Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will continue to waffle on, because it seems to me that he has put his finger on the real concerns that so many have about this Bill and why people are so opposed to it. The continuing puzzle is why we have this Bill at all when the NHS was in such good condition at the time of the last election. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, might get cross that I come back to this point, but that puzzlement is shared by almost everyone working in the National Health Service and certainly by most patients.
We do not understand what this Bill is all about, unless the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right that, essentially, this is about taking the NHS on a journey to become a second-rate service for the poor and needy. One can see the building blocks that are being put in place. First, the Secretary of State seeks to downplay his or her responsibility for the provision of services. Secondly, we see the NHS starved of resources.
The NHS—I should perhaps remind the House that I chair an NHS foundation trust—is supposedly receiving a real-terms increase in its resources, but I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that that real-terms increase has not reached the service. I do not know where that money is. Either the money is being kept as a bung for GPs and clinical commissioning groups or for the costs of the reorganisation and redundancies that will need to be paid, or, perhaps, it is being held in a fund that will be let out when the NHS reaches crisis point this winter. I do not know, but I can tell the noble Earl that, up and down the country, NHS trusts are facing considerable financial challenges. It can be the only explanation for why the Government are putting so much less emphasis on dealing with waiting times. We had the amendment from my noble friend Lord Warner early on. I do not think the noble Earl was able to convince the House that this Government really are concerned about the waiting times for patients. The risk is, as my noble friend Lady Armstrong said, that we will go back to the bad old days of long waiting times, when consultants faced with patients encouraged those patients to go for private treatment. There are so many examples of this perverse practice that I fear we are going back to it again.
Another factor in where we are going is the noble Earl’s refusal to refer to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. All we hear from the Government is this generic term “provider”. Of course we understand that, because it is the mantra of Ministers that there is no distinction; the qualification is qualified providers. So the NHS institutions are simply to be seen as a provider, no different from private sector providers. No wonder Ministers are prepared only to talk about commissioning as being part of the NHS. It is almost as if the provider side has been completely written out of the script when it comes to the National Health Service. It is quite clear that, notwithstanding the fact that Monitor will also have to have a role in integration, its real emphasis is on promoting competition. When one considers the issue of the private patient cap, one has to do it in the context of where one thinks the Bill is going.
I must say that I disagreed for once with the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I have very great reservations about the removal of the private patient cap. I certainly understand that there is a need to review how it is working. If there is local support through the members of foundation trusts or the governing body, maybe even through the local health and well-being board, to remove the cap to that extent, I can see that there may be a case for it. However, there needs to be some control to ensure that NHS organisations do not go mad and seek to have a huge increase in their private patient income, because that would be bound to distort their whole behaviour and how they approach NHS patients. I well remember when I first worked at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford, where we had a private patient ward—it was called the Mayfair ward, for some reason. I am sure that the doctors and nurses there would say that the clinical care was just the same, but my goodness me it was very interesting to see the succession of the matron, the senior physiotherapists and the senior consultants walking down to that ward and the amount of time they spent there.
Having a large amount of private care within an NHS organisation is almost certain to distort how that organisation approaches NHS patients. That is why this group of amendments is very important. I hope that the Minister will consider coming back on Report and taking part in our further discussions about the private patient cap. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, should be in no doubt that there is widespread suspicion throughout the National Health Service at the Government’s motivations in relation to this Bill. This is one of the core issues that lead to that suspicion.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, should be a little bit careful before he comes to this Committee and speaks as though it were Second Reading and as though he were not chairman of the Heart of England trust, which I do not doubt has a goodly number of private patients in its midst. He should bear in mind that it was the last Labour Government who introduced private sector involvement into the NHS in 2007; the independent sector was paid on average 11 per cent more than the NHS price.
Earl Howe
I am sorry, but I am going to finish. The private sector was paid £250 million for operations that never happened. I have a very interesting quote here:
“The private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/07; col. 250WH.]
That is a quote from none other than Andy Burnham. It is absolute hypocrisy on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to introduce matters to this amendment that have nothing to do with my noble friend’s point. My noble friend’s point was quite separate from the point that the noble Lord was talking about.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I do not know why the noble Earl mentioned the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. I declared my interest but I am clearly speaking on behalf of the Opposition here. I thought that was a really unworthy remark. As for the general point being made, yes, we invested in the private sector. Why did we do that? It was because we wanted to tackle waiting times. Why did we have to tackle those? It was because there was a real issue in some hospitals with consultants and their productivity. That is why we introduced independent sector treatment centres and why waiting times were reduced to 18 weeks. As for this issue, the noble Earl says that I have gone outwith this amendment but I refer him back to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who talked, quite rightly, of the risks of a two-tier service. That is exactly the issue of concern that I have with the heart of the Bill.
