Down Syndrome Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate, in which the passion for supporting people with Down’s syndrome is absolutely undoubted in this House. I pay tribute to and congratulate Dr Fox, on bringing the Bill forward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on her tireless work for those with learning disabilities over many years. These Benches have often been pleased to follow her lead and support her in this endeavour. I do not doubt that many of the 40,000 people with Down’s syndrome and their families will be watching and listening to this debate today, so I am happy to assure them that the Labour Benches will support the Bill at Second Reading.

We recognise that there are questions that will need to be answered during the Bill’s passage, and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is aware of that. Of course, the first, identified by several noble Lords, is that singling out Down’s syndrome potentially misses the opportunity to ensure that authorities consider other conditions: autism, Rett syndrome and Williams syndrome. Indeed, the Genetic Alliance has contacted me to express its concern about other conditions being relegated. We do not want to create a hierarchy.

For example, as has been mentioned, antiviral Covid treatments have recently been approved for people with Covid-19 who are at the highest risk of becoming seriously ill. Down Syndrome is at the top of the eligibility list whereas other genetic conditions that confer the same or similar risk of becoming seriously ill are not mentioned at all. We do not want to be involved in something that inadvertently creates those kinds of problems and challenges for other learning-disabled people.

However, I welcome the department’s commitment that new guidance will be formed in consultation with key stakeholders. As your Lordships’ House may know, the Health and Care Bill, which many of us here have been involved in, sometimes late at night, has finished its Report stage. I need to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the commitment that she gained only this week, and I quote her from Hansard:

“I am very grateful … to the Minister and to all those working behind the scenes for reaching this point and accepting my amendment, as well as for committing to include a learning disability and autism lead on integrated care boards.”—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 398.]


My first question is that I wonder whether the noble Baroness may have inadvertently made the Bill a redundant piece of legislation because of the success that she has already had in raising the issue and getting it included in the Health and Care Bill, which we have had before us for what seems like quite a long time—the last month or so. That is my first question to the noble Baroness and the Minister. My second question to them is that I would like to be assured that the work being undertaken will not disadvantage other people with learning disabilities. I would like to be assured by the Minister that if the Bill proceeds, people with Down’s syndrome, in their diversity, and their chosen advocates will be meaningfully involved at every stage of the co-production of the guidance.

I am concerned about some of the rhetoric that has surrounded the Bill. I would like the noble Baroness and the Minister to confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care has no plans, as a consequence of the Bill, to develop any new guidance or amend any existing guidance concerning maternal healthcare and reproductive rights.

I wish the Bill the best, and I look forward to the discussions that we shall have about it in Committee in your Lordships’ House.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this amendment, which I would have signed had there been space.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to today’s report that a watered-down version of the India-South Africa proposal for a TRIPS waiver looks likely to go through the WTO. I quote Max Lawson, co-chair of the People’s Vaccine Alliance:

“After almost 18 months of stalling and millions of deaths, the EU has climbed down and finally admitted that intellectual property rules and pharmaceutical monopolies are a barrier to vaccinating the world.”


Bouncing off the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I think that the Cross Benches might find an even larger drinks fund if they go for “world-leading” as the key phrase to identify. The comment from Mr Lawson shows that, collectively, the world has done very badly throughout the Covid pandemic and done very poorly by the global south. If the Government want to be world-leading, they could leap in right now and accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawrence and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on supporting and promoting this amendment. Its explanatory statement says:

“In the event of a public health emergency of international concern, this new Clause requires the Secretary of State to support domestic and international knowledge-sharing, to combat the emergency.”


I cannot see why anybody would object to that.

I would like to say one more thing. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has led this country on how one should respond to a global pandemic with his work at the World Health Organization on the importance of sharing knowledge, vaccines and technology across the world. This amendment is about the pandemic that is coming down the track as well as the one we are dealing with at the moment, so we on these Benches certainly support it.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. I do not intend to repeat the excellent points that have been made by others because the case in equity—and the case in our own interests—is absolutely compelling in my noble friend’s excellent amendment. However, for a short period of time, I do intend to test just how good the Government’s resistance to this is; I will do so by referring to the Minister’s own speech in Committee on this very amendment. I will ask two questions of the Minister; I hope that he will be able to answer them because, if he cannot, there is no resistance to this amendment.

On 9 February, on the ninth day in Committee, the noble Lord the Minister repeated the Government’s oft-repeated view on this issue when it has been debated in your Lordships’ House that

“the Government remain open to all initiatives that would have a demonstrably positive impact on vaccine production and distribution. However, we believe that waiving intellectual property rights would have the opposite effect. Doing so would dismantle the very framework that helped to develop and produce Covid-19 vaccines at the pace and scale now seen. It would risk undermining the continued innovation in vaccines and technological health products that is required to tackle a virus, especially as it mutates and evolves, so we believe that doing so would be a mistake.”

Covid-19: Restrictions

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Well, there we are: there is a result already—please never accuse me of working too slowly. In that case, it is quite clear that there is a programme, and I shall find out more details.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, three matters have emerged in the past few days: first, there is a new variant; secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, Covid cases have risen by 55% in the past week; and, thirdly, the UK Health Security Agency intends to stop funding the fantastically successful and important ZOE COVID Study app. I appreciate that this Government have an aversion to counting in general, but this app has been vital in tracking and understanding Covid-19, so how will the Government maintain their capacity to monitor this virus, which has not gone away?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for reminding noble Lords that the virus has not gone away. That is one of the reasons why we laid out the Living with Covid-19 strategy. The UKHSA, the Office for National Statistics, and a number of academics, will continue to monitor it. Noble Lords who have read all the articles during the pandemic will be aware of how many scientists are also producing data. We continue to monitor all that data and balance it up when making decisions. We are also prepared to stand up rapidly should there be any variants of concern.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Grand Committee

Finally, this will be the only notifiable highly infectious disease listed under the Public Health Act—with numbers still up in the millions—that people will have to pay for tests for, other than for international travel. Why on earth are we not ensuring that there is some strong guidance about self-isolation and, certainly, why are tests not going to remain free?

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has raised very many relevant questions, as did the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Those questions come from the anxiety that people are feeling about what the future of living with Covid means, with what looks like not having all the instruments to identify it or the recommendations about what to do if you have it. There is also the support that people may or may not be able to get from their workplace; and the support that may or may not be available to local authorities, for example, which are going to pick up some responsibility for this.

Almost exactly two years ago, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I faced the Minister and his Whip, two Liberal Democrat colleagues, a couple of people who were chairing the sessions and a skeleton staff as we put on to the statute book the restrictions we are lifting today. Everybody else had already gone into lockdown; we put the legislation on to the statute book about three days after the rest of the country had gone into lockdown. It was a bizarre experience and actually felt quite risky. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will not mind me saying that he went home and told us the day after that he had got Covid. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I were absolutely convinced that we were going to get it, because we had been sat very close together, but neither of us did at that point.

In a way, I am very pleased to see that we are rescinding these restrictions now, but the Minister needs to put some answers to what has already been put to him on the record. The first thing I want to ask about is the support for local government. If local government and public health authorities are to be picking up how to identify what to do about the pandemic if things get worse, I would like to know whether support is available to them to do that.

The second thing I want to raise is to do with monitoring and research. I excuse the Minister for not answering my question in the Chamber earlier, because it is quite hard to answer such questions in detail in the 30 seconds that might be available, but I will repeat the fact that the ZOE Covid study app is no longer going to receive its funding. The app was launched in March 2020, having been developed by King’s College London and the technology company ZOE to help discover new symptoms of Covid. It reported on the effects of vaccines and has provided up-to-date predictions about the spread of the pandemic. It has 4.7 million users, of which I declare myself as one, and 850,000 people contribute daily to its recording of more than 480 million health reports. The app was part of one of the largest studies of its kind in the world and has led to 40 peer-reviewed scientific papers, based on its findings.

Many noble Lords will have heard of Professor Spector. He has been doing weekly YouTube broadcasts that I have watched from time to time as part of my information gathering to do my job from these Benches more effectively. He has developed the study further to look at things such as heart disease, cancer and dementia. It is extremely disappointing and very short-sighted that the UK Health Security Agency is going to withdraw its funding for this programme. It has been an important tool in protecting the UK and could protect the UK from the next pandemic.

I want to hear from the Minister what he and the Government are going to do to replace the kind of surveillance that the ZOE app has provided to this country in a very cost-effective way. The Minister’s earlier answer to me in the Chamber said this and that, but he did not specify. We need to know why the Government have allowed this to happen and what they are going to do to replace this effective surveillance and reporting.

Thirdly, I would like the Minister’s view on the BA.2 variant. His honourable friend said that it is of no significance but that is not what the chief executive of the UKHSA said. She acknowledged it and said that we do not yet know whether it is significant. How do the Government propose to monitor this?

