invest in the community—it may actually reduce our hospital admissions.’ At the moment there is no structure or processes to enable collaboration even within the NHS.”—[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 93, Q120.]
Dr Nagpaul sets out very well the lack of clarity that we still have about how finances will work at a local level within an ICB, and clause 52 gives foundation trusts even less autonomy in that respect.
On that point, I noted with interest today yet another Health Service Journal article, which talked about how integrated care partnerships may not be up and running for some time after the ICB has been set up. That raises questions about what their role is going to be in helping to form those capital priorities for an integrated care system.
In other evidence, Richard Murray said:
“The bit that I think is really uncertain is how the big hospital schemes get picked. That is the bit that looks very different. Obviously, there is a manifesto commitment.”—
although we know that, in recent times, the Government have not been so keen to follow those commitments. He continued:
“There used to be a process by which it was determined whether providers could afford to repay—if they could do it through loans, or if there was a need system. That is now going off in a completely different place, and I think that is the bit that is not quite clear. How does that work within this system? Who gets to choose how those projects get picked, so to speak?”—[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 118, Q158.]
I appreciate that the point is slightly off-piste, but as we are talking about capital expenditure it is appropriate to raise it, and I am sure the Minister will take the opportunity in his response to set out that process in more detail. At the same time, can he set out in more detail what the guidance set out in proposed new section 42C would entail? Hopefully we will be able to set out some broad points in respect of that.
While we are on the Minister’s response, will he consider the broader point we made on Tuesday about foundation trusts’ focus on involvement of patients and the public and whether that needs to be strengthened across the board? He needs to think again about the whole question of accountability on ICBs.
To go back to the essential question, are foundation trusts now any different to plain, old-school NHS trusts? Is a foundation trust now a dodo? Is it extinct or on its way out? If an ambitious young chief executive of a trust were to approach the Minister and say they were thinking of putting in an application for foundation trust status, what would the Minister say to them about the benefits of such an application, both to their trust and to the wider healthcare system?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his suggestion of a consolidation Act. I can tell just how much he enjoys the sessions we spend in Committee and how eager he is that, no sooner do we finish, than we are back in another Bill Committee together. In terms of his gentle gibe about reorganisation in another two years, there was roughly a two-year gap between the 1999, then the 2001, then the 2003 and then the 2006 reorganisations of the NHS under the previous Government. I fear this is something that affects Governments of all types.
Justin Madders
Indeed, but the point that we would make is that there was such a mess to clear up after 18 years of Conservative Government that we had to do a lot of reorganisations. If the Minister can state for the record that there will be no reorganisations within a specified timescale, we would all be delighted to hear that.
Edward Argar
We must always retain flexibility so that the legislative framework reflects the evolving nature of healthcare provision in this country and we can we deliver what all our constituents want us to.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of licensing. The licence applies to anyone providing NHS services, including the independent sector. With the system oversight framework, it provides a tool that helps to ensure quality across all types of providers in a consistent way, hence the importance that we still attach to it.
At the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s speech were his points about foundation trusts, a 2004 innovation. The reason we are introducing these changes is that we recognise not only the ability of foundation trusts to be autonomous, but the need for them to collaborate and integrate. The aim is to create a framework that allows for local flexibility but brings together local services, recognising the synergies that need to exist between all healthcare providers in an area. With the ICB holding the ring, we get local flexibility, but we look at it the local system level rather than the individual provider level. I alluded to it jokingly, but as I promised in our last session I can confirm to him that I was correct that there are no current applications from NHS trusts to become foundation trusts. I said that I was relying on my memory, but I can confirm for the record that my memory was accurate.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the new hospitals programme and capital more broadly. While slightly stretching the scope of the debate, I think that is probably relevant because he was talking about capital, so I am happy to accept that—subject to your judgment, of course, Mrs Murray—as being in scope. In terms of investment in new hospitals, the bottom line is that this is capital provided by the Treasury—by central Government —to build new hospitals where they are most needed. He will have seen the criteria and the approach set out for the next eight schemes, which are currently being considered. An expression of interest is the first stage of that process. A number of criteria are set out—for example, are there safety issues? Is there an urgent need? Will this facilitate transformation and improve patient experience? The criteria are set out publicly.
The next stage, which will take place next year, is the whittling down of the applications to a shortlist and further consideration. I believe it is entirely right that, guided by advice from officials and local NHS systems, Ministers make those decisions, because it is central Government money that is being invested directly in the schemes, rather than the normal capital allocations from NHS England to local NHS systems that are decided at local system level. This is additional, over and above the normal capital allocations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned proposed new section 42C and asked what it is envisaged the guidance will say, what it will cover, and how it will work. Essentially, we envisage it setting out how and when NHS England and NHS Improvement will exercise the powers—for example, where a foundation trust’s plans potentially put at risk the broader ICB plans for capital, unduly divert resources, or skew the capital allocation in a particular direction. We do not envisage their being used with any regularity, and hope that, as now, broadly, there is a collaborative approach. It is more informal now than envisaged under the provisions, but there is a collaborative approach.
In his broader remarks about the balance between autonomy and freedoms, the hon. Gentleman asked what I would tell a keen and ambitious NHS trust chief executive who was considering taking advantage of the spaces in the queue to become a foundation trust the advantages in doing so are. Essentially, I would say that they should consider what best reflects the local needs for their local healthcare system, because foundation trusts will of course retain freedoms around commercial borrowing and other existing freedoms. The powers that we are introducing act as a safeguard should they be used against the wider interest of the system. There are still advantages, but each NHS chief executive in that situation should consider carefully their own local circumstances and what is most effective in providing for their patients and service users.
My two final points go to what the hon. Gentleman said about the fear that the powers are significant and should be used only as the last resort, and his second point about whether there should be a greater willingness to allow NHS providers to decide how they spend their surpluses, rather than a regulator or central Government deciding. I might be paraphrasing, but I think those were his two key concerns. On his first point, the powers act as a safeguard to allow national-level intervention when local negotiation cannot resolve disputes. I have alluded to what we would use the guidance for, which is to add a bit of flesh to the bones. We think that is best set out in guidance rather than on the face of statute, as circumstances change over time and applying a narrow statutory test could hinder the aims of the clause, which would ensure that NHS spending overall is in the best interests of the public.
To the second point about whether it should be down to NHS providers and systems to determine how they spend surpluses or moneys that they have saved each year for a particular purpose, the hon. Gentleman is right that NHS trusts and foundation trusts operate as autonomous organisations that are legally responsible for maintaining their estates and providing healthcare services. That will continue, but only where there is a clear risk of a trust acting against the wider interest of the NHS system locally and an ICB would the controls be considered for application.
Justin Madders
The Minister is setting out the aims, but I am a little unsure what a foundation trust acting against the wider interest of the ICB would look like. Can he give us examples of where that might have happened?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to give a specific example. The reason we chose the flexibility of using guidance is that we cannot envisage every eventuality, so we will set out in guidance the process and approach. I will try to give him an illustrative example rather than a specific one, if he will allow me. If we have an ICB making collective decisions about where capital investment is most needed at a system level, and if we have a foundation trust with resources deciding to prioritise huge investment in one particular area, that might not necessarily reflect the broadly agreed local priorities in the ICB plan and the ICP plan for that area. I envisage such matters being resolved at an ICB level. I have certainly seen in this job and in a past life, as I suspect the hon. Member for Bristol South has, where informal resolution of these things is often the most effective way, so I would not envisage these powers being used often, but it is important that we have the flexibility that they bring. On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Transfer schemes between trusts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 59 stand part.
Government amendments 15 and 16.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
As we have discussed, clauses 39 and 40 make it clear that the Secretary of State continues to have the ability to create new NHS trusts. Clause 58 is an integral part of ensuring that the NHS has the correct provider landscape necessary to deliver integrated care and to respond to emerging priorities.
The clause allows NHS England to make a transfer scheme relating to NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. Such a transfer scheme can provide for the transfer of property, rights, staff and liabilities from one NHS provider to another to ensure that the right resources can, when necessary, be transferred to support the delivery of services across the NHS.
NHS trusts and NHS FTs will be able to apply jointly to NHS England to make transfer schemes under the clause. NHS England, as the national regulator, may grant the application for the transfer scheme if it is satisfied that all necessary steps to prepare for the scheme have been undertaken. The process can ensure, for example, that all transfer schemes are in the best interests of patients and represent value for money for the taxpayer. Transfer schemes for NHS providers are crucial to ensuring that we have a flexible, adaptable provider landscape to deliver the best care to our patients.
Clause 59 introduces schedule 8 to the Bill, which amends chapter 5A of the National Health Service Act 2006, which relates to trust special administrators. Schedule 8 outlines the changes to the process and authorisation for the appointment of trust special administrators, including the reporting mechanisms.
A trust special administrator is appointed to take charge of the trust, at which point the trust board of directors—in the case of NHS foundation trusts, the governors—are suspended. Trust special administrators may be appointed by NHS England to exercise the functions of a chairman and directors of an NHS trust, or the governors, chairman and directors of a foundation trust, where that is necessary to secure sustainable and high-quality services and where other interventions to secure financial or clinical sustainability have been exhausted.
Schedule 8 co-outlines the changes to the process and authorisation for the appointment of trust special administrators, including the reporting mechanisms. The changes are part of transitioning the provider-based functions of Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England, and it does not represent a substantial change in policy approach. It also transfers delegated duties placed on the NHS TDA to NHS England in relation to the appointment of a trust special administrator to an NHS trust. It also transfers functions of Monitor to NHS England in relation to the appointment of a trust special administrator for NHS FTs.
The administrators are to be appointed by NHS England to make recommendations about actions to secure sustainable and high-quality services. NHS England must appoint a trust special administrator if required to do so by the Care Quality Commission. Otherwise, it may make the order to appoint only if it considers that to be in the interests of the health service and if the Secretary of State has given their approval.
The process remains broadly the same under schedule 8, giving NHS England the appropriate role in relation to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. However, one change I draw to the attention of the Committee is in relation to NHS trusts: both NHS England and the Secretary of State will receive the administrators’ report, which will state which action, if any, either is to take. The schedule confers a shared duty on NHS England and the Secretary of State to consult one another before taking any decision on action.
The provisions enable NHS England to discharge its responsibility for the support and oversight of NHS trusts and foundation trusts, including taking on Monitor and the NHS TDA’s regulatory and inspection powers in relation to such trusts. They provide transparency to the appointment process and its reporting mechanisms, and clarity to the system in securing and delivering sustainable and high-quality services when the trust providing them has been placed into administration. I commend the clauses and the schedule to the Committee.
Government amendment 15 will ensure that integrated care boards are consulted when the Care Quality Commission requires NHS England to make a trust special administration order and ensures that the process properly accounts for all future commissioning arrangements involving those boards. Proposed new section 65B(4)(b)(ii) introduced under paragraph 2 of schedule 8 retains the existing requirement for the Care Quality Commission to consult commissioners of services from the NHS trust in question. The commission considered that to be appropriate. However, it does not account for situations where, in future, an NHS trust may provide services in an integrated care board area without formally providing services to that integrated care board. For example, where an NHS trust ends up spanning two integrated care board areas, those boards may decide to have a lead commissioner of services from an NHS trust. The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond any doubt that any integrated care boards that might be impacted by a trust special administration order being triggered for an NHS trust should be consulted as part of the formal process.
Similarly, Government amendment 16 will ensure that integrated care boards are consulted when NHS England decides to make a trust special administration order and that the process properly accounts for all future commissioning arrangements involving ICBs. Proposed new section 65B(5)(b), introduced by paragraph 2 of schedule 8, retains the requirement for NHS England to consult commissioners of services from the NHS trust in question, if
“NHS England considers it appropriate”.
However, that again does not account for situations where, in future, an NHS trust may provide services in an ICB area without formally providing services to that ICB. For example, where an NHS trust may end up spanning two integrated care board areas, those boards may decide to have a lead commissioner of services from a trust. The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond any doubt that any integrated care boards that might be impacted by a trust special administration order being triggered for an NHS trust should be consulted as part of that formal process.