Earl Howe
I have no issue with the private sector acting to provide services for NHS patients, and never have had. My point was that it is a bit rich on the part of the noble Lord to attack the private sector in the way that he did. It is also a bit rich to say that the NHS has been starved of money. If the country had been foolish enough to elect the Labour Government at the election last year, the NHS budget would have been cut. It would not have been kept abreast of inflation, as we have done. It is absolutely monstrous for the noble Lord to pretend otherwise and the caricature that he has given us of this Bill, and what it does, does him no service whatever.
I would like to move on to my noble friend's amendment. Amendments 24 and 30, introduced by my noble friend, would impose on the Secretary of State a duty to have regard to the need to prevent inequalities of treatment and healthcare developing between NHS and private patients. To start with, it is helpful to have clarity around the definitions as there is sometimes scope for misunderstanding. I believe that the amendments are referring to the potential for inequality between services that are paid for by the NHS and those that patients can pay for privately within an NHS hospital. As my noble friend knows, that is of course not the same as the issue of NHS-funded services being provided by private or voluntary organisations. A patient funded by the NHS is an NHS patient, wherever he or she is treated.
In addressing the issues raised by my noble friend, I feel that I have to begin with a basic point. I am not sure, although my noble friend may yet convince me, that it is a matter for public policy to have a target of narrowing the outcomes between NHS and private-funded healthcare. I understand that many people feel uncomfortable at the idea of private-funded healthcare, especially within an NHS hospital. It has always been a controversial subject for Parliament yet the truth, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Ribeiro, is that private healthcare has always coexisted alongside the NHS. Some people will always wish to pay to be treated in more comfort or more quickly than a publicly funded healthcare system can afford and, at the margin, there will always be some treatments that are clinically available but which are not considered cost-effective for the NHS to fund. Some people will want to pay for those and, in a free country, I do not believe that it is the role of the Government to stop that.
However, I do not believe that there is a gaping chasm between the types of clinical treatment offered by the NHS and by private healthcare. The NHS aims to offer a comprehensive health service and, by comparison with many other countries, the private-funded healthcare sector here is relatively small. This illustrates the high degree of public confidence in the NHS as an institution, in that relatively few people decide to pay for a private alternative. Furthermore, rather than making comparisons with private healthcare, we believe that the Secretary of State should be focusing on improving the quality and equity of the services available to those who use the NHS. That is why the Bill introduces for the first time a duty to have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities, and that clearly emphasises our commitment to fairness across the health service. It also recognises the reality that there are many stark variations in quality and access within the services that the NHS funds before we start looking at the comparison between NHS and private healthcare.
In addition, the Bill places a new duty on the Secretary of State to exercise functions with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services. The Secretary of State will therefore be responsible for doing all that he can to ensure that the NHS provides the best quality care to all its patients, no matter what treatment they are receiving or when they are receiving it. The aim of the Government and the Bill is to create a system that delivers world-class healthcare and healthcare outcomes for all NHS patients.
I understand that there is some residual concern that private healthcare might represent a better deal for patients treated by NHS providers but we do not believe that this is the case. Ethically and professionally, clinicians are required to treat all their patients to the same standard and should not discriminate in any way. It would be wrong to suggest that the vast majority who provide an excellent standard of care would do that. We have in place a robust system of service quality regulation that the Bill strengthens and makes more accountable. Fundamentally, the GMC’s Good Medical Practice states that the overriding duties for doctors include making the care of patients a doctor’s first concern and never discriminating unfairly against patients or colleagues. This means that if a doctor were treating private patients to a better clinical service, they would be in breach of these principles and could therefore be putting their registration at risk.
Similarly, any doctor who inappropriately attempts to persuade patients to use private services for their own gain would be in serious breach of medical ethics. For example, the department guidance on NHS patients who wish to pay for additional private care says this:
“NHS doctors who carry out private care should strive to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest between their NHS and private work”.
Indeed, the GMC’s own guidance states:
“You must give patients the information they want or need about … any conflicts of interest that you, or your organisation, may have”.