Finally, I want to talk about the problem of inequality that the Government’s withdrawal of free testing brings. I think it will mean us having two tiers of Covid in this country. Those of us who can afford to will continue to test because we believe that it is important to protect other people, particularly the vulnerable, when we go out and about. I do not want to come into the House of Lords without having a test in the morning because I would hate to bring an infection into the workplace, because of the young people and pregnant colleagues who are here. That would be irresponsible. But there will be those who cannot afford to buy tests; what do they do? Our part-time staff here, for example, might not be able to afford to test. The Minister needs to address the problem of the inequalities that the Government’s policy will bring about for those who may get Covid but cannot afford to test.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their questions today. I will try to answer as many as possible but, if I do not answer some, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write to them in more detail.

I start with some of the questions from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. We have taken this step because of the success of the vaccination programme but the guidance states that, if you have Covid, you should stay at home and avoid contact with other people. On 21 February, we will continue to make tests available for a small number of at-risk groups. We are considering which groups will be eligible for tests after provision for the general public ends. We have also sent out 1.3 million PCR tests to clinically extremely vulnerable individuals. This will allow them to take an immediate PCR test, should they develop symptoms, and give priority to them to be prescribed antivirals.

UKHSA will continue to maintain what it calls critical surveillance capabilities. That includes the Covid-19 infection population-level survey, genomic sequencing and additional data. These will continue to be augmented by the SARS-CoV-2 immunity and reinfection evaluation, SIREN, along with the continuation of the VIVALDI studies. As for the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the VIVALDI studies are coming to an end, I do not have that information—I am, in fact, informed that they are continuing. So, the UK Health Security Agency still has a number of tools available, including surveillance. Positive cases should stay at home, as we said, and avoid contact with other people for at least five full days. They should continue to follow this advice until they have received two negative test results on consecutive days.

A number of noble Lords expressed concerns about the communication of this guidance. If they will allow me, I will go back to the department and ask more questions about the comms strategy to make sure that the public are clearly informed. As for the cost of LFTs, the Government are looking at how to make them freely available in particular settings, such as health settings, and for social care staff.

We are also looking very hard, as noble Lords have rightly said, at potential inequalities. These are issues that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I believe very strongly in—we have actually asked questions on this issue. How do we make sure that we do not end up with a two-tier system? How do we target this more effectively? Are there proxies, for example, to allow people to be given free tests? We are also looking at engaging with retailers to develop a strong private market for tests and make sure, I hope, that they are affordable. At the same time, we are in discussions with employers, et cetera. Some have said they will make testing available for their staff and we are looking at a number of different programmes. We are very aware of the inequalities issue and the Secretary of State and I have been asking questions about that.

On the number of cases, as indicated by the ONS infections survey and reported case rates, they have started rising after a period of sustained falls throughout February. Evidence indicates that the link between Covid-19 infections and progression to severe disease is substantially weaker than in earlier phases of the pandemic but, as I said, we are continuing to keep an eye on all the variants of concern with the tools that I explained.

People who are severely immunosuppressed are eligible, as many noble Lords will know, for a third dose of the Covid vaccine as part of their primary course and a booster fourth dose. I am also very aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me about a potential fifth dose and I promise to write to her. The NHS is now offering new antibody and antiviral treatments to people with Covid-19 who are at the highest risk of becoming ill.

I was asked about local authorities. Local authorities will now be required to manage outbreaks through their local planning and pre-existing public health powers, such as those under the public health Act of 1984, as they would with any other infectious disease. The Department of Health and Social Care is also conducting work looking at the health powers framework for the future. We see that local authorities still have an important role in supporting businesses and public spaces to be Covid-safe—for example, by improving knowledge of infection prevention and control, ensuring that spaces are well ventilated and explaining the relevant best practice guidance.

A number of noble Lords wondered whether movement from mandating to guidance is sufficient. When I was travelling in today, for example, I noticed that some transport companies are still asking their passengers to wear masks in crowded places. Noble Lords made fair points about the communication of this guidance. As I said, I will find out from the comms team what we are proposing to do. The Government will retain the capability to stand up a national trace response if it is needed. Local health teams will also continue to use contact tracing and provide context-specific advice where they assess this to be necessary as part of their role in managing local outbreaks of Covid-19, as they do with other infectious diseases.

A number of noble Lords asked about the number of people who have yet to be vaccinated. Was that the previous debate? I am sorry; they kind of flow into one another at the moment. However, we are spending £22.5 million on a community vaccine champions scheme, following a £23 million investment in the initial scheme. We will continue to encourage people to get vaccinated.

Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Grand Committee

Finally, this SI, along with the one that I started with, is very welcome, but it is a key issue. The recommendation from the independent review in 2016 said that it was vital that industry, the NHS and government worked closely together to make this whole transition process much smoother. Can the Minister assure the Committee that this will happen?

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, as we know, the Covid-19 pandemic has been the most serious domestic challenge that we have had to face in the post-war era. We know that more than 150,000 people have been lost and we know about the impact on our lives and liberties. It felt to me, having been on these Benches in this position from right at the beginning of it all, that we might never get to this point. A lot has changed in the last few months, however. Thanks to our NHS, our incredible scientists and the British public who have been vaccinated in their millions, we now have several highly effective Covid-19 vaccines and the entire population has been offered the third booster jab. While the virus is still with us—we will discuss that in our next debate—we are without a doubt in a much stronger position than we were back in March 2020. The impact of the vaccination programme cannot be overstated. It has allowed us to reclaim liberties that we were forced to forfeit in 2020, driven down hospitalisations and saved lives.

This statutory instrument continues this good work. It will surprise no one that we do not find it contentious; in fact, it is wholly necessary that the amendments made the human medicines regulations are continued. This SI enables us to continue with mass vaccination campaigns for Covid-19 and influenza, and extends the temporary provisions relating to the manufacturing licences and marketing authorisation. It permanently broadens the healthcare groups that are entitled to administer parenteral vaccines in an NHS or local authority, and enables community pharmacists to deliver flu and Covid vaccines outside their normal premises. These changes are sensible and will ensure that, in any future mass-vaccination rollout, the resources will be available to administer those vaccines.

As I said, Covid has not disappeared. We need to be prepared and ensure that the population remains protected against rising case numbers and possible mutations. We know that one of the issues and challenges we face is how to reduce the health inequalities of vaccine uptake. The under-30s, some of our BAME communities and pregnant women disproportionately make up the 8.5%, I think, of the adult population who remain unvaccinated. I do not think that we can be complacent. I would therefore like the Minister to say what further action the department will take to reduce the inequalities in vaccine uptake, as well as how extending these provisions will enable his department to better tackle vaccine hesitancy. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we cannot pass by without reference to the clinically vulnerable, clinically extremely vulnerable and immunosuppressed. They continue to seek clarity on vaccination in this extremely concerning time.

We have discussed these issues in the House on several occasions and continue to do so, because those who come into these categories need access to the full weight of what our science can deliver for them, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. However, they also continue to need access to free tests and appropriate treatment. So facilitating continued access to vaccination is a key pillar of Labour’s “living well with Covid” plan, but we oppose the short-sighted sell-off of our Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline any further discussions that have taken place with his colleagues on VMIC and whether our vaccine manufacturing capability will be impeded by the ongoing negotiations. However, the message from this side of the Committee is that vaccines are safe and effective, and we must continue to ensure that they are widely and freely available. Only by doing so can we continue to build a world beyond Covid.

Turning to the second statutory instrument in this group, the early access to medicines scheme, managed by the MHRA, has been in place for almost eight years. As we know, it aims to provide patients who have life-threatening or seriously debilitating conditions with access to medicines that are not authorised generally or for the specific clinical use proposed. It provides the necessary regulatory flexibility for medicines that can often be a matter of life and death. As the Minister said, more than 100 medicines have been granted promising innovative medicine status; more than 40 scientific opinions have been awarded in areas with unmet patient need; and 1,600 patients have benefited from EAMS medicine since the scheme’s initial implementation. So we on these Benches absolutely support this SI.

Some pharmaceutical companies have raised the concern that EAMS is not delivering an attractive proposition for industry or the scale of early patient access originally envisaged. Furthermore, concerns have been expressed about a lack of clarity on how to apply for EAMS and how it works in practice. These areas for improvement are outlined in the EAMS independent review, which was published in 2016; I think at least one or two noble Lords have already mentioned it. Although the statutory instrument addresses some of those concerns, there are still a few areas on which we need to seek clarification from the Minister in due course. Placing the scheme on a statutory footing will give pharmaceutical companies and patients the necessary legal clarity. It is good that this SI is clear about the need to continue to protect patient safety and aims to simplify EAMS requirements where feasible. Most notably, this legislation will support the collection of real-world data, which will no doubt incentivise medical innovation. It is also important that the SI makes it clear that patient consent to data collection is not a condition of EAMS supply.

