Health and Social Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

218A: Clause 153, page 151, line 32, at end insert—
“(1B) Annual proper accounts and proper records must be separately prepared and kept which separately detail the income and expenditure derived—
(a) from private charges, and(b) in relation to the provision of services to NHS patients.(1C) “Private charges” means charges imposed in respect of goods and services provided to patients other than patients being provided with goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England.”

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I start by wishing everybody in the Chamber a happy International Women’s Day.

We turn to the discussion about the private patient cap. We have three amendments in this group, and I will talk to each of them.

Amendment 218A seeks to ensure that proper information is available on private patient income—that is, more than just the final line of total income. This is relevant to ensure that there is no possibility of cross-subsidy from the NHS to the private sector, either directly or by some accountancy magic. There needs to be absolute clarity. As we see new foundation trusts emerge that are neither mental health nor acute-based trusts—ambulance trusts, for example—the issues may be different but the need for transparency and accountability is just the same. This is important for openness and transparency and makes easier the kind of considerations that the governors need to apply. It is also a means of sending a signal that this activity is separate and, at least in some sense, subordinate to the principal purpose, which is to treat NHS patients.

The amendment seeks to delete the part of Clause 163 that brings in the 49 per cent test, which is a new way of making explicit the “principal purpose test” that all foundation trusts have to meet. I think we could all agree that the reaction to the figure of 49 per cent shows how strongly many believe that this is an obvious signal that there should be a great increase in private income that is neither anticipated nor desired. We know that in reality very few foundation trusts even get to 5 per cent, let alone 50 per cent, and there is no immediate prospect of them doing so. It is therefore difficult to see why the Liberal Democrats or indeed Mr Lansley would be so crass as not to see how the 49 per cent figure would be greeted.

There are several dangers with this late pre-Christmas addition to the Bill. It sends the wrong message. We believe that it may tempt bureaucrats and quangos charged with funding to say that some foundation trusts should get less funding as they have not done enough to push up their other sources of income, as we have seen with local authorities that rely heavily on other income. This would be totally wrong and an inappropriate target for the NHS. We also think that there is a danger that high levels of foundation trust income may exacerbate fears of queue-jumping and charging.

There is a serious argument that when private patient income is as the result of innovation and intellectual property, as we all wish to be the case, then high levels of benefit should be shared more widely rather than being kept in one trust. Since the NHS as a whole will have nurtured that opportunity, the NHS as a whole should benefit. A high-performing trust with little or no private income is certainly no worse than any other, and some may argue that it may even be better if its focus is in the right place—that is, NHS patient care. We suspect that this might be an attempt to shift foundation trusts from being NHS providers that focus on NHS patients to some sort of multinational health business, and that their success or otherwise will be measured against a new benchmark of how much private patient income they generate.

Of course we recognise the special place that some of our leading hospitals have in the high private patient cap that they need to reflect their partnerships with research and other institutions across the world. None of these amendments seeks to diminish that—indeed, quite the reverse—but those hospitals will only ever be a small number, and the amendments address the majority of foundation trusts.

In Committee I asked the Minister for any evidence of benefits to NHS patients. It seems that the Government were just relying on claims made by a number of foundations trusts eager to expand. One day perhaps a proper independent study will be carried out. Some would say that independent studies into claims that foundation trusts are more innovative or that they improve faster than non-foundation trusts have been disproved by evidence. The real test is how private income benefits NHS patients, and that is not the same as benefiting the organisation or the prestige of some of its senior staff. Removing the 49 per cent and relying on the principal purpose, plus the role of governors, is a much better route to providing the flexibility that is needed to change private patient income caps. Our Amendment 220C addresses that issue, and it has been the subject of much discussion. I hope that the misrepresentation of that amendment, particularly by the Prime Minister, will not be repeated here. We accept the need for flexibility, and were looking at this matter when in office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, this group of amendments is on the question of foundation trusts’ private income cap. All of us are agreed that the number of private patients and the amount of private income are important considerations for foundation trusts. The risks to the NHS of too much private income and private treatment in foundation trust hospitals are clear and perhaps do not need rehearsing at length. If too many beds in such hospitals are taken up with private patients, unless we are very careful, that may limit accessibility of those beds to NHS patients. The development of foundation trust hospitals with an unusually great proportion of private income may—again, unless we are very careful—threaten to undermine the commitment to reducing health inequalities that runs through the Bill. Emergence of “star hospitals” could threaten other hospitals in the region.

Finally, the threat of foundation hospitals being subject to EU competition law would have been greater if it were possible to have foundation trust hospitals a majority of whose income was private; that, at any rate, is our view. This is one of the principal reasons for the cap on caps, by which the principal purpose of foundation trust hospitals can only be fulfilled if more than half of foundation trusts’ income is NHS income. That is the so-called 49 per cent.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the only reason that that majority provision can be said to send the wrong message is that, sadly, some in her party have taken to the airwaves to say that there is a hidden agenda to the Bill by which the Government seek to make national health foundation trust hospitals have 49 per cent of their income from private patients. There is no such hidden agenda. Frankly, it has not been responsible politics to raise people’s fears by going around the country suggesting the contrary.

[Baroness Thornton]

Does the noble Lord think that it was necessary to put 49 per cent in the Bill? Why did the Government have to put a percentage in at all? Does he think that the communication issues, as it were, around this were handled very well?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, on these Benches we take the view that it was sensible to include this provision. The advice that we have is that the risk of the application of competition law is reduced by ensuring that the majority of income for NHS foundation trust hospitals will always be for the purpose of treating NHS patients. It is not an absolute guarantee but it is a sensible risk-reduction exercise and it was put in for that purpose. There is no point in taking a risk unnecessarily. The communication problem has frankly been the result of the efforts of opponents of the Bill, partly in the party of the noble Baroness, in stressing the 49 per cent and suggesting that it is the purpose of the Bill, which, as I say, it is not.

That is not to say that private income in NHS foundation trusts is bad. The Labour Government recognised that throughout. In her speech, the noble Baroness herself very properly recognised it. Private income represents an opportunity for foundation trusts to attract innovation, to buy new and expensive equipment and to develop world-class centres of excellence. We recognise and applaud those features of private income. However, when tabling Amendment 220B, we were concerned that there should also be an individual arrangement for foundation trusts by which individual limits would be subject to agreement with Monitor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

With respect to the noble Lord, perhaps I may point to a later group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips, which gets to the heart of that question. I do not think that the noble Lord’s question is directly related to the private patient income cap but, if I may, I should like to cover the answer to it when we reach the later group.

[Baroness Thornton]

This goes back to the maths, which partly relates to the question that I asked the noble Earl earlier. I think that the Minister and his colleagues may need to look at what his proposals actually say about the proportion. His amendment refers to 5 per cent, and I am not sure that that is not a very tiny amount. I do not want it to be a particularly big amount but I am not sure that the Bill says what the noble Earl says it says. That is the clarification that I need.

[Earl Howe]

I shall gladly seek clarification and, if I have misled the noble Baroness, I apologise. By the time we reach the end of the debate, I shall have made doubly certain that what I said was correct. I hope that the approach that I have just laid out will allay noble Lords’ concerns, subject to any clarification that I am able to offer the noble Baroness. I am now told that I was absolutely right in what I said.

One thing that these arrangements may well do is nurture the working relationship between directors and governors. I think that they would help to ensure that directors worked collaboratively with their governors to develop non-NHS activity in the best interests of NHS patients. A planned increase of 5 percentage points or more in one year would be a very significant increase in non-NHS income for any foundation trust. Such an increase would certainly be due to a major development becoming operational, such as a new private patient facility. Requiring governors to vote on such a significant development strengthens directors' accountability to their local communities. However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, about confidentiality. In all of this, we should be aware that the strengthening of the governors' oversight in this way places increased responsibility on the governors to maintain an appropriate level of confidentiality while a new project is initially developed. I would expect the directors and governors to ensure that a foundation trust's constitution would protect that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My only frustration was that I was getting to what my noble friend wanted me to cover but she did not give me the chance to do it. Otherwise, I am more than happy to take questions from noble Lords on points of clarification.

I was explaining that governors, as representatives of local communities, will hold directors to account for ensuring that non-NHS activity does not significantly interfere with the foundation trust’s principal legal purpose, which is to provide NHS services. Our proposals strike the right balance between the powers of the directors and the responsibility of the governors.

The answer to my noble friend’s point, and that of my noble friend Lady Williams, is that Monitor will publish guidance for NHS providers on the requirements it sets for them to maintain the continuity of NHS services. We fully expect this guidance to cover conditions for foundation trusts relating to the need to ensure that the continued provision of NHS services is not put at risk by non-NHS activity. As the House will know, foundation trusts will be required to demonstrate how non-NHS income contributes to the foundation trust’s delivery of improved NHS services. In particular, if a foundation trust is increasing its non-NHS income by more than 5 per cent of its total income in a year, we will expect Monitor in every instance to review whether there is any cause to intervene in order to safeguard the ongoing provision of NHS services. This will be in addition to the required scrutiny and approval by the foundation trust’s governors. I hope that fully reassures my noble friends that this matter is not just a question that will be looked at within the confines of a foundation trust. It will have wider exposure than that.

I am afraid I am going to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, not as regards her amendment, which she did not speak to, but as regards Amendment 220C. The problem with it is that it would give Monitor the discretion to agree private income caps for foundation trusts. It would also retain the current cap and, as I have indicated, we think that the cap is unfair and has definitional complexities. That is an undesirable road to go down. It would burden foundation trusts with a governance regime that would be bureaucratic, costly and at odds with a foundation trust’s ability to manage itself.

Requiring governors to vote on any increase to their trust’s private patient cap, and therefore any increase to non-NHS income, would unreasonably inhibit the board of directors’ ability to manage its organisation. We surely do not want foundation trusts being run by boards that are constantly requiring votes by governors. The proposal in Amendment 220C would also require a majority vote by the members of a foundation trust for any increase to the trust’s private patient cap. That is a completely misguided approach. It would undermine the authority of the governors. Governors represent the members, the majority are elected by the members, and they should be allowed to get on and fulfil their responsibilities.

Securing a majority vote by members would also be very expensive. Many foundation trusts have several thousand members. Do we really want scarce NHS resources being spent on polling members about any increases to non-NHS income? I gently ask noble Lords opposite to think again about that.

Finally, Amendment 220C proposes that Monitor should be required to approve any increases to private patient caps beyond 5 per cent. My objection to that is that it would undermine foundation trusts’ autonomy to manage themselves. Directors and governors are better placed than Monitor to decide what is best for their organisation. Monitor’s involvement could also dissuade foundation trusts from pursuing innovative approaches if they are required to go through an external assessment and, in effect, a second approval process.

The central point is this: Part 4 has been built on the experience of what foundation trusts know will work. It represents the opportunity to realise what value foundation trusts can bring to the NHS. It will enable them to develop as responsive, transparent, autonomous and accountable bodies. Removal of the private patient income cap is about foundation trusts making the most of the opportunities they have to earn additional income for investment in the NHS. It is precisely why many NHS leaders and clinicians wrote an open letter to this House urging support to remove the cap. I hope that what I have said will reassure noble Lords that we have the right checks and balances in place while also giving foundation trusts the freedom that they need and have asked for. I also hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the Minister for those remarks. I might be able to make him happy at least in one or two respects. This has been an interesting and useful debate, but I would like to start by making two comments. The first is about the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I know that he and his colleagues have been frustrated about the interpretation that has been put on the 49 per cent. The noble Lord spoke about that being there to mitigate risks. The only point that I would make to him and his colleagues is that the opportunity to mitigate those risks was there earlier this week, and they did not take it.

I would also like to apologise to colleagues on the Cross Benches if they have found the adversarial style in this part of the Bill unhelpful. On these Benches, it partly stems from our very grave disappointment that we have not managed on Report to protect the NHS in the way that we felt was necessary. I am afraid that those arguments are political arguments and the arguments that we have had to have. I put that on the record. I do not apologise for the fact that they have been political, but I apologise to my colleagues that sometimes they have not been entirely comfortable with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I cannot speak with anything like the authority of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Few of us can. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has obviously been working off the same brief that I have been looking at, so there is little that I can add to what she said. However, I was struck by the research findings that she told us about, which make clear the lack of attention that is paid to the involvement of children. I note also that there were concerns expressed around the involvement of children in patient and public voice mechanisms in the NHS. These concerns were reflected in the report of the Future Forum. Therefore, I think there is every reason to make the involvement of children explicit on the face of the Bill.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, we welcome the amendments. Anxiety has been expressed by children’s organisations on two fronts throughout the course of the Bill. One is that the fragmentation and reorganisation proposed in the Bill mean that the safeguarding of children’s health may be lost in some way. The second is that it is not clear that children’s voices will be heard, which is the subject of these two very modest amendments. I hope that the Government will accept them. I cannot see any reason why they should not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

I am very sorry if there was a conflict of timing. Obviously it is difficult to schedule all the various meetings. My noble friend Lord Howe has had 100 meetings on this Bill.

[Baroness Thornton]

This has happened all the way through.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very sorry if that was the case. If it was the case all the way through, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, indicates, perhaps it might have been an idea to feed that in.

[Baroness Thornton]

The noble Baroness might like to check with the Box. I informed the noble Earl’s office of the times of our group meetings at the beginning of proceedings. Meetings and seminars have clashed all the way through.

[Baroness Northover]

I am very sorry if that is the case. I would hope that we would be able to have other such meetings. As these arrangements are taken forward, it would be extremely useful to have people’s engagement. I was extremely glad that, even in such a clash, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and her noble friend were there.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, should have received the letter about the amendments, but I gather that he thought he had not. A letter and briefing notes were sent to all Peers when the amendments were tabled and a full narrative of local healthwatch policy has been published on the Department of Health website. If the noble Lord has not seen the letter then I will feed that into the department to make sure that he receives this information so that he has it at his fingertips when he is contacted late at night by people who email him with concerns.

As I have mentioned before, it is very important that the local healthwatch seeks out views right across the area. It is an important factor in this arrangement that the local healthwatch will have a seat on the health and well-being board. I hope that that will help to reassure people of the influence of local healthwatch.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, talked about privatisation by so-called social enterprises, or he flagged that up as a concern. I emphasise that the Government are huge fans of social enterprises, which perform a range of roles across the NHS. Social enterprises such as Turning Point are, of course, extremely valuable. This is not about privatisation or competition, as I feel we have made very clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also referred to my noble friend Lord Howe. My noble friend’s concern in 2007 was that local LINks should have at least a basic structure of governance. That is precisely the concern that has led us to propose that local healthwatches should be social enterprises. The question of governance is quite separate from the question of whether or not an organisation should be statutory. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, can enter dialogue with my noble friend Lord Howe on all of that in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also asked about the possibility of there being more than one local healthwatch. Only one local healthwatch will be permitted for each local authority area. Each local authority will be able to make only one contract. If the local healthwatch wishes to subcontract some of its functions it can do so if the local authority permits, but the functions would still remain the responsibility of the local healthwatch. I hope that that clarifies the position.