Amendments 15 and 16 ensure that the trust special administration process reflects the role the ICBs will play and the different levels of autonomy and status between different NHS trusts and foundation trusts under the present system, putting the need for calibration and consultation at the heart of the measure. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to support the amendments.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. There is not a tremendous amount to get excited about in these clauses and amendments, but I want to ask a couple of questions of the Minister.
On clause 58, it makes sense to provide for a time where there needs to be a transfer of property, rights or liabilities from one NHS trust or foundation trust to another. Indeed, I suspect that our conversations about boundaries in earlier parts of the Bill are far from finished. That may have a knock-on impact on providers, so we may see it used in the near future. On the powers reserved for NHS England to create transfer schemes, it is not greatly surprising that it is the ultimate arbiter of applications. That is consistent with the rest of the Bill.
I could not tempt the Minister to cover one point in the final grouping on Tuesday evening, and I hope he might expand on it now. Where are the integrated care boards in this? Surely they would have a significant view about changes to the providers, and possibly the splitting up of providers—the Minister mentioned cross-border trusts, and how that might be led with lead providers. It is not inconceivable that the integrated care boards might have significant views, so should there not at least be a sense that their views have been sought? If not, there ought to be support, which would probably be desirable. In the previous grouping, we covered the fact that that was also true for trusts entering special measures and for trusts becoming foundation trusts. Again, there was no sense of what the ICB’s role was. I do not think that the Minister mentioned that in his summing up. I hope that he might do so on this occasion.
I heard what the Minister said about Government amendments 15 and 16, which I have a lot more sympathy for. I raised this issue on Tuesday night. Where the Care Quality Commission and NHS England are involved in a trust failure situation, they should of course want the ICB to be a part of that process. I believe that the point the Minister made was that amendments 15 and 16 will amend the clause sufficiently to ensure that integrated care boards have their say in situations of failure. I hope he will clarify that ICBs in any such situation will get due consultation about what comes next.
I accept the Minister’s point that clause 59 does not represent a material change in direction or policy from where we are today, but instead tidies up who is responsible and deals with new arrangements for NHS England, as set out earlier in the Bill. Again, there is not much of a reference to the ICBs. Hopefully we get clarity that the point of the amendments is to put that back in. If so, obviously we would support that, but I would wonder why that has not happened in other places—both in this group and previous ones too.
The Minister will love how granular this inquiry is. I ask it for no other reason than out of a genuine desire to know the answer; I am not trying to catch anybody out. Schedule 8 replaces section 65KD of the National Health Service Act 2006. Proposed new section 65KD mentions ICBs—I think it was about the only reference to them in the schedule, before the Government tabled amendments 15 and 16—and provides for what happens should an ICB fail to discharge its functions. In that case, under proposed new subsection (5)(b),
“the Secretary of State may exercise the functions of NHS England under section 14Z59(2), (3)(a) and (5)(a)”,
which are introduced by the Bill.
Proposed new section 14Z59 is titled:
“Power to give directions to integrated care boards”.
At that point, the Secretary of State has taken over NHS England’s role and now acts as NHS England himself or herself. Can the Minister explain why that would be necessary? If we are saying that an ICB is part of a failure of circumstances, not discharging its functions properly, would not the first port of call traditionally be the centre—NHS England—to step in and provide support, or is there a judgment that the national leadership has failed too if the local leadership has failed, and therefore the Secretary of State must be the next link in the chain?
I am conscious that that is a granular query, but I think the provision departs from principles earlier in the Bill. It may well be that this is a very specific and niche example, in which case there is less to worry about, but I would like an explanation on that, and on where ICBs are in the grand processes around clause 58. When changes happen, what consultation does there have to be with them, and what support will they have?
Edward Argar
On the shadow Minister’s central question about where ICBs fit in, he is right that we envisage their being, as we have discussed throughout, central to decision making in their locality. He is right to highlight that, as drafted, there was the potential for them to be regarded as not front and centre, hence Government amendments 15 and 16, which we hope add clarity and add that ICBs will be consulted, for example, when a special administrator is being appointed. We wanted to include them as part of that process. I fully acknowledge that, as drafted, there was a degree of ambiguity. That is why the Government introduced the amendments. I do not like having to amend my own legislation, but I think it important that we do so here.
Alex Norris
The Minister should not be shy about that at all. It is good sign, and shows that, after publication, he is still reflecting on the Bill and improving it as we go along. That is a strength rather than a weakness. However, these are amendments to schedule 8. I am surprised that there are no counterpart amendments for clause 58 or to the group that we discussed previously, which included clauses 39 to 42 and clauses 44 to 50. Why was the judgment made not to amend those in a similar way?
Edward Argar
We took the view that in this case there are very obvious consequences. In normal circumstances, we envisage collaborative work with, and the involvement of, the ICB. I was very keen that we were explicit here. It could be argued, as I would have done, that the clauses did not prohibit such co-operation, but I wanted to be very specific, because the appointment of a special administrator and the actions likely to be taken in that context could have profound impacts on the system. I wanted to be absolutely explicit about the need to involve ICBs.
The hon. Gentleman asked a detailed and granular question about paragraph 15(4) of schedule 8, and the powers in proposed new subsection (5)(b). The key point is that we would envisage it going up through the chain of accountability—chain of command is wrong word—but it is important that we recognise, as we do with the Bill, that the Secretary of State has a role in that chain of accountability to the House, to the public and to others. That theme has run through a lot of the discussions of the legislation, so we therefore think it appropriate to include the Secretary of State in that subsection.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 61 stand part.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
As the Committee knows, one intention of the Bill is to create more flexibility, alongside the promotion of greater local integration. The clauses help to allow local bodies to work together in different ways to deliver effective health services.
Clause 60 enables NHS organisations, and any other bodies that may be prescribed in regulations, to commission and arrange services collaboratively, not only with other NHS organisations but with local authorities, combined authorities and other bodies that could be specified in regulations. Existing NHS legislative mechanisms make it difficult for the health and care system to work collaboratively and flexibly across different organisations, forcing local systems to adopt complex workarounds to be able to take joint decisions and pool budgets. In that context, back in the day, when I served in a local authority, we used section 75 of the 2006 Act as one mechanism for doing that with the local primary care trust.
In practice, however, those arrangements can sometimes be cumbersome and difficult to manage, and can delay making vital decisions. The new provisions inserted by the clause into the NHS Act 2006 will enable NHS organisations and any other bodies that may be prescribed in regulations to delegate functions to, or jointly exercise functions with, other NHS organisations, local authorities, combined authorities and other bodies as specified in regulations. Where functions are exercised jointly, the provisions will also enable those organisations to pool funds and form joint committees, facilitating partnership working and joint decision making at place and system level.
To ensure that delegation or joint exercise of functions does not lead to reduced accountability for delivering services, we have proposed appropriate safeguards in the clause. The Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations which functions can and cannot be delegated, impose conditions in relation to delegation or joint exercise of functions, and specify the extent of such arrangements, for example. Furthermore, the parties will be able to agree terms as to the scope of the delegation arrangement. NHS England will have the ability to issue statutory guidance in relation to functions that are being delegated or jointly exercised under the provisions. The relevant body, as defined in the provision, must have regard to such guidance.
The provisions will replace those in existing sections 13Z, 13ZB and 14Z3 of the NHS Act 2006, which provide for the delegation of joint exercise of NHS England’s functions. The clause also amends section 75 of the 2006 Act, which I just alluded to. That section details arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities so that where a combined authority, for example, exercises an NHS function as part of arrangements under the new provisions, it can be treated as an NHS body. That is in line with how combined authorities are treated for other, similar joint working arrangements.
Clause 61 and schedule 9 focus on the delegation of functions. Clause 61 inserts a new section into the NHS Act 2006 that makes express the assumption that a general reference in the Act to a person’s functions includes any functions that they are exercising on behalf of another person. That means, for example, that a reference in the Act to the functions of NHS England should cover any public health functions of the Secretary of State that NHS England may be exercising on their behalf under section 7A arrangements. The practical effect of this would be, for example, that any general duties that apply when NHS England is exercising its functions would also apply when it was exercising delegated functions. Until now, delegated functions have not been dealt with consistently in our health legislation. While it is not feasible, notwithstanding the suggestion of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, to remedy this issue across all health legislation in one consolidating Bill, this clause seeks to produce a more consistent approach.
Schedule 9 contains amendments to the NHS Act 2006 and other legislation to reflect the broader approach taken by clause 61 to delegated functions. Clause 61 also enables regulation to be made to create further exceptions where necessary to ensure that delegated functions are not covered by a provision where this would be inappropriate. Clause 61 addresses an important but technical legal issue in the Bill and is essential for enabling consistent and clear interpretation of our legislation.
These clauses are essential for ensuring that NHS organisations can collaborate effectively with each other as well as with other partners in the system. I therefore commend clauses 60 and 61 and schedule 9 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
Members will be relieved to hear that I will not detain the Committee long on this. Clause 60 does what the NHS itself has decided it needs. Over the last six years, we have had various iterations of this integration process, joining things up around joint working, joint bodies and delegation. The provisions try to put all that in one place.
A recurring theme is clarity about the extent of crossovers between local authorities and the NHS. In that respect, proposed new section 65Z5 suggests that local authorities can carry out any function of an NHS body. Could the Minister say more about that? Does it mean that we could see local authorities commissioning—setting up GP surgeries in wellbeing centres? We are assuming that this is one-way and there is no reciprocal arrangement for the NHS to take on local authority functions, so that a foundation trust could not take on an arm’s length management organisation or some other local authority function as a tax-efficient way of avoiding certain liabilities. Could the Minister respond on that?
I also wonder about care trusts, which were the original integrated working teams with the NHS and local authorities. They are rarely mentioned and were largely regarded as unsuccessful. Is there any intention to favour such genuinely integrated bodies? They were used in one recent case by an integrated care provider to get around some of the prohibitions on new trusts. Can the Minister tell us anything about where care trusts now fit into the landscape?
Given the joint nature of the provision, I would like to know why the guidance was published only by NHS England. Should it not have been a joint effort by the NHS and the Local Government Association? Was the LGA consulted and involved in the preparation of the guidance? That perhaps exposes that this is really about the NHS, not about integration across the board. As we have heard today, the ICPs will roll up at some later point, perhaps exposing the reality that this is going to be an NHS-dominated process.
Finally, on the pooling of funds, is there any limit on that? Is that envisaged to be an occasional opportunity, or will it be a more significant step down a road of full funding? Will the Minister set out whether the direction of travel will be quite as dramatic as possibly suggested by the clause?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support for the clauses and for the, as ever, perfectly sensible questions he poses. I hope to reassure him that the intention behind the clauses is not to create tax-efficient organisations or anything like that; it is to create the most efficient organisations for the delivery of joined-up care. I alluded to section 75 of the 2006 Act, which is an example of what many local authorities are doing already.
On guidance, I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, throughout the genesis of the legislation, we worked collaboratively with the Local Government Association, reflecting local authorities more broadly. As we develop guidance, I am clear that the NHS, NHS England and the Government will continue to work with the association to ensure that local government’s view is reflected in the drafting. A number of conversations have already taken place between officials and the LGA. Notwithstanding the debates we may have in this House or how the legislation emerges, I am clear that we will continue to work collaboratively throughout with all the partners involved, even in areas where we may disagree. We will always seek to work with them.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns—he will shake his head if I paraphrase him unfairly—about whether the legislation will allow for unlimited or unfettered delegation without checks and balances. Will we be able to transfer anything from an NHS trust to a local authority, or vice versa? The short answer is no. There will need to be a clear line of accountability between the body ultimately exercising the function and the delegating body. Safeguards ensure that any onward delegation is appropriate. That said, there may be circumstances in which a local authority would commission a particular healthcare service linked to other functions of the local authority delegated from the NHS. We would expect that clear accountability to be in place where that is done. We do not envisage the power being used regularly in that way, but there might be circumstances in which it would be.