My Labour colleagues in the Commons have been engaging with various charities regarding the antiviral drug Evusheld, which is a preventive antibody treatment for the benefit of people with compromised immune systems who cannot get sufficient antibody boost from vaccines. There seems to have been an awful lot of dither and delay regarding this medication, which has left the previously mentioned CV, CEV and immunocompromised people feeling ignored and very anxious. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify this issue, if not now then perhaps in writing. I would also be grateful if he could set out what further actions the DHSC will take to improve knowledge of EAMS within both the health sector and the pharmaceutical industry.

Additionally, there is the wider issue of a complex research to clinical care pathway that the Government need to address. We need to ensure that we remove unnecessary barriers in research and medical innovation. I completely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he talked about Orbis. He and I are veterans of the Brexit discussions of the past five years, which focused on the importance of having the right kind of access to patients, in the right numbers, to develop genetic and other medicine. I would be grateful if the Minister could talk about that.

I also echo the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which she called a “lull”; I have called it a “black hole”. It has been reported that for some pharmaceutical companies there is a black hole in the system once marketing authorisation is granted and EAMS designation falls away, which can leave a gap of several months when no further patients can access a drug as it goes through the NICE financial assessment. Again, this was recognised in the independent review and by pharmaceutical companies and charities, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide his assessment of this issue and whether the department is considering means to ensure a smoother transition from EAMS to full HTC and NICE approval.

EAMS is a great illustration of the work that can be done when industry works alongside healthcare agencies with patient interests at heart, but we must not take our foot off the pedal. We need to keep working to ensure that cutting-edge research is properly supported and puts the needs of patients first.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I begin by thanking all noble Lords who took part in the discussions today for their detailed questions. I will try to answer as many as I can, but I hope noble Lords will understand that I will write to them if I do not have the answer to hand.

To start with a few of the general remarks made, I thank all noble Lords for welcoming these SIs as well as some of the innovation that we have seen throughout the pandemic and how we have seen the NHS work closely with the department and industry to make sure that we develop suitable vaccines and therapeutics as quickly as possible. My noble friend Lord Lansley was absolutely right to refer to the living with Covid strategy. The reason we have that is to make sure that we are not complacent: it is to remind people that the pandemic is not over. Sometimes people say that we have returned to life before the pandemic, but it is still there and, as noble Lords have rightly expressed, there are new variants that we are keeping an eye on, such as the BA.2 and deltacron variants. The important thing to note is that, compared with the beginning of the pandemic, we have weakened the links between infection and hospitalisation and between hospitalisation and death. Indeed, a number of noble Lords are testament to this fact: they have survived testing positive for coronavirus.

I will try to address some of the specific issues. My noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, brought up the issue of Evusheld; they are right that it is not currently authorised for use in the United Kingdom. As noble Lords have said, it has been developed as a potential preventive treatment, with AstraZeneca announcing positive interim trial data. However, worldwide, omicron is still the dominant variant, and this trial took place before it emerged, so the therapeutics task force is engaging with AstraZeneca on emerging data and its impact on omicron. This work is ongoing.

A number of people identified previously as clinically extremely vulnerable are well protected after receiving their primary and booster vaccination doses. I am not sure that I have an answer about the fifth dose, but I will find that out and write to noble Lords. Most people who were considered CEV are no longer at substantially greater risk than the general population and are advised to follow the same guidance. In previous meetings that I have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I have asked for her to be in direct contact with my officials and others, and I hope that those discussions are helpful. If they are not, I hope that the noble Baroness will let me know so I can intervene to see what more can be done. There remains a small number of people whose immune systems mean that they are at higher risk of serious illness from Covid-19, and enhanced protections, such as those offered by some of these treatments, are being looked at.

My noble friend Lord Lansley also asked about other schemes. As he will be aware, we have the innovative medicines fund and the cancer drugs fund—these are other paths we are looking at. NHS England, NHS Improvement and NICE recently consulted on proposals for the innovative medicines fund and we hope to have an announcement soon. On the Accelerated Access Review and the Accelerated Access Collaborative, we are committed to supporting patient access to these drugs. We created it for this reason and we remain committed to it. In fact, it was part of the Life Sciences Vision that we published in July 2021, and we see it as a crucial part. I understand that some medicine products are expensive to manufacture, and this may limit the schemes’ accessibility in some areas. If my noble friend has specific examples, I am very happy to have further discussions.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Sharkey to the Ministers and their officials for the very helpful discussions that we have had with them on reciprocal healthcare agreements. I also thank my noble friend for his persistence in leading on those discussions between Committee and Report on the two points of difference between us—the definition of reciprocal healthcare, with our concerns about the ability to create a privatisation of parts of healthcare, and that an SI under a negative resolution is not strong enough for Parliament to scrutinise properly. My noble friend’s amendments are, as he said, very specifically aimed at removing these concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I also particularly thank Ministers for understanding that the House was deeply unhappy with the original proposals for regulations via a negative resolution. I hope to hear that Ministers will now agree to the affirmative resolution proposed in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. Scrutiny by Parliament needs to be timely, and Parliament needs to be allowed to effectively challenge proposals about which it has concerns.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak about reciprocal healthcare, which is not how I felt several years when we dealt with this exact issue in your Lordships’ House, as many noble Lords might remember. It was with some trepidation that I and these Benches looked at this part of the Bill, because we were so concerned and had to do so much work to protect our NHS in the passage of the 2019 Act.

I am very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for engaging with us so thoroughly to take on the board our concerns, which needed to be built into this part of the Bill. I say particularly how impressed I am by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and how grateful I am to him for his understanding and persistence—and his ability to read long, complex documents, understand them and then translate them so that other people can understand them too. That is a great talent.

From these Benches, with the idea that the affirmative resolution will be agreed, we are very happy indeed.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank noble Lords for their helpful engagement on this matter over the last few weeks and for bringing forward the debate on this issue today. It is important that the results of those discussions are on the record, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive the length of my response.

I am pleased that we agree on the overarching benefits of having reciprocal healthcare arrangements with countries across the world, which would provide support to UK residents when travelling abroad and can be particularly valuable to those with long-term health conditions. Such arrangements can also support enhanced healthcare co-operation with our international partners. It is for these reasons that the Government have negotiated new arrangements with the EU and Switzerland and now wish to refresh arrangements with countries outside Europe and with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. This policy is fundamentally aimed at assisting UK residents to access healthcare abroad.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I start by making some assurances to him and to the House over the policy intentions of the international healthcare arrangement clause in the Bill. To be clear, this legislation is not about the negotiation of international healthcare agreements. Those agreements are negotiated using prerogative powers. This clause and the 2019 Act that it amends simply ensure that the Government have the powers to implement international healthcare agreements. Healthcare agreements contain substantive provisions, such as eligibility criteria and which treatments will be covered. New Section 2(1) gives us the power to implement those healthcare agreements; for example, by putting in place administrative arrangements and conferring functions on public bodies to deliver our reciprocal healthcare commitments. We could, for example, set out which public body will administer the global health insurance cards. It is anticipated that any regulations made under new Section 2(1) will be materially the same as the current Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No. 1293.

The department has been undertaking careful analysis of how to take forward international healthcare agreements, balancing the benefits for citizens when abroad with the Secretary of State’s duties in the NHS Act 2006, which apply when exercising functions in relation to health services, for example, the duty to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service. Our analysis to date shows that there are clear benefits to be derived from state-to-state reimbursement models, but that these will generally work only with countries with public healthcare systems.

I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns about the breadth of the powers, and I reassure him that Clause 151 narrows the powers under the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 to better reflect what is necessary now that the UK has left the EU and has reciprocal healthcare arrangements in place through the trade and co-operation agreement. It does this by revoking existing powers in Section 1 of the 2019 Act, which currently enable the Secretary of State to pay for unilateral healthcare policies in the EEA and Switzerland; enabling payments to be made for treatment outside the scope of a healthcare agreement only if exceptional circumstances justify the payment; allowing the payment power to be exercised only if authorised by regulations. and limiting the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations in areas of devolved competence.

Our approach follows concerns raised by noble Lords in the original Bill debates in 2019 about the breadth of the unilateral payment and regulation-making power. Under the current Sections 1 and 2, the wide powers given to the Secretary of State to fund healthcare in the EEA and Switzerland were intended to cover various EU exit options and ensure that UK nationals were not left in a cliff-edge situation in the EEA and Switzerland in the event of a no-deal scenario. There was limited additional scrutiny for the payment power in the original 2019 Act due to the circumstances at that time. We consider that this power is no longer appropriate or necessary now that the trade and co-operation agreement is in place.