It makes the point again, in Good Medical Practice:
“You must not put pressure on patients to accept private treatment”.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
If the Minister is correct in his description of the status quo, why does he think that three distinguished consultants, who are in the thick of it, asked to add their names to my amendment?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I have yet to hear from at least one of those consultants. Clearly it is for them to explain why they added their names. I am trying to explain to my noble friend that I see grave problems in accepting an amendment of this kind because in practice it is a non-issue, and because the idea that this is a matter for public policy is one that we should perhaps have a further conversation about. I am not convinced that my noble friend is introducing a matter that should go into statute. It is probably best if we defer further debate on this subject. I have listened carefully to my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken. I am happy to have a conversation with him after the Committee stage. I understand the issue that he has raised and I hope that he will accept that, but I see considerable difficulties in trying to frame an amendment in a way that will do precisely what he wants.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Could I help my noble friend? A sensible suggestion was made that this was more a role for Monitor than anything that should be in an amendment to the Bill. Would my noble friend agree that when this comes back, either later in Committee or on Report, we should look at whether Monitor should carry out the new duty, proposed in the Bill, to reduce inequalities? That might be a better way of moving forward.
Earl Howe
I shall be happy to look at that. Of course, Monitor has a role in making sure that a foundation trust adheres to the conditions of its authorisation, one of which is that its principal purpose will be to serve NHS patients. There could be mileage in that and I would be happy to look at it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his careful response to the debate. I also warmly thank all noble Peers who have taken part in it. It is worth putting on the record that not a single person spoke against the amendment; I think all but one spoke warmly for it. My noble friend said twice that I sought to introduce an inappropriate policy matter into the Bill. This is not a policy, it is a principle—a very fundamental principle. Indeed, the Minister himself, earlier in his response, talked with some pride of the fact that the Secretary of State has to reduce inequalities. That is the same principle, although the area of the Bill that deals with it is not about inequalities between NHS patients and private patients but about those between NHS patients in different parts of the country. It does not cover what is covered by the amendment.
However, I am grateful for the Minister’s offer of conversations afterwards, which I will happily take up. I will certainly want to co-ordinate not only with the three noble consultants who have added their names to the amendment but with others in the House who I know feel strongly about this. I feel sure that the wish and will is that this matter should be brought back at the next stage of the Bill, perhaps with better wording—several Peers referred to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gibson is to be congratulated. I particularly indentify with her remarks about dispensing chemists. As she knows, I supported her on this when I was on the other side of the House, and the issue is close to my heart. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, have raised a very valid issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, and all the amendments in this group, highlight the importance of ensuring that neither rural nor urban areas are affected by health inequalities. I quite understand the noble Baroness’s concerns—especially given that rural areas have unique circumstances that affect their health needs, such as a diffuse population and long travelling times for patients.
I therefore acknowledge that some significant issues face rural and urban areas, as was highlighted by the Marmot review. In particular, there are concentrations of shorter life expectancy and greater illness, and these tend to occur in some of the poorest areas of England, most of which are urban areas of deprivation. There are particular challenges with the provision of services in rural areas due to the higher cost of delivering services in more locations and the greater sparsity of rural communities.
However, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s intentions, I do not feel that the amendments are the most effective way to achieve her aims. Existing reference to “England” or “its area” in the Bill already includes every type of population, including rural and urban populations. The responsibilities for commissioning are absolute across all the communities and individuals for whom they have responsibility. There is no discrimination between different areas. That principle runs throughout the legislation. Moreover, the fundamental and unique change we are making to commissioning is to give local GPs responsibility for securing services for their patients. That vital principle, above all others, will make a decisive break from the past by ensuring that the needs of much smaller groups of patients can be taken into account by the commissioners.
A CCG will be exercising its statutory functions appropriately only if it is meeting the reasonable needs of all the people for whom it is responsible, not just those in particular demographic areas. The guidance on commissioning which the board must issue under the power in new Section 14Z6 could, of course, cover issues relating to commissioning in rural and urban areas.
Although the noble Baroness’s amendments are unnecessary, they could also be damaging. That is because there is the potential under some of the amendments, however inadvertently, to limit the scope of the responsibilities which the Bill places on CCGs. Amendments 188 and 114 could limit the effect of the scope of the duty on reducing inequalities to a duty only in relation to reducing inequalities and access between rural and urban areas. That would not include the duty to tackle the variety of factors which can affect a person's ability to access the care that they need, such as socioeconomic background and ethnicity. The changes proposed to the Secretary of State's duty in new Subsection 1B are particularly problematic in their impact. The Secretary of State may no longer have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between the people of England but only between people in urban and rural areas. Similarly, Amendment 190 could limit the duties regarding reducing inequalities in outcomes to inequalities in outcomes between patients in rural and urban areas only. So I have concerns about the limitations that the amendments may impose.
Despite all that, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill adequately provides for her worthy intentions—due, in particular, to its coverage of the whole of England. With that in mind, she may consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and my noble friend Lady Thornton for their involvement in this short but important debate. I thank the Minister for what I think was his sympathetic reply and his explanation of the amendments, which was very helpful. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.