Regulations may restrict what, where, when and how—and, indeed, to whom—delegations occur. The delegation agreement may also prevent further onward delegation of functions beyond a certain level. In addition—this goes back to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the LGA—NHS England will, I expect, issue statutory guidance on delegation and joint committees, which would include scenarios, case studies, model delegation agreements and similar to show how, in practice, we envisage this working. The guidance would be statutory, and I envisage it being developed in concert with local authorities, represented by the Local Government Association—that is probably the most effective way of doing that.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance that there is nothing sinister—for want of a better word—intended in the clauses; they are merely meant to make things easier for local NHS bodies and local authorities, in particular, to co-operate more. That goes back to the integration at the heart of—the thread that runs through—all the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Before I speak to clauses 63 and 64, I crave your indulgence, Mrs Murray: I should have said to the shadow Minister that the previous clauses were about delegation from the NHS to local authorities, not the other way around. I would just like to put that on the record for him, because he expressed a concern about that.
Clauses 63 and 64 have been included in the Bill to help support ICBs and ICPs and to enhance integration across the health and care system. Clause 63 allows NHS England to issue guidance about appointing an individual to roles simultaneously in NHS commissioners and NHS providers, or in relevant NHS bodies on the one hand, and local authorities or combined authorities on the other. We have seen a number of clinical commissioning group and local authority joint appointments that have supported integration and been successful, and we would be keen to see those continue.
The clause further sets a requirement for these NHS bodies to have regard to such guidance when considering making a joint appointment. Joint appointments between organisations can support aligned decision making, enhance leadership across organisations and improve the delivery of integrated care. However, we believe that greater clarity is required to support organisations in making appropriate joint appointments, to avoid conflicts of interest that can be difficult to manage. Before issuing any new or significantly revised guidance, NHS England would be required to consult with appropriate persons.
Clause 63 will allow NHS England to publish a clear set of criteria for organisations to consider when making joint appointments and ensure regard is given to such guidance. That will also provide a safeguard against any conflicts of interest that may arise in the process of making joint appointments.
Clause 64 amends sections 72 and 82 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which deal with the co-operation between NHS bodies and the co-operation between NHS bodies and local authorities respectively. The clause inserts a new power for the Secretary of State to make guidance related to the existing co-operation duties between NHS bodies and between NHS bodies and local authorities. While the existing co-operation duties in sections 72 and 82 relate to both English and Welsh NHS bodies and local authorities, the guidance relates only to England, and the requirement to have regard to guidance issued under this new power will apply only to English NHS bodies and English local authorities.
Our intention is not to produce a single piece of co-operation guidance, which would risk being too general or too wide-ranging to be effective. Rather, we are considering discrete pieces of guidance in specific areas such as delivery of alcohol and drugs services, sexual and reproductive health, or hospital discharge services, to encourage and facilitate co-operation and integration in their delivery.
The clause also amends section 96 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which concerns the setting of licensing conditions for providers of NHS services. The licence, as we touched on earlier today, was established in 2013 so that providers of NHS services must meet to help ensure that the health sector works for the benefit of patients. Currently, conditions can be set on co-operation, but these provisions can apply only in certain circumstances.
The clause goes further: it supports system integration, promotes greater co-operation by removing the limitation on setting licence conditions on co-operation, and expands the range of bodies with which co-operation can be required. That will strengthen and reinforce the requirements on providers to co-operate and further strengthens the ability for NHS providers to deliver the system plan.
Co-operation is central to the intentions and underpinnings of this Bill. New guidance and expanding the role co-operation plays in the licensing regime will give organisations greater clarity about the practical expectations for co-operation, help the NHS to build on the innovation, working relationships and positive behaviours that have been seen over the past year, and further embed these behaviours across the health and care system. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I am sure the Minister will be unsurprised to learn that the Opposition are a little wary of the powers in clause 63. One person doing two jobs is never ideal. I make an honourable exception for the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who, in his other role, plays an important part in contributing to the wellbeing of the nation. Such exceptions are rare, and we think that two jobs for one person is never a sustainable or long-term solution.
We draw a distinction between a secondment, which obviously means that the position is by definition time limited and allows the post-holder to return to their original position. It is often good for career development, and that kind of mobility and interchange between the NHS and local authorities may be a very positive development, particularly with ICBs. However, the idea that there can be a joint appointment of a commissioner and a provider sounds wholly contradictory. Although the Minister has tried to allay our concerns by referring to guidance, it is clear that an NHS body needs to only “have regard” to that guidance. The question remains: at what point does someone step in when there is a clear and detrimental conflict of interest? We will see what the Minister has to say, but it we may need to keep a very close eye on that.
Clause 64 is a rather less obvious power grab by the Secretary of State, but it is one all the same. Clearly, he is not satisfied with the extent of co-operation between NHS bodies, because the Secretary of State now wants to be able to tell them how to co-operate. The guidance is to be issued, and a duty is to be placed on NHS bodies to follow it, or else face the consequences. What of? It is good old-fashioned persuasion—the willingness to work together for the greater good. It is actually the case that the Secretary of State wants two goes at this, as there are further powers to issue guidance in respect of NHS bodies and local authorities, which currently have to co-operate in order to advance the health and wellbeing of people.
Surely it is the case that they are doing that already. I cannot think of any reason why they would not co-operate, but what would be the sanction if they do not? Can the Minister tell us who he thinks these errant councils are that are not co-operating? Between myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and the Minister himself, we must have over a quarter of a century of experience in local government, and I cannot think of any occasion when councils were anything other than co-operative with the NHS. That is my experience, but if the Minister can help fill in the gaps, I would be most obliged.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister tempts me to name and shame. He may be tempting me in vain. He raised three key points. One was about one person doing two jobs. To paraphrase him, he asked how that would work and why it was appropriate. He also mentioned conflicts of interest and asked why it was necessary and appropriate for the Secretary of State should have these powers.
To his first point, the clause is about driving greater integration. During my time as a member of Westminster City Council many years ago, we had a joint appointment. Our director of public health, if I recall correctly, was also an NHS appointment and she sat in both organisations in the senior management structure. It was extremely effective. Conflicts of interest, as we would envisage here, were managed both within the system and in accordance with guidance and principles of appointments and appropriate governance. That worked extremely well. It was not so much one person doing two jobs, but where the job was needed and the job description fitted both organisations, it delivered a real synergy and better outcomes.
There are circumstances where it can work. I would not have envisaged it being used essentially so that one person has multiple roles and jobs, but there are occasions when there is a benefit from someone sitting jointly in two organisations to help drive that integration and shared understanding. We can create, as we are doing here, mechanisms and structures to help drive integration and co-operation, but as the hon. Member for Nottingham North will know, and as the hon. Member for Bristol South will know from her time in the NHS, we can have those structures, but ensuring that organisations work effectively often relies on individuals, personal relationships and the trust that builds up at that level.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked about care trusts, and the clause is partly designed for just that. The real problem with the clause and with joint appointments is that we already know that there are probably not enough senior, experienced people to go around to manage the difficult job of running a large hospital. The issue is ultimately about the focus on those hospitals and, indeed, on patient safety. The job of a chief executive of an NHS trust or foundation trust is an absolutely critical and quite busy one, but we are encouraging those people to take on an ICB leadership role, or joint roles in a local authority. We can either accept that those are large organisations that require particularly skilled people whom we pay properly, or we can simply merge the organisations. I would go for the former option. There are not enough of those people to go around. There is not enough variety of people. We are not encouraging the pipeline of talent, and we are not diversifying enough, and that is reflected in the NHS looking inward at itself. It is a big mistake to accept that we must have those joint appointments to bring the NHS together and make organisations collaborate.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but those joint appointments have always gone on—they have existed for many years. The example I referred to was in about 2008 or 2009, and it worked extremely well, as both organisations benefited from that individual being a part of both. Our clauses seek to ensure that those joint appointments work well and effectively.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked why the powers sit with the Secretary of State rather than with the local NHS or NHS England. I am afraid that he will not tempt me into naming any particular local authorities or otherwise. The NHS is a critical part of our health and care system, but integration and co-operation need to go beyond the NHS itself, encompassing the role of local authorities in this space, which we all recognise. I hope that that co-operation will be consensual and voluntary, as the hon. Gentleman said, but it is important that the Secretary of State, with his accountability to this place and to the public, sits above that system. I would argue that he is in the best position to offer guidance on how that system can co-operate, and to help to resolve matters.
Justin Madders
One of the things that we have been told consistently is that integration and joint working are already well under way on the ground, and that the Bill is, in part, just putting a legislative seal on that work. If that is correct, why does the Secretary of State need those additional powers?
Edward Argar
Because we wish to take the opportunity to further drive forward the integration. The system has evolved, but we want to be more ambitious. The powers reflect the fact that the Secretary of State is able to take that wide perspective to most effectively see those two organisations coming together at a macro level—at the national level. That does not mean that I am denigrating in any way the evolution that is already occurring voluntarily in a whole range of areas around the country.
I sense that the hon. Gentleman is still unconvinced by joint appointments, so I will say a little more about them before I conclude, although I might still leave him unconvinced. There are already very few prohibitions on joint appointments, and we see an increasing number of them. In some cases, however, there could be a perception, or a reality, of a potential conflict of interest that could be difficult to manage or could lead to a perception of bias. We recognise that, which is why we have proposed the power to issue guidance to help organisations make the right joint appointments and to help them understand what factors to consider when deciding whether to proceed down the route of a joint appointment. The new powers for NHS England to issue guidance will ensure that there is a clear set of criteria against which to judge joint appointments when considering whether to make one. Bodies will have to have due regard to that guidance. I believe that the powers are proportionate.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. One of the critiques that we have developed —I hope that he has noticed—is that the Secretary of State has given himself an awful lot of powers and abilities to intervene. It seems highly incongruous that in the specific example of joint appointments, where there would be a clear role for the Secretary of State to intervene, he has not availed himself of the opportunity to do so.
Edward Argar
As with so much else in the Bill, we are trying to future-proof it. Indeed, the shadow Minister and others made the point in a different context. Where are the powers? What are the options if there is disagreement, a dispute or a conflict? While not anticipating conflict, we are seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to issue guidance to resolve any conflict or issues that may arise in that context. It is a pragmatic and proportionate measure to ensure that any such risks can be managed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 64 and 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
The NHS payment scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Amendment 100, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) NHS England must obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before publishing the NHS payment scheme.”
This amendment ensures that the NHS payment scheme, which sets out the prices to be paid for NHS services, is approved by the Secretary of State.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
I express my gratitude—I may be less grateful when I sum up—to hon. Members for tabling the amendments, and for the discussion that we are going to have about the NHS payment scheme. The Bill replaces the national tariff with a new NHS payment scheme, with additional flexibilities to allow the NHS to deliver population-based funding and more integrated care approaches. The NHS payment scheme, which will set rules about how commissioners pay providers for services, will apply to all providers of NHS services, including NHS trusts and foundation trusts, the voluntary sector and the independent sector.
Amendment 84 aims to ensure that payment to private providers can be made only at tariff price. While we will not introduce competition on price, rather than quality, there may be scenarios where it is appropriate to pay non-NHS providers different prices from those paid to NHS providers, to take account of differences in the cost of providing those services—for example, different staffing costs or a different range of services provided. There may also be cases where the financial regimes of different providers make it appropriate to set different prices or pricing rules. When setting any prices, NHS England will aim to ensure that the prices payable represent a fair level of pay for the providers of those services, as well as fair pay between providers of similar services.
I reassure the Committee that we do not expect to see the rules being used to give a premium to private providers to encourage them to enter the market. We do not expect to pay the independent sector 11.2% greater than the NHS equivalent cost, as the King’s Fund briefing on independent sector treatment centres set out in 2009. Nor do we expect commissioners to pay for 100% of the contract value regardless of whether the activity reached the contracted level. Instead, the new payment scheme delivers what the NHS has asked for to implement its long-term plan. For that reason, we encourage Opposition Members not to press the amendment to a Division, but I may be pressing them in vain.
The Government will also, I am afraid, oppose amendment 100, which would require the NHS payment scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State. The NHS payment scheme will be published by NHS England, following consultation with relevant providers and commissioners, and, where relevant, the publication of an impact assessment. Integrated care boards and relevant providers will be able to make representations and formally object in response to consultations on the NHS payment scheme, as they can with the national tariff. Where the percentage of objections exceeds the prescribed threshold for either ICBs or relevant providers, or both, NHS England must further consult the representatives of the ICBs and providers that were objecting. NHS England may then publish a revised payment scheme, with another consultation for significant changes. It will also be able to publish the proposed scheme without amendment, but will be required to publish a notice stating that decision and setting out the reasons for it.
The Government are responsible for setting out overall funding for NHS England, who in turn will continue to be required to have regard to fair levels of reimbursement for providers in setting the details of the payment scheme. The Department and NHS England will continue to work closely together in the development of the NHS payment scheme, as we do with the national tariff. However, as a last resort, derived from clause 37 powers of direction, the Secretary of State will be able to require NHS England to share the NHS payment scheme before publication. The Secretary of State will also be able to direct NHS England not to publish a payment scheme without his approval, and about the contents of the payment scheme under his general powers of direction under clause 37.
Although we do not expect to need to use the powers of direction to intervene in this area, they can be used and will act as a further safeguard against unfair payment scheme provisions, as well as allowing for appropriate parliamentary accountability for funding flows in the NHS. The consultation requirements in schedule 10, and the general powers of direction, allow for sufficient Government oversight and accountability for the payment scheme, and further specific provisions would be inflexible and unnecessary. [Interruption.] I will shorten my remarks. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I am happy to go on and on, but I fear the Committee might wish me to conclude. In that context, I will highlight to the Committee that, as with the national tariff, fair levels of reimbursement are a key principle of the legal framework reflected in NHS England’s duty in subsection (6) of proposed new section 114A(6) to have regard to differences in providers’ costs and the different range of services that they provide for the purpose of securing that prices and the overall payment scheme result in a fair level of pay to different types of providers.
I will also highlight and draw to the Committee’s attention provisions in proposed new section 114C as inserted by schedule 10, which makes clear that, before publishing the payment scheme, NHS England must consult integrated care boards, relevant providers and any other person that NHS England thinks appropriate. It must also provide an impact assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme.
Karin Smyth
There is a lot of drawing up of complicated documents and costings and then a lot of complicated consultation and decisions on whether the Secretary of State will or will not decide whether he wants to be involved in looking at what the final solution is. Does the Minister have any idea of when we might see the final NHS payment system under the new arrangement?
Edward Argar
I would not prejudge the passage of the legislation and how the House might judge it, but I look forward to such a scheme being introduced expeditiously, if I may put it that way to the hon. Member. I hope I can also reassure the Committee in respect of amendment 107, which was not selected but raised issues pertinent to the clause more broadly. This is important. It is right that the amendment was not selected—I appreciate that it was not tabled by a member of the Committee—but it does highlight issues that we need to put on the record. I appreciate the impulse behind it.
Although NHS staff pay and conditions are outside the scope of the proposed payment scheme and are protected by provisions made elsewhere, unions and other representative bodies may wish to be reassured that their members are able to go to work in appropriately funded services. I hope I have given reassurance on that point and set out why I feel the amendment, although I am grateful that it was not selected, would be unnecessary, as the Bill already requires NHS England to consult with integrated care boards, relevant providers and any other person the NHS thinks appropriate before publishing a payment scheme. It must also publish an impact assessment of the proposed scheme, ensuring that any potential consultation is properly informed of the potential effects of the scheme. I appreciate that the amendment was not selected, but I put those points on the record as I can understand the intent behind the amendment and I wanted to offer those reassurances. I hope I can persuade Opposition Members not to press amendments 84 and 100 to a vote, but I may be unlucky in that respect.
Clause 66 introduces schedule 10, which amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by repealing the national tariff and replacing it with the new NHS payment scheme. The national tariff has for many years improved access to services and driven up quality across the NHS, but as we move towards a more integrated system focused on prevention, joint working and more care delivered in the community, we need to update the NHS pricing systems to reflect new ways of working since the tariff was introduced, and in the light of the covid-19 pandemic.
The new NHS payment scheme will build on the success of the tariff. It will support stronger collaboration than ever before, with shared incentives for commissioners and providers of services to improve quality of care and promote sustainable use of NHS resources. The scheme will move away from a wholly payment-by-activity approach to an approach that supports more joined-up ways of delivering services, with commissioners and providers working together to deliver the best quality care.
The new payment scheme will remove perverse incentives for patients to be treated in acute settings and allow more patients than ever before to be treated closer to home and in the community. It will allow NHS England to guide the health system, through the development of guide prices for entire care pathways, while ensuring that local systems have the necessary flexibility to deliver high-quality care and use NHS resources sustainably.
The payment scheme will specify rules that commissioners must follow when determining prices paid to providers of NHS-funded healthcare services. It will allow significant flexibility over the current pricing scheme, and allow rules to set prices, formulas and factors that must be considered when determining prices paid. It also allows for in-year modifications to the rules, to reflect changes in the costs of providing services.
Crucially, the scheme will also allow the NHS to set prices for public health services commissioned by the NHS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as maternity screening, to allow for seamless funding streams for episodes of care. These changes to increase the flexibility and reduce transactional bureaucracy associated with the current tariff are, we believe, crucial to integrating care and tackling the elective backlog. I therefore commend this clause and schedule to the committee.
Alex Norris
Clause 66 is exceptionally important, so I cannot promise the same brevity as the Minister. I think the rules work slightly differently on the hard stop on a Thursday than they do on a Tuesday.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that clarification. If I am interrupted by colleagues in order to meet the conventional times, I will not take that as a kindness.
The clause governs how billions and billions of pounds will be spent every year, so it is surprising that it is so thin: three lines under clause 66 and a rather broad schedule 10. People could read into it whatever they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South made a good point that we could be in the business of filling that out for a very long period.
I am also surprised that the Minister is so reticent about the Secretary of State’s involvement and that this power is solely reserved for NHS England. We are not suggesting that the Secretary of State would want to set payment levels for specific treatments; but the Secretary of State, either today or in the future, may want some sort of say over what is being incentivised in the system and how that extraordinary purchasing power works in practice, whether that is about innovation, prevention or incentivising buying British, for example. That is something in which I would expect there to be some political interest.
The Minister talked about using clause 37, but that is a rather blunt tool. What we offer in amendment 100 is much lighter and much less drastic than using the clause 37 powers. If the Government will not accept our amendment, I am surprised that they have not introduced a similar one of their own. Perhaps they may yet do so.
The history of the tariff and payments bears an airing here, because it informs our future. It is an itinerant journey, which all Governments of the day, of different political persuasions, have their fingerprints on. This is not a partisan issue; it is about getting this right for the future. The purchaser-provider split in the ’90s and the development of various market and quasi-market systems was patchy and sporadic. That is a topic that has launched a thousand dissertations. Sometimes it feels like we aimed for payment by results, which is a noble cause, but in reality we can very easily get to payment by volume, and that is our challenge.
Going back even further than that, it was even less satisfactory. Traditionally, we had funding mechanisms that were very hard to understand and worked by adding a bit to the previous year’s allocations, and then really sophisticated people might make some downward adjustments for efficiencies and upward adjustments for assumed increases in activities. Inevitably, bits of the health service would get into trouble and would need bailing out, and new ideas would be dolloped out without much of a process. We have, to a certain extent, returned to that during covid. Block funding has given trusts one less thing to worry about. That was probably wise, but we would not want to do it forever.
The idea of the tariff was a variant of the 2012 Act. It could, I guess, incentivise competition on quality, but not really on price, as in a real market, as the Minister said. Prior to that, in the first decade of the century, the introduction of payment by results was one of the factors that allowed the longest successful period in the history of the NHS, which saw waiting lists come tumbling down—so much so that the demand for queue-busting private options evaporated and private providers became suppliers to the health service, rather than suppliers of private healthcare.
Payment by results, or pricing, can be a tool to tackle waiting lists. Given that Conservative Governments leave office with spiralling waiting lists, that is worth remembering for the future. Although that may be a discussion for another day, I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks NHS pricing is likely to be part of the recovery strategy. It is all well and good saying that this may take years and years to come to fruition, but what about now?
The historic decision back in the first decade of this century was that private providers should be paid the same as the cost of the NHS, so that there is no financial incentive to use the private sector. I think that is a wise principle, but it can and has been worked around. We have seen some very dodgy, spurious outsourcing of services, such as cleaning, which was an absolute disaster in Nottingham.
There are and have always been large swathes of the health services where payment by results or volume did not apply. One was mental health, where defining the product was far from easy, so it was very difficult to price. For many years, the mental health sector wanted to be part of this, but that never happened. That is much less of a priority for the sector now; it is just desperate for proper funding. It continues to struggle.
Of course, in such a system we will always have gaming and bureaucracy. Any system such as this gets gamed. Upcoding is one example, where the work that is billed for gets put into the highest-paying category. We have invoicing, chasing errors, and disputes over such coding, the actual volumes of work done and all the rest. That was hugely prevalent when payment by results first arrived for primary care trusts, and I think it is still with us in some form today. The cost of the market systems, data collection and processing is well above the cost of providing entirely necessary management information about cost and volumes.
Of course, that is not to make an argument for no prices at all. For decades, the NHS as a system did not really have any idea what anything cost. The accounts were not particularly well kept, and there were no data collection systems and staff doing analysis. As a result, the variations were huge, and that did not work in the interests of the system. I am arguing not for a no-cost regime, but for one that lands in a sensible place and does not become an industry in itself. At the moment, we have no idea, because what is on the face of the Bill is so broad, and the Minister is promising quite a long walk into the future with not a lot of certainty.
Many discussions about the long term plan, the formation of STPs—then accountable care systems, then integrated care systems, and now ICPs—and the rest have been about co-operation and collaboration, a return to non-market days, and a dilution of the commissioner-provider split, at least so far as NHS bodies are concerned. There will still be a strong current to say that there has to be some sort of tariff and benchmark as a guide, but some will say that there may be some sort of ability to vary as circumstances dictate—a kind of “Trust me, guv” arrangement whereby people of good will and common purpose can decide what is best, and that would be acceptable. To an extent, that flexibility is understandable if we are talking about the internal workings of an integrated, publicly provided NHS.
However, when we are talking about £10 billion more a year of contracts with private acute care providers, that is real money exiting the NHS bank account, so we need to be much more careful. That is where amendment 84 comes in: there has to be some sort of limitation on what private providers are paid. I was not at all convinced by the Minister’s explanation that there might be different costs, because of course there are different costs, the No. 1 cost being the need to derive profit from the contract. That is already a big cost. Of course, that can be met by compromising on quality or through downward pressure on what staff receive, but that is also a bad thing, so I did not think that was a particularly persuasive argument.
When it comes to all this money going out to private providers, there really ought to be some standardisation of the contract. If amendment 84 were accepted, we would have greater assurance that this is something done based on need, not cost or convenience. We would much rather invest in the NHS itself, taking away any perverse incentives to lean on the private sector as a resource pool and any risk of sweetheart deals due to our reliance on the good will of for-profit organisations.
In conclusion, we do not want the Secretary of State to price up a hip operation, but we do think there ought to be some interest in what our purchasing does in this country, to ensure that it is as good as possible. I do not think we should be using the blunt and brutal tools in clause 37, so I hope that the Minister will think again about amendment 100—if not now, then at a later point in proceedings.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesHealth and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Amendment 100, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) NHS England must obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before publishing the NHS payment scheme.”
This amendment ensures that the NHS payment scheme, which sets out the prices to be paid for NHS services, is approved by the Secretary of State.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe. You missed the start of an exciting debate about the NHS payment system; I am sure you are grateful not to miss the end of it.
The complexities of NHS funding are hardly mentioned in the Bill, and some hon. Members may think thank goodness for that, but I urge them to take a bit more account of clause 66—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has said, it is a short one—because we are talking about over £100 billion of taxpayers’ money, rising to 40% of the Government’s annual spend. It is particularly important that we understand how and where that money is spent and to be assured that it is spent effectively and efficiently.
In large part because of the data collection journey that it has been on for some 20 or 30 years, we know that the NHS is the most efficient system we could have, as has been reviewed in numerous reports during that time. We have ways of looking at variations across the country and across a city such as my own, and that can only be a good thing. There are people—I am not suggesting there are any in this Committee Room—who think the NHS is a continuous money pit, is inefficient and could be operated better in another way, and part of understanding that argument is to understand the data and the way in which the money is spent, particularly the costings.
As I said in my earlier intervention on the Minister, about the process that has now been embarked on of producing a payment system, this clause is really important and really quite concerning. We have no idea when this payment system is going to be available.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Before the hon. Lady asks more questions, I may be able to reassure her by adding to what I said this morning as I have now discussed this further. I said “expeditiously”; I am willing to go further on the Floor of the Committee Room now and say that I would expect the scheme—I may be creating a hostage to fortune—to be published in the course of 2022. I hope that gives her a little reassurance; she will now hold me to that.
Karin Smyth
There is an army of accountants out there suddenly looking at their abacuses and speeding up the work they are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North mentioned coding. The basis on which we know how much things cost—we can then compare things, look at efficiency and so on—is coding. We know there has been some up-coding over the years, but we also know that it took a large effort to train up and try to reward coders, who are often the lowest of admin staff, to recognise how important they are to the system.
Part of that was a drive for competition, payment by results in foundation trusts and so on, but it seems that that is all going to be swept aside by the Bill in the interests of co-operation—that is another word for collaboration, which is something we all support. I do think that running through this Bill is a problem of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the NHS really had no idea what things cost and what value they brought. We had no way of objectively understanding how scarce resources were being allocated. In a publicly funded system, that should worry us all, particularly as we in Parliament are the guardians of the public’s money.
We can argue about how much money will be saved by not having the current system. I am not sure that much money will be saved by abolishing the current system, although the Minister may be able to assure us about this point today. I gently advise the Minister and the Secretary of State to take a great deal of interest in this and consider how the NHS will produce such a system in 16 or 17 months at the maximum, as we have just heard. The data on which the system is predicated—the collection of that data, and the use of it to inform clinical and managerial practice—will continue, but, without the incentives around competition and price and the competing agenda of recovery and the management of large hospitals in particular, it will be quite a tall order.
The Secretary of State and the Minister might want to look at the issue in a bit more detail. The Minister outlined quite a complicated process about how we will get to this scheme and a lot of consultation. Although I am all for democracy, as we embark on our conference season the Minister might want to consider at some point why a scheme should go out to quite so much review and consultation by the providers in the system.
Perhaps I could say something here about how the issue affects our local system. When we start to iron it all out and see the impact assessment on the impact—classic NHS terminology—on our local communities, there will be, for want of a better phrase, a bun fight in all our local communities. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North outlined earlier, when we talk about payment by results it is, of course, acute sector trusts that are the major drivers. Mental health, learning disabilities, community services, and GP services are outwith some of that funding scheme.
Many providers then wanted to come on to the system because they felt that it was more rewarding financially and better for their bottom line. The fact that those services are outwith the scheme remains a problem. I can see why the Government want to change that, but it is not quite as simple as they might want to make out. My hon. Friend has talked much about whether we start competing on price, but now that we know that competition on price is not being permitted, that does throw out a lot of other issues, particularly those around the procurement system.
With regard to amendment 84, the Minister made reference to independent sector treatment centres and incentives for getting the private sector in under previous Governments. We can all banter about the politics of that, but the key task for the Labour Government was to incentivise and change practice in a monolithic system, to drive down waiting lists and times. The question that I leave hanging for the Minister is, given the movement to a new payment system, how will the patient voice, waiting times and waiting lists be managed and incentivised in a central block payment system, which is what I think we are looking at?
Furthermore, with regard to our amendment, the private sector, having no responsibility for education, training and the large crumbling estate, should be able to offer any kind of services at a lower price than the NHS by any logic of efficient running. Ensuring that it is not offered more is the very minimum that we should be demanding. Given that the private sector should have a lower-cost base than the public sector, perhaps it should offer a cheaper price.
Does the Minister have a view on whether paying by results will be anywhere in the new system? Are we to continue following the changes made during covid, by which I mean the block grant system, which allows for baseline costs, a bit of variation for the population, and perhaps some deduction for efficiency and top-ups for various programmes—a bit like the old days when we mysteriously drew down pots of money from the centre for various programmes across the country? What is the balance between that block funding, payment by results and programme funding? Will there be an assessment of the impact of this change, particularly on reducing lengths of stay, as a measure of efficiency in the system, or on reduced waiting times and waits for diagnostics?
It would be good to nail down a few of these key principles in the Bill. The Secretary of State should really approve any scheme and give Parliament a look in; we should understand, as local representatives, what the impact is on our local system and whether we are gaining or losing money, or whether this is just £100 billion-plus going into a central pot and then seeing what happens—that cannot be sustainable.
Private providers should certainly have no say in the rule-setting, as this is a public service; if it is not a market, it is not a market. We are going to be able to debate this only when we know what it is. Given that the Minister has given a big push to the abacuses across the country, with a deadline of somewhere in 2022, for a Bill that we are expecting to put into a new system for April 2022, this situation is not satisfactory for us as representatives. There must be some way—perhaps this will be debated when the Bill leaves this place—for us to understand the broad principles and criteria. We know that there is going to be guidance from NHS England, but if it is going out for consultation, re-consultation and re-consultation, then redrafting and at some point the Secretary of State is going to see it, at some point Parliament should have a say or have a look at that and we, as local representatives, should understand what the impact is on our local communities.
We should also understand what the impact is on the balance between the acute sector, and the community and primary sector—and mental health and learning disability services. Another real concern about the Bill, which I will keep referring back to, is the cartel between the acute trusts and this new integrated care board, and the cutting out now of GP primary care commissioners, and the rolling back on the aims of the primary care trusts to switch the movement of the NHS to be focused not just on the money and where the big money is being spent, but on the service for patients and the public.
The crucial point for the Government will be: how are they going to use the financial mechanisms that exist to recover the backlog and put the NHS back on an equal footing? We have been asked to pay more for the new part of social care as well. As we continue to ask our constituents, the taxpayers, to pay more for what is a good, efficient service that does use its money well—we know that and we want to keep knowing that—how are we going to be able to persuade them of that in the future if we have this amorphous block allocation of money and no incentive to keep focused on efficiency and, in particular, on data collection?
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure, once again, Mr McCabe, to serve under your chairmanship. I fear I may not persuade Opposition Members not to press amendment 100—but you never know, so I will try my luck. The hon. Lady made a number of points and I responded to one when she kindly took an intervention; the only caveat I should add is that that, as she has alluded to, is subject to the passage of this legislation. I would not wish to pre-judge the mood of this House. With that in mind, the aim would be to publish in 2022, in time for the start of the 2023-24 financial year, to allow those systems to do the work they need to do.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, asked, “Why use clause 37?” I think he was referring to the clause rather than me as being a “blunt instrument”—well, I will charitably assume that he was. The reason is simply that the setting up of the payment scheme is an operational issue, and in practice—I will turn in a moment to the strategic, broad points the hon. Lady made—we would not expect to intervene in the day-to-day running of the NHS as a matter of course. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the payment scheme and the mechanism for payments is a powerful incentive to shape activity and how the NHS operates. I can reassure her, I hope, in one respect: I will certainly take a close interest, within the bounds of appropriateness, as will be set out in the Bill and the guidance underpinning it, in what the payment schemes look like. She is right in terms of the impact. She is also right—again, this could be career limiting; I hope the Whip does not note this down—to highlight some of the levers and mechanisms that the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, used in the early 2000s to make sure the money that he was investing in the NHS was driven through system and producing results.
The Chair
Mr Norris, before we go to the vote I want to give you an opportunity to respond, particularly on the amendments, so we can be clear about what you are up to.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I will give a quick indication, if that is okay, Mr McCabe. I take what the Minister has said about amendment 100, and I hope that he will continue to reflect on it. At many points, the Bill reserves specific powers to the Secretary of State, but if we do not need to do so, because the Government can just use clause 37, why on earth would we ever do that? I actually think this would be a very suitable place to do it, but on that basis, I will not press amendment 100. I would like to push amendment 84 to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
The NHS payment scheme
Amendment proposed: 84, in schedule 10,page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”—(Alex Norris.)
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 67, page 60, line 15, at end insert—
“(1AA) The regulations must make provision—
(a) for anyone with a diagnosis of terminal illness to be offered a conversation about their holistic needs, wishes and preferences for the end of their life, including addressing support for their mental and physical health and wellbeing, financial and practical support, and support for their social relationships,
(b) that where that individual lacks capacity for such a conversation, it is offered to another relevant person, and
(c) that for the purposes of section 12ZB a relevant authority must have regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.”
This amendment ensures that the scope of the regulations as to patient choice includes those at the end of life.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Karin Smyth
I will not push my amendment to a vote, but I seek responses from the Minister. I want to highlight the issue that we touched on earlier, and I am grateful for his comments, about how end-of-life and palliative care are the responsibilities of these new bodies.
This particularly relates to coming out of the pandemic, but even before the pandemic we had numerous reports from the Royal College of Physicians, the Care Quality Commission, the health service ombudsman and Compassion in Dying about how people approaching the end of life do not feel supported to make the decisions they are faced with, are not always given an honest prognosis and do not know what options or choices they have. I think the issue of patient choice is very important in this clause, and I feel very strongly about it. I think this could generally be stronger in the Bill, but I will particularly highlight what is in my own amendment.
Amendment 93 would enable dying people to have conversations about what matters most to them, which is the first step to ensuring that they are at the centre of any decision making about their own care and treatment, and it starts the advance care planning process. I have been fortunate in that I have had three children, and I talked through my birth plans and my choices for the whole experience very carefully. It was presented to me as part of the process of giving birth. It does not always go well, as we know—we had a baby loss event today in Parliament, which many of us could not be part of.
The principle of choice at fundamental points in people’s lives as a patient is one we have embedded in the health service. Co-production of care for most incidents that we face is a fundamental part of clinical practice. Only at the point when people are most vulnerable, at the end of life, is the principle of advance care planning and co-production in their choices and prognosis something we are still not prepared to contemplate in the health service. It really is as basic as that. If I can make those choices about when I am giving birth, we should be able to make those choices when we are on the pathway of the end of our lives.
The evidence on advance care planning in order to support people on where and how they die is well made. This is about promoting earlier access to palliative care, communication, reducing conflict, helping families understand what is ahead and making the person less likely to have to go through rushed accident and emergency and distressing journeys into hospital. There is a need to start supporting advance care planning, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on where the Government now think they are on that.
A key part of this amendment is proposed new paragraph (c), on authorities and new ICBs having
“regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.”
The full value of advance care planning can be realised only when individual care preferences are reflected in actual treatment decisions. Again, that is about empowering patients, something that I hope Members from across the House support.
Alex Norris
This is an important clause and an important amendment. We have said on many occasions that we want a model that promotes collaboration, rather than competition, but in doing so it is important that we do not create 42 closed shops, where a patient has little agency over their care. That will not feel right for those individuals and it risks weakening a culture of the pursuit of excellence and the best standards of care. Therefore, enshrining choice for citizens actually becomes more important in a collaborative system, so it is right that this is being addressed.
The Minister might not have a reply immediately on this, but he might be able to work with one from his officials about reports overnight in Nottingham, where there is no choice now over someone’s cancer care and such care is being “rationed”—that was the word used—because of workforce shortages. That is exceptionally alarming and will lead to some dreadful outcomes for people in our city. I hope there could be a follow-up letter about what is being done to switch those services back on immediately.
Turning back to the Bill, it is right that NHS England would have the power to investigate cases and direct an ICB as to how to rectify failure. It is good that there is a provision whereby investigations can be averted by an undertaking from an ICB to rectify the failure directly; that feels like the right level to start at. I am keen to understand from the Minister how he expects a person to enter the system and enter into that mechanism. Are they likely to be expected to contact NHS England directly to trigger an investigation or will there be a local process at an ICB level first before escalation? It would seem reasonable that we should exhaust local options before escalating to the regulator. If that is so, what prescription will there be, perhaps in guidance, if not in the Bill, for the form that that takes, so that an ICB that is not engaging positively with an individual cannot act like a blocker to elevating that? Perhaps we could consider bringing in a trusted third party at a local level—for example, Healthwatch would very well placed.
