Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I would much prefer that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, should open on this group. I will speak to the question of whether Clause 40 should stand part when that has happened.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 179 and the other amendments in my name. I thank the noble Lords who put their names to these amendments: the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel. We are told that the driving force of the Bill is to ensure that health and care services are delivered at place; and to empower local leaders—leaders who know what their local communities’ needs are and who will make decisions about how care is delivered. I am sure that is music to the ears of my noble friend Lord Mawson.

We are told that the integrated care systems—the ICSs—will be given the flexibility to plan, to commission and to provide services according to the specific needs of their population. This principle is undermined by the unchecked power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State over local configuration of services. I am pleased to tell your Lordships—particularly my noble friend Lord Howe, who is on the Front Bench for this item—that Amendments 179 to 183 have the support of a number of influential voices. These are voices from the health and local government sectors, the NHS Confederation, the King’s Fund, NHS Providers, the LGA, the BMA, National Voices and the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny. These organisations cover NHS leaders, local authorities, clinicians and patients. It is significant that they are united in their deep concern about the powers that the Secretary of State would have over local reconfigurations as the Bill currently stands.

Of course, there is an existing system for local reconfiguration and it works very well. It is overseen by the Independent—that word is very important—Reconfiguration Panel, the IRP. This has helped take politics out of the difficult decisions surrounding services. Crucially, the current process for service reconfiguration starts with local consultation and consideration of clinical advice. These elements are fundamental, and they must be maintained in a future process. In short, the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in a decision about local services only once local people have had their say on the proposed changes, and once clinical advice has been considered. It will be to the detriment of patient safety if it has not. Under the existing arrangements, when the process takes too long, it has often not been about the IRP but about the Secretary of State’s failure to reach a decision, yet the Government state that the new powers are needed to speed up the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am in favour of surgical excision. I oppose the powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 40 and Schedule 6 to intervene in decisions on reconfiguration of health services. Far be it from me to want to protect Conservative Secretaries of State for Health from themselves, but I warn that if they use these powers they will eventually get the blame.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, gave a number of very good reasons why this clause should be deleted from the Bill. My reason is somewhat different. I think these powers are very dangerous. We have recently seen how the Government’s powers to provide or withdraw funding from a proposal, let us say, to build a new school or improve infrastructure in a particular constituency have got them into trouble. We have heard allegations made against Government Whips by Members of Parliament of actions which could be criminal offences of bribery. It is alleged that, in seeking to ensure support for their leader, they are threatening Members of Parliament that funding for their projects, which have already been declared to be in the public interest of their constituents, will be withdrawn unless they behave in a certain way, so political considerations would trump public interests.

Like the former Member of Parliament to whom the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, all politicians know that the provision of a new hospital or clinic or, on the contrary, the closing of a healthcare setting are very sensitive considerations in elections. All parties ensure that the voters know their views on these matters at election time and in between elections. The Prime Minister knows this. Why else would he put such emphasis on his promise of 40 so-called new hospitals by 2030 if this were not the case? It makes a good headline, even if we know that some of them are not new and some of them are not hospitals.

The powers of reconfiguration sought by the Secretary of State in Clause 40 would give the Government the ability to change the decisions of those put in place locally and well qualified to make them in a non-partisan and needs-based way, thus allowing the Government to wield unwarranted political power. It is probable that this Government would not be able to resist doing so, for the wrong reasons, and it is incumbent on all parties to stop them by deleting Clause 40 from the Bill. Indeed, I do not think that I would be in favour of giving these powers to any Government of any political party; they are just too liable to be misused.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I think the Minister is probably getting the message by now. I shall speak to my Clause 40 stand part debate and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Merron. Somebody said earlier that we can be sure that the proposals to allow greater powers for the Secretary of State to intervene in reconfigurations is not something that the NHS asked for. That is almost certainly true.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her great coalition- building; she is very good at building coalitions in support of the things that she cares about, and she has definitely managed to do that with this group of amendments.

Noble Lords have pointed out that, at the moment, we have a system which works. It may be slow, and it is absolutely true that it has processes which take too long, but there are elements of public and patient involvement through consultations. The changes made in 2012 under the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, brought in four tests and some rigour of external independent evaluation. The core of that process still exists. As a non-executive member of the board of the Whittington, I can say that this is exactly the kind of thing that we have been involved in in our own hospital.

The consultations might be improved, but they will not be improved at all by this proposal. In fact, I think that this clause is very odd indeed. It is a bad idea, and it adds nothing to the core of this Bill and its central aim, which is to grow place-based independent and innovative healthcare, and it probably needs to go.

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

I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions. I would be pretty blind or deaf not to understand the level of concern across the Committee. However, if noble Lords will bear with me, I shall try to set out some justifications. I preface my remarks once again by saying that I strongly hear the views of the Committee, and I welcome the fact that previous Ministers and Secretaries of State are warning us not to fall victim to this, as it were.

I start by explaining some of the justifications. It may be helpful to start with some of the observations. The public expect Ministers to be accountable for the health service, which includes service change. We see the new intervention powers enabling the Secretary of State to act as a scrutineer and decision-maker for reconfigurations, to intervene when, for example, they can see a critical benefit or cost to taking one or other course of action, or to take action where there is a significant cause for public concern. