Health and Care Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to contribute to this group and speak to Motions G1, G2 and H. As context, I say that my noble friend, the Front Bench team and their Bill team have gone to enormous efforts to try to reach a number of compromises; at this stage it is incumbent on us to recognise that. If we were to send further amendments to the other place, we should confine ourselves to doing so only in circumstances where we believe that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a compromise on them.

I was a signatory to Amendment 80. There was a compelling reason to send that to the other place and ask it to consider again the question of excluding local authority contributions from the calculation of the social care cap. The reason was, very straightforwardly, that it was introduced in the Commons at a late stage in the passage of the Bill. At that point—on Report—MPs themselves complained vociferously that they had not had an opportunity to consider it for any period of time, so it has gone back. In sending it back, we have done our job, but I am afraid I see no evidence that the Government, given their majority in the Commons, are going to reconsider the central question of excluding local authority contributions from the cap. I think they are wrong but, particularly given the substantial financial consequences it would entail, it would be wrong for us to think that we could insist—and if we cannot insist, we should not send it back.

Where Motion H is concerned, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who kindly moved my amendment—which was entirely in my name— as at that point I was down with Covid for the first time. I would not now insist on that provision, not least because it entails financial privilege. From my point of view, it was to say, “Would you please get on with it?” My noble friend said in his introduction that the Government are getting on with it. I can promise him that, if they do not get on with it by the latter part of next year, we will be complaining and will be right to do so.

I turn to Motion G. Why have I tabled Motion G2? I confess that I have done it not in the expectation that we will send it to the other place because, as my noble friend said, that would be to intervene with quite a significant argument at this very late stage. However, I think the development of these arguments on the part of the Government has been quite interesting. First, they said, “Well, we are doing something and something is better than nothing.” Indeed, something is better than nothing, but it is not necessarily the best thing. So we said, “Hang on a minute. You said you would do this last September and introduce the cap.” We thought they were doing something that was very much in line with the Dilnot recommendations, even if the cap was set at a higher level, but it then turned out that they were not and that they were excluding local authority contributions.

On the financial implications of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, set out very well, if it saves £900 million, from whom principally is that saving to be derived? It is from those who are otherwise the beneficiaries of local authority contributions and who, as a consequence, are not asked to pay towards the cap. As the noble Baroness said, particularly if they have dementia and long-term care needs, over the years their assets will be substantially more depleted than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think we should kid ourselves: the Government are planning to do something which, in my view, exacerbates significantly the inequitable characteristics of the way the cap works. It is regressive in its effects.

Curiously, when they were debating this at the other end, they looked at the risk that incorporating local authority contributions would mean that, in different places across the country, different local authorities would provide different levels of contributions and therefore people would end up with some inequity in the amount they had to pay. This is no doubt true, but it feels like the Government shrieked at the mouse of inequity that would result from that and ignored the elephant of inequity that is in the removal of the local authority contribution to the cap.

I am always rather amused when the Minister is briefed—this happened at the other end as well—to tell us about what happened in 2012 or 2014 on the Care Act. Yes, Andrew Dilnot looked at whether the cap should be expressed as a percentage of people’s assets and did not recommend it, but that is not what is proposed in Motion G2. The model that was rejected was that there would not be a cap figure and that the cap would simply be expressed as a percentage—the so-called limited liability model. We did not support it, but the Dilnot model also had a lower cap and its structure, with the changes in the means test, would have had the effect that nobody would have lost more than about 45% of their assets. The structure the Government are now bringing in will mean that people with relatively few assets will continue to lose, in effect, 100% of their assets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, correctly said, people who have substantial assets will only ever lose a modest proportion of those. It is not fair.

I am going to retreat, but I tell my noble friend that I think the Government should say, and I hope he will say in response, that if this turns out to be inequitable, which I believe it will, and the Government want to find the money to do something about it, they have the means to do so. I think that using the concept of a percentage of one’s assets is a legitimate way of doing it. Finally, just to put this on the record, my noble friend said that we cannot do that and that it is unworkable because people’s assets are constantly changing. No: if you do it in the context of the cap, people whose assets are significantly in excess of the requisite calculation of the amount of relevant assets would never have to be checked again. It is therefore perfectly possible to do it in relation only to those people whose financial means have to be regularly assessed for the purposes of the local authority means test in any case.

It is entirely workable; it could be done. Frankly, I think that with the passage of time the Government will realise that it is a better way of managing the cap; saying, for example, that 50% or 60% of one’s assets may be required to meet the cap but never as much as 100%. So I am retreating, and I encourage noble Lords not to insist on something that has substantial financial implications and on which the other place—as was quite clear from the debate—is not willing to shift. I hope my noble friend will say that, if this or indeed any future Government were to decide that they wanted to ameliorate the regressive effects of the exclusion of local authority contributions, there are other routes to doing so. Setting a percentage of the assets of people who are subjected to the means test as their contribution to the cap would be an effective way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

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

I should inform the House that if Motion G1 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Motion G2 by reason of pre-emption.