We saw in written evidence concerns that the current plans might not go far enough. The National Community Hearing Association said in its evidence:
“Existing rights to patient choice do not go far enough and typically only apply to primary care and consultant-led services. Giving patients more choice and control over their care for non-consultant-led services, especially for long-term conditions such as adult hearing loss, results in better health outcomes and helps tackle health inequalities. We would ask the Committee to press the case for the regulations to be made under this power to expand a patient’s right to choice. Regulations can do this by enabling patients to choose an NHS community provider for their hearing care where clinically appropriate. Currently only 50% of NHS regions in England offer patients this choice, resulting in inequalities in access to care.”
I wonder whether the Minister has considered that and could perhaps give us his reflection on the matter.
Edward Argar
Before I turn to the substance of my contribution, let me say that I am not aware of the specifics of the issue that the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised, but if he writes to me, I will pass it on to my officials and see whether I can look into it for him.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol South for bringing this important discussion on end-of-life care before the Committee today through her amendment. Amendment 93 would add a provision to the regulation-making powers in relation to patient choice, requiring that any regulations made under the power must make provision so that anyone with a diagnosis of terminal illness is offered a conversation about their holistic needs and their wishes and preferences for the end of their life. This would include addressing support for their mental and physical health, wellbeing, financial and practical matters and social relationships.
Such regulations would require that, where that individual lacks capacity for such a conversation, it is offered to another relevant person, and that a relevant authority must have regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.
It is of course incredibly important that anyone at the end of their life, whether or not they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, has the opportunity to discuss their needs, wishes and preferences for their future care, so that they can be fully taken into account. There is already ongoing work across the health and care system to support this aim, including a commitment within the NHS long-term plan to provide more personalised care at the end of life. There is also a recently updated quality statement within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on advance care planning.
Furthermore, the ministerial oversight group, which was recently established following the CQC’s review of “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” decisions during the covid-19 pandemic, is also developing a set of universal principles for advance care planning to further support health and care professionals in having appropriate and timely discussions with individuals at the end of life. I hope that the reassurance that I was able to offer the hon. Member for Bristol South in our discussion on a previous clause did help.
At this moment, I will pause briefly to join the hon. Member for Nottingham North and others in paying tribute to the work of Marie Curie, which does amazing work day in, day out. Through its work on this, it has helped to raise, in the context of the Bill, the profile of this issue.
I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that I recall his work, when we were relatively new Members in this place, on the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign. I have considerable sympathy with the campaign, and I pay tribute to him for his work back in the days when I was a Back Bencher and able to engage more directly with campaigns. I also pay tribute to the TUC for its work in this area, because it is extremely important. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not stray into other Departments’ policy remits, but the issues that he was bringing to the fore were important ones and that continues to be the case, so it is right that I acknowledge his work.
We know that patient choice is a powerful tool for improving patients’ experience of care, and we intend to ensure that effective provisions to promote patient choice remain. I do not feel that it is appropriate for it to be written into primary legislation. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Bristol South said she does not intend to press the amendment, but she makes her point.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He mentioned the ministerial oversight group on advanced care planning. Would he be able to indicate when we will hear from that review—if not now, perhaps in writing?
Edward Argar
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to communicate that information to her.
We know how important patient choice is, and not just in terms of individual choice, although it is of course vital in that context, but also in helping drive the system to continuously improve. We take the view that it should be determined through regulations. We have chosen that approach to allow the legislation to be flexible and to reflect changing priorities and new policies in relation to patients’ rights to choice.
The shadow Minister raised the process and mechanism for complaints. The individual would in the first instance complain to the ICB, as the commissioner and main body providing and co-ordinating health services in their locality. If they are not satisfied with that, they could then escalate that complaint to NHS England. It is not straight to the top, as we all know through our casework. We recognise and advise our constituents to go through the complaints process, and only at the final stage does it reach Ministers and NHS England or ombudsmen or other national bodies. That would be our approach.
Regulations on patient choice have previously been made under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Opposition Members will of course be deeply saddened that that section is being repealed by the Bill, including its procurement elements. In so doing, the Bill also revokes the regulations covering patient choice, so clause 67 ensures that patient’s rights to choice continue to be protected.
The clause adds similar powers, including those relating to guidance and enforcement of the standing rules, into the National Health Service Act 2006, and introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations on patient choice. The power to make guidance and enforcement of patient choice will be held by NHS England, following the planned merger with NHS Improvement, with the complaints process that I set out earlier. The clause will give NHS England powers, which NHS Improvement currently holds, to resolve any breaches of patient choice.
There is currently a wide range of choices that people should expect to be offered in the NHS services they use—for example, choosing a GP and GP practice and choosing where to go for your appointment as an outpatient—and the clause will allow for those and other aspects of patient choice to be preserved. The clause will make sure that, under the new model, bodies that arrange NHS services are required to protect, promote and facilitate the important right of patients to make choices about who provides those services.
We know that patient choice is an incredibly powerful tool for improving patients’ experiences of care. The clause will ensure that effective provisions to promote patient choice remain, will strengthen existing choice rights and will continue to make them a requirement of the decision-making bodies that commission healthcare services. Without the clause, patients’ right to choice would be removed along with section 75’s removal. NHS bodies would not be under duties to protect and promote patient choice. Clause 67 reinserts the right and inserts schedule 11.
Schedule 11 provides further details of the powers given to NHS England to resolve any breaches of the patient choice requirements imposed on an ICB. It requires NHS England to publish a procedure outlining how it will resolve failures of an integrated care board to comply with patient choice, and lays out the reporting and appeals process. It also allows NHS England to treat inaccurate, misleading or incorrect information from an ICB as failure to comply, which will, I hope, encourage the full and accurate engagement of an ICB in addressing a failure.
People should expect to be offered a wide range of choices, as I have alluded to, and the clause and schedule will allow for that. NHS England will be able to ensure that ICBs are required to protect, promote and facilitate that important and powerful right. We know how important that is for individuals and for driving the right behaviours in the system and to improving care.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting this issue with such importance. We know that patient choice is vital when a person gets to those end-of-life stages and has a terminal illness. Could I request that consideration is also given to timeliness around choice-making? For some people, particularly those suffering with motor neurone disease, their disease can move quite swiftly, so timeliness in those conversations is important. I would be grateful if consideration could be given to that, and I am heartened by what I hear from the Minister.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about timeliness, both from the system, in initiating those conversations, and as something that all of us need to pay heed to as individuals. Before the pandemic and before she stood down at the 2019 election, I held an event in my constituency with the former right hon. Member for Loughborough, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, about thinking and making choices early and preparing ourselves for getting older—things like preparing a will and powers of attorney. All too often, for very understandable psychological reasons, many of us do not want to think about such things, because they are an intimation of mortality. However, it is important that as individuals and as a system and a society we think and plan early, because it can make such a huge difference to the quality of our older years or the end-of-life period.
Therefore, if I may, Mr McCabe, I commend clause 67 and schedule 11 to the Committee.
Karin Smyth
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 68
Procurement relations
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 68, page 61, line 32, leave out “health care services” and insert “services required”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 99, in clause 68, page 61, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must provide that no contract for the provision of the services specified in subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b) may be awarded other than to a relevant authority unless a formal competitive tendering process provided for by the regulations has been followed.”
Amendment 96, in clause 68, page 62, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must—
(a) include the power for integrated care boards to continue to commission the services provided by an NHS trust or Foundation Trust without any requirement for any re-tendering process,
(b) require that, prior to commencing any formal procurement process for a service provided by an NHS provider, where the contract value exceeds a threshold set by the relevant integrated care partnership, the integrated care board must conduct a public consultation and publish the business case for opening the service to a competitive tender process,
(c) require an assessment to be made of alternative ways of providing a service using NHS providers before a contract with a non-NHS provider may be extended or renewed,
(d) be based on the assumption that the NHS is the preferred provider of services, and
(e) require providers to pay staff in line with NHS rates of pay and to provide terms and conditions of employment at least equivalent to NHS terms and conditions.
(3B) NHS England must publish a report each year on the proportion of contracts subject to the regulations which are awarded to each of NHS, third sector, local authority and independent sector providers.
(3C) NHS England and each integrated care board must publish a plan every three years on reducing the provision of NHS services by private providers and increasing the capacity of NHS providers to provide those services.
(3D) Integrated care boards must publish, in full and without any recourse to commercial confidentiality, all—
(a) bids received for contracts,
(b) contracts signed, and
(c) reports of routine contract management.”
New clause 12—NHS as the preferred provider of NHS contracts—
“(1) The NHS is the preferred provider of NHS contracts.
(2) NHS contracts must be provided by NHS suppliers unless the NHS supplier is unable to fulfil the terms of that contract.
(3) Where the NHS is unable to fulfil the terms of a contract, a competitive tender must be held to identify an alternative provider.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘alternative provider’ means private companies and independent sector treatment centres, and
(b) general practice and GP-led community services are NHS suppliers.”
This new clause would establish NHS suppliers of services as the preferred providers of NHS contracts. Independent sector providers could hold NHS contracts after winning a competitive tender.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe. We have arrived back at the start: the need to end the bureaucratic, expensive and ultimately corrosive requirement for compulsory competitive tendering for health services, which led the drive from NHS England and its former chief executive to first ignore the Lansley Act and ultimately push for its repeal. It turned out that trying to implement the requirements of that Act gave rise to all the problems the Opposition foresaw a decade ago.
Has the Minister seen any impact assessment of the benefits to the NHS of removing the requirements? Is he able to give us a total amount of the cost to the NHS of this folly over the past decade? Is he able to quantify exactly how much public money has been spent on lawyers and consultants going through all the hoops that were laid down by Lansley? I am not just talking about the extra work in putting the contracts out to tender in the first place, never mind the millions that will have been spent on defending and justifying decisions taken from disappointed bidders, which is a big part of it as well. Let us not forget that, as a result of that legislation, we had the obscene spectacle of the NHS being sued by Virgin Care. That certainly was not one of the benefits trailed by the Government of the time back in 2012.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for a fantastically thorough, comprehensive and damming indictment on everything that has come before and for some warnings about what may face us. I rise because I do not want to let the moment go without saying goodbye to section 75. It is what brought me into Parliament, having worked collaboratively in the local system at that time developing clinical commissioning. There was broad agreement before the 2010 election on the direction of travel, which was completely upturned by the coalition Government and the fault lies at the doors of both parties.
The destruction is a warning, though. I am looking around the room, Mr McCabe; I think that nobody on this Bill Committee was a Member of Parliament at that time, apart from your good self. I may be wrong about that, but it might be the case. What I experienced working in that service was the horror that Parliament could produce something that had been so widely warned about and that would be so disastrous. There was not a single ounce of support beyond the political agreement that the coalition formed at that time, which got them into this terrible position, even with the pause, that could not be rowed back. That is something that has helped me as a parliamentarian: what we do here—how we are sometimes invited to vote by the Whips, the scrutiny we give to legislation and the judgment we have to use as individuals—is really important.
Every time we go into the voting Lobby or review legislation, we should all give serious thought to the processes in this place—I understand them now, but did not then—that led to that terrible legislation being passed. We should find better ways to climb off the perch when something has gone as far, and as disastrously, as that legislation did.
There is debate about political interference or accountability—whatever we call it—when it comes to the NHS; as I have said before, the huge amounts of money that parts of the public sector now consume means we should operationalise quite a lot of that. We have heard a lot of that from the Minister over the course of this Bill.
Ultimately, what we have been asked to do is get rid of something we can all agree to get rid of. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, we have little idea of what will replace it, and crucially—the theme we keep coming back to: how are the patient and public voice empowered in the new system and how is the local external scrutiny and accountability in the new system? Again, I refer the Minister to my helpful amendment about a good governance commission.