Amendment 126A would limit the exceptional payments power so that it is exercisable only after the Secretary of State has set out reasons for, and details of, any payments made before Parliament. However, I do not believe that this would work in practice. The policy intention is that the exceptional payments power will be used in circumstances where an individual falls marginally outside of the scope of a healthcare agreement. We have, for example, used discretionary payment powers under the 2019 Act to provide crisis mental health support to a minor in the EU who was not covered under the European health insurance card scheme due to the structure of the member state’s healthcare system. These circumstances are often where an individual has a very serious and urgent medical need, and it remains essential that the Government are able to move quickly to support that person and ensure their welfare. An amendment where this power is exercisable only after the reasons and details of payments have been laid before Parliament could severely hamper our ability to act quickly—something that I am sure is not the intention. Furthermore, the Government are already obliged under Section 6 of the 2019 Act to lay before Parliament an annual report outlining the payments made pursuant to the Act. This ensures that there is transparency and will continue to apply following amendments made by this Bill.

I confirm that the amended definition of a “healthcare agreement” in this Bill is materially the same as the current 2019 Act definition. Both cover commitments between the UK and a country, territory or international organisation for healthcare provided outside the UK in whatever form. Making reference to “other commitment” is a drafting change to make it clearer that the regulation-making power can be used to implement non-legally binding arrangements, such as memoranda of understanding. This ensures that implementation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements made with close partners, such as the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, are in scope of the 2019 Act, as they do not have the authority to become parties to treaties in their own right. They can, therefore, enter only into non-legally binding arrangements.

Amendment 184ZC would make regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. With thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his constructive engagement, the Government are content to accept this amendment and, as the noble Lord is aware, may amend it further to ensure that the drafting is optimal for our shared objective.

The purpose of the 2019 Act and the provisions that we have put forward in Clause 151 is not to implement trade deals. The Government have categorically stated in their manifesto that the NHS is off the table when we are negotiating agreements with our international partners. To be clear, it is important to state that reciprocal healthcare agreements that we agree with other countries do not relate to the commissioning and provision of services for the NHS. The policy intention in that reciprocal healthcare should cover publicly available healthcare.

This legislation narrows the scope of the powers compared with the 2019 Act and is tailored to negotiate more comprehensive healthcare agreements with our closest partners, as well as provide support to our citizens when they need it most. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment and not move Amendments 126B to 126G. I confirm the Government’s support for Amendment 184ZC.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made some important and sensible points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

My noble friend Lord Scriven raised the important question of the role of local authorities. I simply want to add that I happen to know that some of the chairs-designate of the ICBs would really like to know the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, early on in his speech. What is the relationship of the health and well-being boards to the ICBs? If those people are confused, it is not surprising that noble Lords are too.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has once again put his finger on an issue that the Government need to take seriously and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, has run through our debates at Second Reading and in Committee. What is the role of the ICPs’ joint working and what should a place board be doing? As I said during the previous day’s debate on Report, we need also to treat place boards—or any commissioning body—in the same way as we do the ICBs.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right. If the Government do not address this issue in the next few weeks by putting something in the Bill, we may well find ourselves back here in two or three years’ time, doing exactly what we are doing now.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an important discussion about place and joint working, and although the Government are unable to accept my noble friend’s amendments, for reasons I shall touch on, I hope I can reassure him that the questions which he and other noble Lords have raised have been considered in the Bill.

England is so large and diverse that a one-size-fits-all approach will not be right for everyone, and that is why we have been flexible about the requirements for integrated care partnerships and joint working arrangements. We fundamentally believe that, if integration is to work, we must allow local areas to find the right approach for them.

As my noble friend will appreciate, our provisions on integrated care partnerships build upon existing legislation, particularly in the case of health and well-being boards. We know that health and well-being boards have played an incredibly important role in the last decade, and this legislation intends to build on their success. We will be refreshing the guidance for health and well-being boards in the light of the changes that this Bill proposes, in order to help them understand the possibilities of these arrangements and their relationships with ICBs and ICPs, so that they can find the most appropriate model for their area.

Fortunately, this Bill and existing legislation already provide the framework to do what these amendments intend to achieve. Two or more health and well-being boards can already jointly exercise their functions, and where the local authority area and ICB area are the same, there is no reason why the health and well-being board and the ICP cannot have the same membership. The ICP is intended as an equal partnership between the local authorities and the ICB. By restricting the right of the local authority to nominate a member who they see fit and requiring them to do so through a committee with a potentially wide membership, including the ICB, risks undermining that equality. Local authorities may ask their health and well-being board to nominate those members. However, we do not wish to restrict their options and unintentionally prevent better collaboration and integration by adding further requirements to the Bill.

I turn to the joint working arrangements. The Bill also provides for the ability to establish place-based committees of ICBs and to set them out clearly in their constitutions. I assure my noble friend on this point that the legislation allows the flexibility to establish these committees, so we should not find ourselves in the situation that he talks about. ICBs will be able to enter arrangements under new Section 65Z5, which allows an ICB to delegate or exercise its functions jointly with other ICBs, NHS England, NHS trusts, foundation trusts and local authorities, or any other body prescribed by regulations. Under these powers, a committee of an ICB could be created to look at population health improvement at place level and could consider entering an arrangement under Section 65Z5 to work jointly where appropriate.

The membership of that committee can be decided locally by the ICB, and it is entirely open to the ICB to seek views from other organisations as to who best to appoint. I hope that reassures my noble friend that there is already the legal framework for ICBs to look at population health improvement at a place level. We are trying to protect the ability of ICBs to determine the structures that work best for them. To help them to do that, NHS England has the power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions. The flexibility that we have set out in the Bill makes my noble friend’s intentions possible. However, our provisions also give a degree of flexibility, so that areas can take control, innovate, and adopt what works best for them, rather having to meet prescriptive top-down requirements.

It is for these reasons that I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his Amendment 61 and not move his Amendments 95 and 96 when they are reached.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the CQC is a competent and independent organisation. Long may that continue, and any attempt to trammel it is unwelcome. We have here a 265-page Bill. If the CQC cannot get from the Bill the intentions of the Government and carry them out carefully in doing its job inspecting and reporting on how the integrated care systems are working, I do not think it needs any further direction from the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I agree with that and with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will be coming to other issues about the Secretary of State’s powers later on Report, but the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has put her finger on it. I think I was there at the CQC’s inception because I was a Minister at the time, or certainly soon after. It has discharged its duties extremely well. The Minister needs to explain why the Government feel it necessary to put these powers into the Bill.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall from Committee some substantial discussion about whether it was wise for the Secretary of State to take additional powers of direction in relation to NHS England. I suppose I should declare an interest since I gave the NHS commissioning board, or NHS England, the freedoms it currently enjoys. I am probably the person least likely to be persuaded that it is a very good idea to take all that away. After our debate in Committee, I thought it was probably sensible, rather than to seek to remove the powers of direction that the Secretary of State is given under Clause 39, to look at the exceptions to that power in new Section 13ZD and ask: are these all the exceptions that we should have?

On Amendment 83, the conclusion I reached was that there were at least two specific areas which are not mentioned in new Section 13ZD but should be; namely, limitations on the use of this power on the part of the Secretary of State. First, the local allocation of resources to integrated care boards—and the difficult decisions of trying to remedy the inequalities in access to healthcare services through the resource allocation process—is not something which any of us want the Secretary of State to interfere with; otherwise, it is sure to be regarded as being done for a political purpose, even if it might be done for another.

Secondly, there is the question of

“procurement of goods or services”.

After all the experience we have had over recent months, the last thing any of us wants is to go too far in the direction of the Secretary of State having a power in relation to procurement when that can perfectly well be given as a responsibility to NHS England. This is Amendment 83, and I hope that my noble friend, if he cannot accept the amendments, will give us some specific assurances in relation to the Secretary of State not using those powers.

In this group, I also put my name to Amendment 84, which would remove Clause 40—and, by extension, Schedule 6—from the Bill. This is about the Secretary of State coming in and acquiring more powers than was formerly the case. I was shadow Secretary of State for six years or so. During that time, I would have loved it if the then Secretary of State had all these powers to intervene in every reconfiguration, because I went around the country—as people are fond of reminding me—mobilising opposition to some of the ways in which the health service, led by the then Government, was trying to reconfigure services. This is not something that the Secretary of State or the current Government should wish for themselves or for their successors in office. I will not go back into all the arguments, but there are plenty of good examples of where, if the Secretary of State had this power, people would press the Secretary of State to use it—and it would be deeply unwise for a Secretary of State to get involved.

The justification on the part of the Government is that it stops this going on for ever. But there is a reason that these things go on for a long time—because they are intensely difficult, and the balances are very difficult to strike. Sometimes, the processes of consultation and public engagement take a long time. If the Government’s argument is that they are going leap in, intervene and settle it all quickly, both sides will yell when they do that. We can be absolutely certain of this. No one will be happy, and everyone will blame the Secretary of State. This is very firmly in the “be careful what you wish for” category. We would do the Government a great service by deleting Clause 40 from the Bill. If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pursues that, I will certainly support her. I beg to move Amendment 83.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

With the leave of the House, I thought it might be useful if I used my slot to speak right now on leaving out Clause 40. First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for putting their names to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Patel—with whom I spoke this morning, and who is definitely on the mend, so I hope we will see him next week—said how strongly he supports the amendment. I will speak very briefly because we have already said much of what needs to be said about saving the Secretary of State from himself—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, I think. This is what this amendment is about.

Clearly, this is not what the NHS asked for in the Bill. It did not ask for this power. It has been added to the Bill—by a previous Secretary of State, I suspect—and I hear rumours that even the current Secretary of State is not a great fan. Why would any Secretary of State want to have this power—to be lobbied and drawn into any minor local dispute, particularly as we head towards a general election?

I have a small anecdote. A small coastal town had a small hospital with an accident and emergency department. It could not be properly staffed, it regularly closed for random periods, and far too often patients arrived there only to be moved to the larger A&E 20 miles down the road. Proposals were made to close it—and of course, outrage ensued. “Save our A&E”, people said, even though it was unsafe. Local politics were poisonous, and the blame for the closure was thrown on opponents, whichever side they were on.

However, over time, good communications, clinical leadership and, eventually, bringing local people into the team, got the proposal moving. People understood what was needed and why, and the reconfiguration process went through its stages, with external reviews and analysis by the national clinical advisory team, which all gave reassurance. The clincher came when a distinguished clinician leading the review told a meeting that he would personally go and paint over the road signs for the A&E, because it was so unsuitable. It shut, which probably means that lives were saved.

The process of rational argument and proper analysis works, and on this occasion we should not just leave it to local politics to decide what reconfiguration means. The Secretary of State has enough powers to direct the whole NHS in its fullness, but should not be involved in what may be very small reconfigurations indeed. We agree, and many people in the NHS and its organisations agree, that this clause should be removed from the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no doubt that when the Minister responds he will say that the Secretary of State is likely to use this power very rarely. The point is that the moment the health service knows the Secretary of State has such a power, that will immediately influence its behaviour in relation to any improvements or major changes of services likely to lead to opposition from the local Member of Parliament. I think that the Minister is responsible for innovation in the health service, and this will put the kibosh on innovation and service changes.

Written on my heart is Kidderminster General Hospital. The Minister may not recall this, because it is a long time ago now, but Worcestershire Health Authority made proposals to reconfigure A&E services and close Kidderminster General Hospital. The then Member of Parliament, David Lock, who was a loyal member of the Government, bravely defended that decision. He lost his seat in 2001, and it has been written on the hearts of many MPs since then that they do not defend that type of change, because they might lose their seats.

I cannot believe that the Government wish to give the Secretary of State the nightmare of that kind of lobbying—I am trying to tempt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, to intervene here, because he knows what MPs do. What we have at the moment is a very good system, at arm’s length, and it beats me why on earth the Government want to do this. We need to do the business and get rid of the clause. I suspect that we shall not see it back again.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank noble Lords for bringing this debate to the House today. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be grateful for the desire to save him from himself and his powers. Let me read out the following quote:

“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 21/9/21; col. 393.]


These are not my words, but those of the Opposition spokesman during Committee in the other place.

One of the core pillars of the Bill is to ensure appropriate accountability for the NHS. This is of the utmost importance as we invest further in local service decision-making and delivery. It is critical that, in line with the aims of the Bill to empower local systems, the Secretary of State has the appropriate levers to meet the public expectation for ministerial accountability.

There has been some confusion about what the powers in the Bill will do, and if noble Lords will allow me, I will spend a moment on this to add clarity. Clause 39 will simply allow the Secretary of State to direct NHS England—and only NHS England—on matters where it already has functions. This is not a power over local bodies. Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will allow the Secretary of State to call in and decide on reconfiguration decisions. They do not remove any of the existing safeguards, including the requirement to consult or the role of the Independent Reconfigurations Panel in providing advice to the Secretary of State.

I understand the arguments put forward in Amendment 83, and I will take procurement first. We agree that it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in individual procurement decisions. That is not the motive behind this power, and it is not the way it would be used. The regulation-making power inserted by Clause 70 prevents the Secretary of State being able to use this direction-making power to direct NHS England—

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

The Minister said that this was not the motive behind the power, but motive is not the point here. I am sure that the Secretary of State has the best of motives, as does the Minister, but the point is the effect of what the Bill says.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying that. Of course, we completely understand the concerns that have been raised. The Secretary of State must use regulation-making powers where they exist, rather than using the power of direction to achieve what could be achieved under regulations.

Turning to the allocation of resources to the ICBs, the Government have no ambition to use this power to interfere with individual allocations of money to the system. It will not be used to interfere with the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. NHS England will continue to make funding allocations to ICBs to support them to deliver functions via the target formula, in order to reduce inequalities between patients. We have attached safeguards to this power to make sure it is not misused. Any exercise of this power must be done transparently: it must be made in writing, be published and be made in the public interest. This will enable Parliament to challenge Ministers and hold them to account.

Turning to Amendment 84, Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will allow the Secretary of State to better support effective change and respond to stakeholder concerns, including views from the public, health oversight and scrutiny committees and parliamentarians, in a more timely way. The clause and schedule will ensure that key decisions made about how services are delivered are subject to democratic oversight.

It is a misapprehension that the Secretary of State currently has no role in the decision-making process for reconfigurations. He does and without these provisions that role will continue. However, currently, referrals usually come at a very late stage in the process, which represents neither good value for the taxpayer nor good outcomes for patients.

I understand the concerns from noble Lords, including former Ministers, about how these powers might be used. But I have been asked to make clear that we expect the vast majority of reconfiguration decisions to continue to be managed by the local system—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am implacably opposed to privatisation of the NHS—not for ideological reasons, although the Green Party is strongly opposed as well. I think it is inefficient. Privatisation has not worked. It has failed to deliver on promises to increase quality, decrease cost and help patients. Rather than save money through reduced bureaucracy, the main cost savings of privatisation seem to be in cutting the terms and conditions—chiefly the pay and pensions—of staff. If private companies can compete for public services, let them compete on a level playing field, rather than simply capturing staff and paying them less.

I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explained his Amendment 98 because I had understood it completely the other way around—that he was protecting private services. I was going to have a word with him afterwards about it, but there is now no need.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, just said, most people in Britain do not want a privatised NHS. They want a public service because that is what will give them the best results.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, this group contains a number of helpful amendments. I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the many and varied discussions we have had. I am grateful for this positive and constructive approach, which proposes transparency at the heart of procurement.

We have discussed with the Government at some length why the NHS has to have its own bespoke procurement regime, which the Bill paves the way for. We have seen two consultation documents about the scope, scale and nature of this bespoke regime. Although they seem quite sensible, we have been assured that the Government feel that the regulations will be based on a sound foundation.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is quite right about patients not knowing their right to choose. It is a hole in the provision. The right to choose is very important. People absolutely do not know that they have it.

While not being explicit, the new providers’ selection regime will actually get us to where Labour tried to get in 2010 with the NHS as the preferred provider, at least as far as the many complex and expensive services provided by NHS trusts, FTs and other core patient-facing services are concerned. Therefore, the principle is fine. The problem is that it does not extend across everything that the NHS procures, and that is partly the nub of what my noble friend said in his amendments, which I will return to in a moment.

Our view is that in any circumstances where competitive procurement is to be used, the national rules apply, so why does the NHS need a bespoke system for all non-clinical stuff? We have never actually had an answer to that, except that the NHS comes up with wider regulations, and we feel that that it is a waste of time and effort. However, we have had ample assurances from the Government that the NHS bespoke regime will be properly documented and all the rules set out, with some route to enforcement and challenge. We are assured that there will be no award of contract without applying the process that is set out—no back doors and no flexibility when contracting with private companies. With those assurances in mind and the knowledge that campaigners and trade unions will be vigilant and might even stump up for judicial review, and because of the ICB amendments agreed earlier in the week, we will get more or less what we wanted and we will not try to remove Clause 70 from the Bill.

I turn to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hendy, who has our sympathy and approval. Had we been discussing this at a different time of day, we may have sought to support some of his amendments, and certainly the spirit of them. He has posed a legitimate question to the Minister: why do the Government not insist on good employment of staff as a criterion for their procurement regime?

We on this side of the House remain opposed to the outsourcing of NHS-funded services such as cleaning, catering and many others because we can see that it has led to staff being transferred into the private sector, corners being cut and standards dropping. It has been a symptom of chronic underfunding and it is a terrible long-term strategy. It has of course been completely counterproductive because it has sometimes meant that our hospitals have not necessarily been cleaned, serviced or looked after as we might have wished them to be. We have tried at various stages to introduce safeguards and to outlaw altogether the NHS’s tax-dodging habit of setting up SubCos, but those are probably matters for another day.

I would say to my noble friend that I am not sure that changing the procurement regime is the best way forward for this issue, although he has our support in the politics and context in which he introduced his amendments.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, before addressing the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Warner, it may be helpful if I speak to the six government amendments in this group: Amendments 101 to 104, 106 and 107. The first five of these amendments would amend Clause 70, which inserts a new regulation-making power in relation to the procurement of healthcare services, Section 12ZB, into the NHS Act 2006. They amend the clause so that regulations, when they are made under this power, will have to include provision for procurement processes and objectives, for steps to be taken when competitively tendering and for transparency, fairness, verifying compliance and the management of conflicts of interest. Amendment 106 also requires NHS England to issue guidance on the regulations.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Low, who is unable to move it because of a failure of his technology. I commend my noble friend’s sustained advocacy of the issues raised by the amendment. I declare my interest as founder and chair of the charity Books Beyond Words, which has published a word-free book called Looking After My Eyes jointly with the charity SeeAbility, which briefed my noble friend and me on this amendment.

The amendment seeks to improve primary ophthalmic services for people with learning disabilities, including pupils in special schools. There is no system of national monitoring of the number of people with learning disabilities who have visual impairments. Some research has estimated that people with learning disabilities are 10 times more likely to have serious eye problems than the general population, and six in 10 people with learning disabilities need glasses but may not recognise that they have sight problems. They may not be able to communicate this effectively, and they certainly need reasonable adjustments to access ophthalmic services.

The prevalence of visual impairment increases with the severity of someone’s learning disability. We know that some conditions associated with a learning disability, such as Down’s Syndrome, are associated with specific causes of visual impairment such as cataracts. My noble friend commented in Committee that the charity SeeAbility had identified that “four in 10 children” in special schools

“had never had a sight test”

and that

“half of adults with learning disabilities had not had a sight test” —[Official Report, 20/1/22; col.1837.]

within the recommended period. In short, those most in need of high-quality eyecare are arguably those least likely to get it. We need targeted improvements in primary eyecare for all people with learning disabilities. I am therefore very pleased to support my noble friend’s amendment and, in his absence, I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I just want to say that I think that that is perfectly correct and reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an important group, so it is a shame that we are discussing it so late in the evening. It is important because it contains essential broad things that people need to stay well in their community. It is about the bread and butter of people’s health—their GPs, dentists, the physios and pharmacists, getting podiatry services and getting the proper social care that you need to be able to stay in your home. It is literally about helping people to stay local and stay well. In many ways, that is why I enjoyed the three years that I spent on a CCG so much, because I knew that it was local and that every month I was going to be visiting a GP surgery. I knew all those things, and I felt that that was an important contribution to healthcare in my area.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is particularly important. If primary healthcare and these local services do not work, the rest of the NHS falls over.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments in this debate and in Committee, but I am also grateful for the discussions that we have had between the various stages and the conversations that noble Lords have continued to have with my officials—indeed, right up to the dinner break this evening. I shall speak to Amendments 34, 35 and 55 in my name, which I hope will go far in addressing many of the concerns raised in the debate.

We have heard the calls for greater clarity about what will be expected of ICBs in their forward planning. We also understand the importance of ICBs being transparent in discharging their functions to allow for public scrutiny and accountability. We have therefore brought forward these amendments to further clarify what ICBs must include in their forward plans and annual reports. These amendments provide that the forward plan must describe what services the ICB proposes to make arrangements for in the exercise of its functions. It must also explain how the ICB proposes to discharge each of its duties under new Sections 14Z34 to 14Z44. These duties include improving the quality of services, reducing inequalities, promoting the involvement of patients and carers in decisions about treatment and promoting the integration of health and social care services.

Amendment 55 requires an ICB’s annual report to explain how it has discharged each of its duties under new Sections 14Z34 to 14Z44. This would additionally include new Section 14Z47A, which is the new duty we discussed earlier requiring the ICB to keep under review the skills, knowledge and experience that it needs to discharge its functions and, when there are gaps, to consider what steps it can take to address or mitigate them. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments represent a significant step forward in making sure ICBs are held accountable by ensuring that they are transparent in how they intend to discharge their numerous duties and functions.

I turn to the amendments proposed by noble Lords, and I shall address each of them as briefly as I can. On Amendment 19, I assure my noble friend Lord Farmer that the Bill already includes the power for ICBs to commission services or facilities for the prevention of illness under new Section 3A in Clause 16. The provisions in Clause 16 also require ICBs to act consistently with the Secretary of State’s duty for the promotion of a comprehensive health service, including in the prevention of illness. Further, new Section 14Z34 places a duty on ICBs to improve the quality of services including preventive services, and new Sections 14Z36 and 14Z38 place duties on ICBs to ensure that patients and carers are fully involved in these decisions, including about prevention.

I now turn briefly to Amendment 62, spoken to so ably by my noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who in my brief time in this House thus far has really educated me about dementia and the fact that, as we are living longer physically, this will become more of an issue.

The department is currently developing a new national dementia strategy for England, which will be published later this year. This will include objectives focused on restoring the dementia diagnosis rates and improving the diagnostic experience for people living with dementia, as well as increasing the number and diversity of people participating in dementia research. I take on board the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about getting the many volunteers for clinical trials at the right time.

There is already work under way to help restore dementia diagnosis rates back to the target of 66.7% following the pandemic, supported by an additional £17 million to address dementia waiting lists and increase the number of diagnoses. Increasing participation in all types of research is a top priority and is in fact part of my portfolio. The UK has invested in a range of digital platforms, including Join Dementia Research, and we are now working to increase the scale of and interoperability between systems, improve diverse recruitment and reduce the burden and costs of clinical research delivery.

On Amendments 22 and 24, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill already contains requirements on NHS commissioning bodies to tackle health inequalities. Commissioners are also required to promote the right of patients to make choices with respect to services or treatment. This includes allowing patients to choose to be treated outside their ICB area. To support this, we expect ICBs to actively co-operate with each other. Furthermore, we have amended the duty on ICBs to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between patients, proposing by government amendment to extend this to “persons”, in respect of accessing services. This means we are capturing everyone, not just people accessing services. This duty would encompass the need to reduce inequalities with respect to geography as well.

I now turn to Amendment 30. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. First, I should thank her for the daffodil I am wearing to celebrate St David’s Day. She assures me that it is not a listening device to eavesdrop on my conversations with officials. If she had eavesdropped, she probably would have been embarrassed by the amount of praise heaped on her. We acknowledge her desire to see strong provision of community rehabilitation and it is important that this is pushed up the agenda.

Under the existing Bill provisions, every ICB will be required to provide and improve rehabilitation services as part of its duty to provide a comprehensive health service. As an added layer of scrutiny, ICBs must publish an annual review detailing how they have discharged this function. Also, NHS England is currently working on a national intermediate care framework, digital and virtual pathways and models of care, improved data recording and reports, and interventions using a wide range of community assets and levers.

I now turn to Amendments 33 and 37 to 54. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his engagement on this issue—indeed, including right up to the dinner break this evening. We would like to put on record our gratitude to the noble Lord and the Royal College of General Practitioners for pushing us on this and reminding us that, as we move to ICBs, we should make sure that primary care is not the poor relation. In moving to ICBs from CCGs, where GPs and primary medical services have played a huge role, we have to ensure that these are not dominated by a few large trusts.

We understand and continue to recognise the importance of primary care. Indeed, primary care is taking on more of the functions of what would traditionally be considered secondary care, especially with some of the primary care services and community centres appearing in our local communities. Only this week, we have seen stories and press reports of pharmacists calling for more of the functions of GPs to be delegated to them. They have helpfully suggested that they could save the NHS money and also provide better primary care services by taking on some of those functions. There is clearly a demand out there and that has to be encouraged.

Before I turn to this, I note that we hold primary care in equal esteem to any other sector—acute, community or mental health. Right from the outset, we have said that primary care must not be lost and must be at the heart of the ICB. As the Integrated Care Systems: Design Framework said:

“Through a combination of their membership, and the ways in which members engage partners, the board and its committees should ensure they take into account the perspectives and expertise of all relevant partners”,


including primary care.

I know the noble Lord is especially concerned about why primary care is not explicitly referenced in new Clause 14Z50(1). I hope I can offer him some explanation. First, we are conscious that there are 43,000 primary care providers, and it is impractical to require each to be a partner in developing the ICB forward plan. Secondly, new Clause 14Z50 ties NHS providers to the plan, and a failure to play their part could trigger NHS England’s intervention. It will also guide the financial requirements imposed under Clause 24. In contrast, primary care providers, as private contractors, are bound to the plan in a different way, primarily through contracts. Thirdly, new Clauses 14Z50 and 14Z54, on the joint capital resource plan, are intimately connected and primary care capital is provided through other routes.

However, ensuring that the primary care voice is sufficiently involved in joint forward planning in integrated care boards is our common ambition. The law requires the involvement of a primary care representative drawn from primary medical services on ICBs, just as it does for acute providers. ICBs will have to consider how they can best access skills and knowledge across primary care.

In addition, there is a duty in new Clause 14Z52 to consult

“any other persons they consider it appropriate to consult”

about forward plans. We expect that, in publishing its plan, an ICB should set out how it has met this duty and consulted primary care and other partners. I am able to inform the House that NHS England has confirmed that its guidance will be explicit in its expectation that primary care will be a crucial partner in that process. We are happy to engage with the noble Lord further as that guidance develops to ensure that we stick to that commitment to make sure that primary care is at the heart of this.

More broadly, ICBs have the discretion to appoint additional members to the ICB or exercise functions through committees. Commissioning at a local level requires the expertise of primary care, and we expect it to play a significant role as many decisions will be taken at that level under the principle of subsidiarity. Further guidance will be published on the development of place- level arrangements, including the role of primary care.

I also note the Fuller review. NHS England chief executive Amanda Pritchard has announced that Dr Claire Fuller, senior responsible officer of the Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System, will lead a review on how primary care networks can be supported in integrated systems. NHS England has announced that the review will set out how ICSs and primary care networks should go about improving out-of-hospital care. The findings of the review will then be applied to ICBs, subject to the passage of this Bill. We hope this work will help all ICBs to make progress on developing general practice in this area.

I hope I have been able to assure noble Lords that we hold primary care in great esteem, and have given the noble Lord some reassurance that primary care will be involved in every level of the ICB, its functions and planning.

I now turn to Amendment 177 from my noble friend Lady Hodgson. I thank her for continuing to remind us of its importance and speaking movingly about her own experience. I remind noble Lords that all practices are already required to assign all their registered patients—including those aged 65 and over—a named, accountable GP. The GP must lead in ensuring that any GP services that they are contracted to provide, and that are necessary to meet the patient’s needs, are co-ordinated and delivered to that patient. Practices must take reasonable steps to accommodate the requests of patients to be assigned a particular GP and to see them for an appointment.

However, it is vital that practices retain clinical discretion to provide appointments, as is necessary and appropriate to meet the reasonable needs of patients—something that this amendment would remove. Through primary care networks and initiatives such as enhanced health in care homes and anticipatory care, we are supporting GP practices to improve continuity of care on the ground, including for older patients. We are committed to growing the general practice workforce and increasing access to appointments, in line with our manifesto commitments.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I echo that statement and say how much I appreciate both the way in which the discussion was held and the end point whereby these amendments have now been placed in front of us.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I absolutely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and congratulate the Minister on a concise and accurate proposal of these amendments. Long may this continue.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a welcome, consensual and short start to Report stage, which I am sure we will continue through future groups. I am not sure there is much to add, so therefore I ask that these amendments be agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I thank the Minister and the whole Front-Bench team for the way they have engaged with the House on the issue of doing something really serious about addressing health inequalities.

Many of us put down amendments in Committee: dealing with inequalities was dotted all over the Bill. We even suggested that perhaps we needed a quadruple aim—an additional aim. The Government have taken a different but none the less effective approach, and I really welcome the fact that dealing with health inequalities has been made integral to the first two aims of the triple aim.

The Government have done two things that I particularly welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentioned the engagement of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, with the Bill team on making sure that data can be collected. Without collecting the data, you cannot analyse or take action on addressing health inequalities.

The second thing, which the Minister mentioned in his introduction, is government Amendment 21, which is about the experience of people in the health service. He mentioned that the experience of people from an Asian background can sometimes be poor. I can give him an example of where that has been the case. My daughter has a friend, an Asian gentleman, who had a very painful physical injury. Very unusually, although his physical problems have now healed, he has been left with a mental scar because of his experience with the health service. This is very unusual, but he was not treated with compassion or respect. Indeed, it was more like discrimination—so I really welcomed what the Minister said about the importance of the experience of people from all demographics and ethnic backgrounds in the health service. It is vital.

I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. Like all noble Lords, I have been watching the television recently, looking at the pain that the poor people of Ukraine are going through and seeing children, mothers and whole families huddled in cold, damp cellars. Some of them are taking several days to drive to the border to go to a country that will welcome them, perhaps with even more open arms than we do. It occurred to me that those people, when all this is over—and let us hope it will be over very soon—will probably be suffering from mental and physical illness. It also then occurred to me that there are people in this country who have poor-quality housing, insecure housing or no housing at all. When you put those things together, it is not surprising to realise that such people will be suffering from more serious and more frequent physical and mental ill-health than the rest of us who are in good-quality, secure housing. So the noble Baroness has hit on some very important issues about health inclusion communities and about the importance of housing to making health, and we support what she has to say.

I end by sincerely thanking all three Ministers and the Bill team for the way they have addressed this issue of health inequalities, and I really look forward to it making a real difference in future.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, expressed that very well indeed. From these Benches, I say how much we welcome these amendments and thank the Minister for introducing them. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in regretting the fact that our friend Naren Patel—the noble Lord, Lord Patel—is not with us today. His speech on this in Committee was outstanding, as his speeches always are. In fact, the whole debate was the House at its very best in expressing its view.

We welcome these amendments, and I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 3 on behalf of these Benches. I was not as energetic as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who put his name to all of them, but that was a symbol of the fact that we supported all these amendments.

We support them because, as people have mentioned, they recognise the importance of addressing inequalities from the top to the bottom of the National Health Service, and of monitoring, counting and research—not a tick-box exercise to say that you are tackling inequalities. As I have mentioned before, I am a non-executive member of a hospital in London. In fact, I have just completed three days of its workforce race equality training. That was three days out of my life during the course of this Bill, but it was definitely worth while. It absolutely was not always comfortable, and nor should it have been. It did indeed raise issues, many of which were raised in research published on 14 February by the NHS Race & Health Observatory. It basically says that the NHS has a very large mountain to climb in tackling race inequalities and inequalities across the board. It is a worthwhile report, which I am sure the noble Earl will be paying attention to in due course.

I also want to say how much I support my noble friend in bringing forward her amendments on the homeless. Coming from Bradford, I am particularly fond of a GP surgery called Bevan Healthcare, named after the founder of the National Health Service. It was started by my local doctor in Bradford, who spent his spare time providing GP services on the street to the homeless. From that, the NHS was commissioned to provide a GP surgery specifically directed to the needs of people who are itinerant and homeless, working girls and so on. It is still there, and it is a brilliant example of how to deliver the service, and of the money it saves the NHS at the end of the day. As I think my noble friend Lady Armstrong said, if you get this right then people do not end up in emergency care or worse.

We hope that the Minister will respond positively to these amendments. I thank him, his team and the Bill team, who addressed this issue thoroughly and with a great deal of success.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very fruitful discussion and I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I especially thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Thornton and Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in his absence, the King’s Fund and the Health Foundation for their contributions, both inside and outside this Chamber, in shaping this debate and the amendments before us.

Without wishing to repeat what I said earlier, I commend the government amendments to the House as they will strengthen the ability and resolve of the health and care system to take meaningful action on tackling health disparities. I next thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and Lady Morgan of Drefelin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling their three amendments and for the focus they bring to the issues of housing and homelessness. I found the account of the experience in government of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and the work of Professor Aidan Halligan, whom I too remember with great respect, compelling. I agreed with so much of what she said.

Let me say straight away that the Government are committed to improving the health outcomes of inclusion health groups, as they are known. That is precisely why we tabled the amendment to expand the inequalities duty placed on NHS England and ICBs beyond simply patients to incorporate people who struggle to access health services such as inclusion health groups, but there is much more to say on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I join the debate briefly to add my thanks to the Government for the amendments on research that they have brought forward in this group. It is extremely helpful, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, to entrench the concept of a research culture inside the NHS. In our various ways and guises, we have all encountered some of the difficulties of diffusing innovation and the take-up of new medicines in the NHS.

The point was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but he did not say why the NHS does not adopt new medicines as rapidly as some other European systems have. I do not think we have more conservative clinicians than other countries, but we do not have a third-party payments system. We do not have a system whereby the patient can ask “What about this?”—these days, increasingly, they do—and the clinician can say yes, and pass the bill to somebody else. Instead, our system centrally determines the extent to which new medicines will be available. We have a particular requirement in the National Health Service for a system which looks for areas where there is value in innovation, disseminates it, takes it up and makes it available to patients.

I make two other points. One is to say thank you, as I am not sure I will get another opportunity to do so. We had substantive discussions about rare diseases; the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in particular spoke very well and fully about the needs involved, and the Government published their England Rare Diseases Action Plan yesterday. On orphan drugs, that will give significant additional impetus to the availability of treatments for those with rare diseases. I very much welcome that.

Secondly, Amendment 178 in particular is interesting. I do not necessarily advocate that we adopt it, but it asks the Government do something that they generally have not done and ought to do, which is to come back to the issue of access to medicines and treatments—and, I would add, to medical devices—and ask how well we are doing at the process of bringing that into effect and how well our Accelerated Access Collaborative, which is supposed to look at all these things and make them work together, is making that happen.

The beauty of Amendment 178, on which I will add just a little, is that we ought to have a very clear timetable for how we move the system forward. I hope the Government will adopt this. In January 2024, we will have the next voluntary pharmaceutical pricing and access scheme. The industry will be looking, rightly, to arrive at a position where all the initiatives mentioned give patients access to medicines in this country as soon as in any other healthcare system. On that basis, the industry will be prepared to understand that not just the NHS but the Government will look to get some pretty cost-effective prices out of it.

Now I do not happen to think that it is NICE’s job to make that relationship happen. I happen to think that NHS England is increasingly equipped to be a central player in this process. It should sit alongside NICE when it carries out health technology assessments in what is effectively a trialogue with the industry and say, “Well, how can we ensure that the patient has access to this medicine, and at what price? Can NICE act as the referee to establish whether the price and the incremental benefit are reconciled to be cost effective for the NHS?”

We should build that into the system over the next 18 months so that, when we start the new scheme in January 2024, the system is understood to work. It should not depend on large-scale transfers of money, with overpriced new branded medicines on the one hand being recycled back to the NHS to go into the innovative medicines fund on the other. This tracking of money around the system is not the best way to make it happen. We should aim for the industry to be paid what the health technology assessments and the NHS budget requirements mean is a fair price for the medicines it is providing—and that is what the industry should expect.

Everybody should be working to arrive at a position where, when a medicine obtains authorisation—in other words, when it is deemed safe, clinically effective and of good quality—and a clinician recommends it for a patient, the patient should have access to that medicine through the NHS. That is what we are aiming for. It has not always been true, but it ought to be in the future. We need a system that people, including clinicians in the NHS, understand and that supports their ability to prescribe medicines in that way.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not intend to speak about this for very long, because I feel that I am the least well-equipped person in the whole Chamber to do so—possibly with the exception of the Minister, which is often the way and is how I felt when I was a Minister; I would stand up to speak about research and other huge subjects and everybody else in the Chamber who had spoken certainly knew a lot more than I did, and that is the case here.

Noble Lords may recall that the starting point at Second Reading and in Committee was that there was no place for research in the Bill at all—so I congratulate noble Lords who picked this up and ran with it, and, indeed, the Minister and the Bill team on taking it on board and producing these amendments. That is helpful; as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, it is about the future and it is exactly the right thing to do.

I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Hunt in their disappointment on the issue of NICE. They are quite right about the access and availability of medicine and devices to healthcare practitioners and that the system is still uneven; also, of course, nobody is asking how we are doing and whether it is working. It is a shame that these aspects have not been included in the Bill, but I suspect that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will probably live to fight another day.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken thus far in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for expressing her confidence in my ability to understand these issues; I fear that she may be right.

Turning first to Amendment 29, it is firstly important to note that it is the MHRA, not NICE, that licenses these medicines in the UK. NICE makes recommendations on whether the price that the NHS pays for treatments represents value for money. Access to effective new treatments for NHS patients is a priority for the Government. That is why we have committed to maintain the funding requirement for NICE appraisal of recommended treatments.

The standard contract also stipulates that providers must ensure that formularies include all NICE appraisal-recommended treatments. NICE’s guidance on developing and updating local formularies also clearly states:

“When a NICE technology appraisal recommends a medicine, adopt the medicine into the local formulary automatically, if clinically appropriate and relevant to the services provided by the organisation. This process should take place within 3 months.”


I believe that this represents a robust legal framework for ensuring compliance with NICE’s appraisal decisions. A stronger legislative requirement to include all NICE-recommended treatments on formularies within 28 days of a NICE decision would remove any flexibility both to vary the timescale where there are barriers to implementation, or where a product was not relevant to a particular organisation.

Turning to Amendment 171, NICE rightly operates independently from the Government, and key to this is setting its own procedures for developing guidance and recommendations. This includes setting its own discount rate, taking into account the wider policy and fiscal implications. NICE recently carried out a comprehensive review of its methods and processes for making appraisal recommendations, and the changes that NICE is introducing will ensure that its processes are fairer, faster and more consistent. I assure noble Lords that NICE already aims, wherever possible, to make timely recommendations on new medicines with draft guidance around the time of licensing, and final guidance within three months of licensing. However, NICE’s ability to issue guidance depends on an evidence submission from the manufacturer. It would not therefore be appropriate to place a requirement in legislation for a specified timeframe when that is dependent on other organisations.

This amendment would also require NICE to take account of a company’s membership of the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access, or the statutory scheme, in making its recommendations on medicines. These schemes have a very different purpose from NICE appraisals, which ensure that new medicines are clinically and cost effective, and they are time-limited, so would create significant disparities between medicines launched at different times.

I turn now to Amendment 178. I hope I can assure the noble Lord that arrangements are already in place to regularly review and monitor delivery against priorities and objectives, including through accountability meetings, engagement with external partners and public board meetings. The Government believe that regular monitoring through existing arrangements is the right approach and do not consider that a requirement to carry out a review is necessary. I assure the noble Lord that the changes recently introduced by NICE will make its methods and processes fairer, faster and more consistent, will ensure that they are suited to new and emerging types of technology, and will provide more equitable access for those with severe diseases. The vast majority of cancer medicines covered by the previous end of life flexibilities would also be covered by the severity modifier.

Placing requirements on NICE through primary legislation to use specified processes would fetter its independence to determine its own methods and processes, and it would be unfair to operate two different approaches at the same time. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord could also impact negatively on cancer medicines that were not eligible for the end-of-life flexibilities in their first appraisal but may be eligible for the severity modifier.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

9: Clause 14, page 12, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert—
“(4) Each integrated care board must set out in its constitution—(a) the arrangements for managing conflicts and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes,(b) the process by which any appointment of a member to the integrated care board or any appointment to any committee or sub-committee of the integrated care board that has a commissioning function must be made so as to avoid the appointment of anyone who would be perceived to have a conflict or potential conflict of interest, and(c) the arrangements for ensuring that no member of any committee or sub-committee of the integrated care board who has a conflict or potential conflict of interest obtains access to information that might be perceived to favour the interest or potential interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This intends to ensure conflict of interest rules that apply to an ICB also apply to commissioning sub-committees.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group of amendments where the wonderful harmony that has so far filled the House, with all the fantastic concessions and discussions, comes to a bit of an end. It concerns the make-up of the ICBs. I am very grateful to the Minister and the officials for the range of discussions that we have had and, it has to be said, for the consensus that there was and the brilliant initiative by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which led to Amendment 31. I commend the noble Baroness and the Minister for that amendment, which very successfully looks to the future of how ICBs might work in terms of an audit of the qualities, skills and so on that you need on an ICB. This group, however, reflects the fact that the House is concerned about who serves on ICBs now; they are being formulated and appointments made right now, and the Bill is the only opportunity we shall get to influence who serves on them and how that works.

This group of amendments addresses that issue in various different ways. I feel particularly strongly in my support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bradley, for example. We have had a suite of amendments that have addressed the issue of mental health, but his particularly addresses the issue of ICBs. However, I will allow him to speak to that in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on that suggestion.

I shall be very brief. This was an excellent debate, which proved that the House still has some reservations about ICBs and, if nothing else, it should tell NHS England and the 42 existing ICBs that we want them to do extremely well and to be powerful. Amendment 31 will help ensure their future prosperity and the diversity they need to do their job.

However, I am not content with the Minister’s explanation about my Amendment 9. I regret that NHS Providers and the NHS Confederation never bothered to speak to me about this amendment. They seem to have spoken to the Minister and a few other people and have been on Twitter about it. I think that is rude and it makes me wonder where their panic has come from. I do not think they need to panic about something which just adds consistency to the rules that govern commissioning and the spending of our money. I say with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who I did not see at the beginning of this debate, that if sub-committees are commissioning and spending public money, they should have the same rules as the ICBs. That is the crux of this. I wish to test the opinion of the House.