However, the situation does not bode well because, as the pandemic has shown us, when backs are against the wall contracts can be put forward, friends and family can be added to major bodies, and organisations that play by the rules and go through due process can be completely marginalised. That has tainted the Government and all of us as politicians, and we need to get away from it.
Finally, the disaster of the reforms—the Lansley Act—was not only about the public waste, time and opportunity devoted to them; the warnings about pandemics were there at the same time, in 2010 and 2011 reports. The system was not developed and not focused on to how to prepare for the pandemic that we have now endured. That is the cost of management time and focus that was put into this sort of outsourcing, regulations and procurement, and trying to understand them. It was not focused on patient outcomes as they presented or on futureproofing the system. That is why we were not prepared.
We can all dance on the grave of the Lansley reforms today, with this Bill, which is a good thing. However, I am afraid that there is deep concern about what follows. Those reforms should be a lesson to all of us about the consequences of the very grave decisions that we make in this place.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I have listened with great interest to the points made by the hon. Lady and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but I do not recognise my NHS as being a sort of binary choice between public and private sectors.
During the pandemic, we have seen the incredible work across sectors; I am glad that the shadow Minister mentioned the voluntary and community sector, and charities, because that sector has largely been left out of people’s comments. Possibly it was convenient to leave it out because it shows that the breadth of the NHS family is more than the NHS itself; it is very much about everybody working together. For me, that is what integrated care is all about. I welcome the mention of the voluntary and community sector.
When we look at NHS procurement, we also need to focus on prevention as well as on clinical treatments because the wording of new clause 12 seems to focus very much on clinical treatments. We all agree, I think, that the purpose of integrated care is to have a big focus on the prevention piece, and the NHS family must surely include the third sector and private sector providers that are specialists in that area. For me, there is no conflict.
Edward Argar
I welcome the sentiments underpinning some of Opposition Members’ comments about our changes to section 75. I am nothing if not prepared to listen and be pragmatic, and I am glad that they at least welcome that aspect of the Bill.
I will address directly a number of Opposition Members’ points. My right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, but it is surely only a matter of time before she is right honourable—was absolutely right about the NHS family being wider than the NHS itself. All these organisations are involved; to be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, he mentioned the voluntary sector and particular organisations that have done amazing work in the past year and a half. In fact, they do that work every year, and day in and day out, working hand in hand with the NHS. I put on the record my appreciation of the independent sector providers for what they have done during this pandemic to support the pandemic response.
The shadow Minister asked a very specific question about what activity had been undertaken, what money had been spent and what assessments had been made, including of value for money. I do not know whether I have written to him already, but a number of colleagues from across the House have written to me and I have set out, in broad terms, the number of patient episodes that have been provided by the independent sector. If he would like me to write to him in a similar vein, I am very happy to do so; my officials have heard that commitment and I will adhere to it. Regarding the broader point that he made about value for money, cost and how money has been spent, those details will be published later in the year in the usual way, when the accounts for the last year have been audited. They will be published; I make that commitment to him.
The shadow Minister raised a number of other specific issues and I will address one head-on before addressing the substance of the amendments. Essentially, he said that the NHS should be deemed the preferred provider by default almost, citing the words of Dr Chaand Nagpaul. Dr Nagpaul and I have our differences of opinion, shall I say, but he is an eminent clinician and performs a very important role, and I put on the record my respect for him and for the principles that he articulates on many occasions.
I believe that the key defining feature should be what delivers the best outcomes for patients, rather than simply having a default presumption. Now, that may well regularly be, as Dr Nagpaul asserted, the NHS. However, I think we should start from the presumption of what delivers the best services and the best outcomes for patients.
The shadow Minister asked—I think he asked this, but if it was the hon. Member for Bristol South I hope she can forgive me—what regime would apply to the Department. My understanding is that that would continue to be the Public Contract Regulations 2015 in the context of the Department itself. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston suggested that in the next couple of years we would do the next reorganisation; I can reassure him that I am not necessarily sticking to the new Labour playbook of 1999, 2001, 2003—doing something almost every two years.
The hon. Gentleman’s broader point was about the involvement of private sector providers. He will be aware of this, because he knows his NHS and health history, but one of the key points came in 2004—the first time the then Government opened up clinical services to tendering by the private sector, in that case for out-of-hours services. Again, “any qualified provider” dates back to 2009, under the title “any willing provider”, as it then was. It was exactly the same scheme, and all that happened in 2012 was that the name was changed from “any willing” to “any qualified” provider; the scheme was brought in under the Government led by Prime Minister Brown.
Governments of all complexions have amended and changed the clinical regime to recognise that there is a role, as there always has been, for private and voluntary sector providers and, of course, for the NHS at the heart of it. None of that puts at risk a taxpayer-funded NHS that is free at the point of delivery. For the record, I reassure the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect me to, that in the context of trade deals the NHS is not for sale: it never has been, and it never will be.
Turning to the detail of the amendments, amendment 95 would change the scope of the regulation-making powers in this clause. Currently, these will govern the procurement of healthcare services for the purposes of the health service; this amendment would broaden the provision so that it extends to all services required by the health service.
The NHS procures many services, but has specifically asked us to introduce a new, tailored provider selection regime that would replace section 75 and enable it to arrange healthcare services in a more flexible manner and one that fosters integration and collaboration. The NHS has told us that the current competition and procurement rules, particularly the PCR 2015 rules, are not well suited to the way healthcare is arranged in the context of the services the NHS provides. They create barriers to integrating care, disrupt the development of stable collaborations and can cause protracted processes with wasteful legal and administration costs, while adding little value to patients or the taxpayer.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I am afraid the individual costs over the years since 2012 would have been borne at a local systems level, so I suspect that they are not agglomerated together in a national figure. However, I understand his reasons for asking.
When NHS England consulted on the new provider selection regime earlier this year, it suggested specific key criteria to be used in decision making under the regime, tailored towards the effective arrangement and delivery of healthcare services. The proposed criteria include integration and collaboration, and that services should protect patient choice and focus on tackling inequalities. Having a power to introduce procurement measures specifically for healthcare services will enable procurement decisions to focus on such tailored criteria, and to create a regime that works best for the health service.
However, it is right that non-healthcare services—cleaning services, administrative services and others—should, and will, still fall under the PCR 2015 and, in future, the new Cabinet Office procurement regime, which is currently being considered. This will ensure that these services are still arranged in a way that continues to add the best value to the healthcare system.
We know there may be cases in which it is essential that a service is procured as part of a healthcare service contract—I think that was one of the hon. Gentleman’s points. It is for this reason that we have included the ability for regulations made under this power to include provision in relation to mixed procurements, where other goods and services are procured together with healthcare services.
We are working closely with the Cabinet Office and with stakeholders across the health service to ensure that the regulation of mixed procurements of healthcare and other services works effectively for the appropriate arrangement of healthcare services and for the arrangement of wider public services, with respect to their distinct characteristics. Should the hon. Gentleman wish to write to me and ask me to forward his letter to the Cabinet Office to ensure it is cognisant of his views, I am happy to do that.
Amendments 96 and 99 and new clause 12 in effect make statutory NHS providers and general practitioners the preferred provider of NHS-funded services, but our intention is not quite as rigid as what the hon. Gentleman would wish. As I have said, the vast majority of NHS care has and will continue to be provided by public sector organisations, but successive Governments of all political affiliations have allowed the NHS to commission services from the private and voluntary sector, to improve accessibility and experience for patients, to increase capacity swiftly or to introduce innovation.
It is the strong view not just of this Government but of the NHS that local commissioners are the best people to determine what services a local population needs. The best interests of patients, the taxpayer and the population, rather than dogma or ideology, should guide those decisions, and that is what this Bill aims to deliver. I know that the hon. Gentleman is certainly not dogmatic—he may be ideological, but he is certainly not dogmatic—so I hope he appreciates the sentiment behind that statement.
Amendment 99 would mean that a contract for the provision of healthcare services could not be awarded to a body other than a relevant body as defined in the clause unless a full formal competitive tendering process had been followed. This requirement would need to be set out in the regulations made under proposed new section 12ZB.
Amendment 96 would require that regulations include the power for ICBs to commission services provided by an NHS trust or foundation trust without retendering. Regulations would also need to require an ICB to conduct a public consultation and publish a business case where it wished to put out to competitive tender a service currently provided by an NHS provider for contracts over an agreed value. They would also need to require an assessment to be made of alternative ways of providing a service using NHS providers before a contract with a non-NHS provider were extended or renewed. It would require any procurement regulations to be based on the assumption that the NHS is the preferred provider. Regulations would also need to add a requirement on providers to pay and provide terms and conditions of employment to their staff that are at least in line with those of the NHS.
In addition, the amendment would require NHS England to publish a report on the proportion of contracts subject to the regulations made under the new power that are awarded to different types of providers, and would require both NHS England and ICBs to publish a plan for reducing private providers’ provision and increasing the capacity of NHS providers to provide those services. As the shadow Minister set out, it would require ICBs to publish in full bids received for contracts, contracts signed and reports of contract management.
By way of context, the NHS has told us that the current competition and procurement rules are not well suited to the way healthcare is arranged. That is why we are creating a new provider selection regime that provides greater flexibility, reduces bureaucracy on commissioners and providers alike, and reduces the need for competitive tendering where it adds limited or no value. I fear that the amendments would start reimposing a degree of that bureaucracy. The absence of competitive tender processes does not mean an absence of open, transparent and robust decision making. Our proposed new regime is designed to allow transparency, scrutiny and due diligence in decision making, but without all the barriers and limitations associated with running full tender exercises.
NHS England has laid out a series of reasons in its public consultation why competitive tendering may not be suitable in every case. We do recognise the value of competition in particular cases, but this is about introducing an element of greater flexibility, rather than rigidity. NHS England has proposed that, having considered a set of key criteria, the decision-making body may have reasonable grounds for choosing either to continue with the incumbent provider where it is doing a good job and the service is not changing, or alternatively, where the service is changing, of selecting one provider or group of providers or of course holding a competitive tendering process.
Structuring the new provider selection regime around such criteria will ensure that the factors taken into account by commissioners are those relevant to the health service, while still retaining flexibility in the types of provider from which commissioners can commission. Amendment 99 would mean that these regulations go further than the existing rules under the PCR 2015. Those regulations allow for an exception to competitive tendering where competition is absent for technical reasons, but this provision would not allow for that, nor for an exception in relation to a procurement for an extremely urgent case.
Transparency was a keen concern of the hon. Gentleman. Regulations and statutory guidance made under new clause 68 will set out rules to ensure transparency and scrutiny of decisions to award healthcare contracts under the new provider selection regime. The regulation-making powers specifically allow for the imposition of requirements for the purposes of ensuring transparency and fairness in arranging services, which will allow us to design a regime to ensure open, transparent and robust decision-making, including requiring decision-making bodies to keep records of the rationale for their decisions.
We do not consider it necessary to publish all bids received for contracts or the detailed content of all contracts. Doing so would have the potential to prejudice the commercial interests of the parties involved, including NHS commissioners and providers as well as those bidding.
We consider these amendments to be unnecessary. Indeed, we fear that they might actively undermine what the NHS is telling us it needs from the private selection regime to secure high-quality, safe and good-value services. Therefore, I hope that I might tempt the hon. Members not to press their amendment to a vote. I have a feeling, though, that we might face a Division on it in the near future.
Let me move briefly to the clause 68 stand part debate. The clause inserts a new section, 12ZB, into the National Health Service Act 2006.
Edward Argar
In that case, I nudge the Opposition to consider withdrawing their amendment, but I may be unsuccessful.
Justin Madders
I picked up some interesting points. There was, I think, some common ground with the Minister about the mistakes of the past. From the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, I think we have found one positive aspect of section 75, which is that it brought her to this place. At last, there is something positive to say, because we do not mourn its passing. As she said, at the time, not a single ounce of support existed for those rules outside of the coalition Government, but we will not go over all the old ground again.
In his response, the Minister talked about the “any qualified provider” regime that was introduced in 2009. My understanding is that, had we been successful at the 2010 election, we would have moved to “a preferred provider”, but, of course, when we look at the commitments made in 2010, we can forget David Cameron’s promise not to reorganise the NHS. We will see whether the Minister’s promises in respect of that are as robust.
The Minister says that what matters is the best outcome for patients, and we absolutely agree with that. We think that the best outcome for patients will be stability and a regime in which the NHS is the preferred provider, because all the evidence points to better outcomes for patients.
I am grateful to the Minister for not characterising me as dogmatic, because I do not wish to be. I wish to be pragmatic. The idea of putting into the Bill some requirements about what we expect from the regulations is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but until we see those regulations, we cannot be sure about what they will include. By supporting the amendment, what we hope to include is a base position that injects a degree of transparency, which is what has been lacking over the past 18 months, and the Bill clearly fails to refer to any particular issues in that regard. Our view is that the purpose of this Bill should be to reinforce the NHS—to bolster it—by using a preferred provider, which is why we wish to put our amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will be brief because we covered key aspects of clause 68 in debates on the amendments. The clause inserts proposed new section 12ZB into the NHS Act 2006. Section 12ZB allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the regulatory framework for the procurement of healthcare services, to better meet the needs of the NHS.
Section 12ZB provides further information about the content of those regulations. They may contain provision in relation to the objectives of procurement, and they may contain provisions ensuring transparency, fairness and effective management of conflicts of interest, as well as provision for the purpose of verifying compliance with the regime. The new section also allows for NHS England to publish guidance about compliance with the new procurement requirements to which relevant authorities, as defined in the section, must have regard.
The NHS has sent us a clear message that the current regime for arranging healthcare services is not working. It is confusing, overly bureaucratic and does not fully support the integration and efficient arrangement of services and collaboration in the best interest of patients, which, of course, run through the Bill like a golden thread. Through the clause, we will develop a new provider selection regime for the NHS and public health—a bespoke NHS regime that will give the NHS and local government more discretion over how they arrange healthcare services. Informed by the consultation run by NHS England earlier this year, it will aim to enable collaboration and collective decision-making—recognising that competition is not the only way of driving service improvement. It will aim to reduce bureaucracy on commissioners and providers alike, and to remove the need for competitive tendering where it adds limited or no value.
We recognise that in many cases competition can be beneficial for procurement. Where a competitive tender is the best way for an NHS commissioning body to secure value and quality in its healthcare provision, it will be used. However, it will no longer be the default that contracts in the NHS are automatically put out to tender. All decisions about provider selection will continue to be made in an open and transparent way, considering key criteria and applying them to decision making, in the best interests of patients and the taxpayer. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not repeat all my comments from earlier, to save the Committee’s time. I have two remaining specific questions, which I hope the Minister can address. The clause says that regulations “may” be produced. Can he state for the record that there will be regulations? Can he also give us some indication of when they are likely to be made and when they are likely to take effect?
Edward Argar
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that “may” is the technical language used in drafting such legislation, but we intend that they will be made. I am afraid I will disappoint him on the second part of his question, because I would not presume to say exactly when; that will be down to the passage of this legislation and then the usual wait and the discussions through the usual channels on securing an appropriate slot for the regulations. I hope I have given the hon. Gentleman a modicum of reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Procurement and patient choice: consequential amendments etc
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 69, page 62, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) In the National Health Service Act 2006, in section 272(6), after paragraph (za), insert the following paragraph—
‘(zaa) regulations under section 12ZB,’”.
This amendment would require a draft of procurement regulations under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act (inserted by clause 68) to be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
I will not detain the Committee long on this amendment. Following on neatly from our previous discussion, it requires that the regulations, which I am now assured will be produced, are subject to a resolution of approval by both Houses. I do enjoy spending time in Delegated Legislation Committees with the Minister, and I hope we will be able to do that again as a result of this amendment’s being accepted.
Edward Argar
I am, as ever, grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The amendment would require a draft of procurement regulations under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act to be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament. As set out in our delegated powers memorandum, the powers created by clause 68 amend the NHS Act 2006. In line with the vast majority of regulations made under that Act, these powers will be subject to the negative procedure in section 272(4) of that Act.
As demonstrated by the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, there is significant parliamentary interest, both in this House and the other place, in the rules for determining how healthcare services are arranged. However, it is vital that we strike the right balance between democratic scrutiny and operational flexibility. The negative procedure provides that balance, ensuring transparency and scrutiny, while also providing sufficient flexibility to ensure that the regulations continue to drive high-quality services and value for money.
We have consulted extensively on the proposals for these regulations to ensure that we are delivering the flexibility, transparency and integrated approach that the NHS has asked for. The engagement exercise undertaken in early 2019 collected views from across the health sector, and the proposals put forward by NHS England around procurement gained widespread support, with 79% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals.
Earlier this year NHS England consulted on further detail of the proposed regime that should apply when healthcare services are arranged in future, following removal of the current requirements. NHS England received a range of responses from NHS national and representative bodies. In addition to written feedback, it met NHS colleagues and external stakeholders. We have been and continue to be as transparent as possible in our approach to these proposals. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman amendment’s is unnecessary.
Justin Madders
In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I will be very brief. The clause will remove the specific healthcare procurement rules that currently apply to NHS commissioners when arranging clinical healthcare services. Specifically, it will repeal sections 75 to 78 and schedule 9 to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and revoke the National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No.2) Regulations 2013. It also makes other minor, consequential amendments in relation to these changes and the introduction of the power to make a new provider selection regime for procurement of healthcare services under clause 68.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 71 and 72 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 73 stand part.
Edward Argar
I will try to be as brief as I can, while giving the Committee the information it wishes to have.
This package of measures is aimed at promoting collaboration in the NHS, reflecting a shift towards integration between commissioners, providers and other partners as a way of improving the healthcare people receive. Clause 70 allows for the removal of Monitor and the Competition and Markets Authority’s duties to co-operate in the exercise of their functions as concurrent competition regulators. Instead, they are replaced with a duty on NHS England to share regulatory information with, and provide assistance to, the CMA where the CMA requires it to exercise its functions.
Clause 71 removes the Competition and Markets Authority’s role in reviewing mergers solely involving NHS foundation trusts, NHS trusts or a combination of both. The CMA has led a number of investigations into NHS provider mergers or acquisitions in recent years. Although it has approved all but one merger, the investigations have been costly and time-consuming for the organisations involved.
We recognise the CMA’s important role in investigating alleged infringements of competition law and particular markets if it sees issues for consumers with reducing competition. However, as has been alluded to, the NHS is not a true market, and it has become clear that the CMA is not the right body to review NHS mergers. Instead, NHS England will continue to review all NHS provider mergers to ensure they have clear benefits for patients and the taxpayer. The CMA will retain its merger control powers in relation to the private healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, where competition plays a greater role. The NHS should be able to make decisions about provider mergers itself. Without this clause, NHS provider mergers will still be subject to costly, time-consuming investigations.
Building on the experience of the last few years, the Bill will clarify the central role of collaboration in driving performance and quality in the system. As part of that, under clause 72, we are looking to remove Monitor’s role as a concurrent competition regulator. However, although we are removing Monitor’s competition regulation functions, it is right that NHS England should continue to share regulatory information with and provide assistance to the CMA so that the CMA can carry out its functions. The clause will ensure that the CMA has the information and assistance it needs to do that in respect of its competition functions to prevent anti-competitive behaviour in the wider sector. That will ensure that the CMA can continue to make sure that the healthcare sector works for consumers, patients and the taxpayer.
The clause removes Monitor’s competition functions, which it exercises concurrently with the CMA. It also inserts schedule 12, which makes consequential amendments in relation to the removal of Monitor’s competition functions. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 allowed Monitor to exercise some of the functions that the CMA holds under the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002, but solely in relation to the provision of healthcare services in England. Those included powers to take action on anti-competitive agreements and conduct in the sector and powers in relation to mergers in the sector.
The Bill will enhance collaboration between different NHS commissioners, providers and local authorities. We therefore expect that NHS England’s primary role, following its merger with Monitor, will be to support commissioners and providers to deliver safe, effective and efficient care, rather than to act as an economic or competition regulator.
While competition will continue to play an important role, including through patient choice and the new provider selection regime, it is right that the duties and role of the merged NHS England give greater weight to fostering collaboration and integration rather than enforcing competition, and that competition regulation is left to the CMA. The concurrent competition duties and functions of Monitor should therefore be removed. Schedule 12, inserted by clause 72, makes the necessary consequential amendments to take account of the removal of Monitor’s competition functions. The clause allows NHS England to work collaboratively with organisations to deliver the best possible services to patients.
Finally, clause 73 removes the CMA’s role in reviewing contested licence conditions. The licence conditions have not changed substantially since they were first agreed in 2013. However, NHS England and NHS Improvement’s oversight of the NHS has changed significantly. Their primary role is to support the delivery of safe, efficient and effective care. The merged NHS England, as provided for under this Bill, should be able to set its own licence conditions for providers and regulate providers of NHS services without needing to refer matters to an external competition regulator such as the CMA.
NHS England will remain under duties to consult with local organisations on revised licence conditions. That, alongside the removal of the CMA’s review functions, ensures that any decisions remain in the interests of the NHS as a whole. In addition, NHS England’s accountability arrangements to the Secretary of State and Parliament offer a further safeguard against disproportionate changes to licence conditions. Sufficient safeguards, such as those that I have mentioned, ensure that providers have input into any proposed changes, without the need for oversight from a third party.
We therefore believe that these measures deliver the changes that the NHS has been asking for to help it deliver the long-term plan and recover from the pandemic. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long, but perhaps we need a minute to pause, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said on Tuesday, this marks the end of an era. Monitor is gone, competition is no more, and procurement is gone—I think—and become bespoke, to be determined in more detail in the regulations. Perhaps even more stark is the fact that ICBs now have providers on the board, having jettisoned the GPs, and that NHS England is now both an actual commissioner and a systems manager for both commissioners and providers. It feels like we are going back to the future.
As the Minister said, these clauses end the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. This is the final nail; it is perhaps the final recognition that the wild promises made about the 2012 Act have failed to achieve what they said they would. The expectations that Lansley set out back then have failed to produce any desirable results. I do not know whether Government Members wish to shed a tear at this point for the end of these measures, but, for Opposition Members, health is not a commodity; it is a right. Health is not a product, and the NHS is not—and never can be—a market.
As we see the end of the ideological attempt to create a market, Opposition Members cheer the bidding into history of this failed experiment, which should never have occurred. Turning to the actual substance of the clauses, as the Minister set out, they do what is necessary to achieve that aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Special Health Authorities: removal of 3 year limit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clauses 74, 75 and 76 repeal the three-year time limit on special health authorities, restate the requirements for special health authorities and NHS trusts to keep proper accounts and records, and repeal the powers of the Secretary of State to make a property or staff transfer scheme.
Together, along with the provisions in the Bill to merge NHS England and NHS Improvement and the powers we will discuss in part 3 of the Bill in a few weeks’ time, these technical changes will help ensure that we have flexibility in the arm’s length body landscape to support the delivery of a world-class healthcare system.
Clause 74 repeals legislative provisions that currently impose a three-year time limit on any newly established special health authority. When the three-year time limit was initially imposed under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was envisaged that any future special health authority would have time-limited functions and therefore be temporary in nature. This has not proved to be the case.
The NHS Counter Fraud Authority is the only special health authority created since the time limit was introduced. The Government consider it unnecessary for the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, or any other special health authorities that are established in future, to undergo the process of extending their lifespan every three years. As well as repealing the time limit, the clause sets out changes to the statutory instrument used to create the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, to reflect the fact that there is no longer an abolition date.
Clause 75 simply tidies up provisions in the current legislation in respect of requirements to keep accounts. It restates the requirements for special health authorities and NHS trusts to keep proper accounts and records. It also restates a number of requirements in relation to the auditing and publication of accounts. This clause does not create any change in existing arrangements.
Finally, clause 76 abolishes powers taken in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to transfer property, rights and liabilities from bodies abolished or modified by that Act. Those powers are now spent, so we are removing the clause to ensure neatness of the statute book, especially as a number of bodies in the 2012 Act are being abolished by this Bill. However, we have retained the ability to make transfer schemes in respect of previously transferred property and rights.
The Bill allows property, rig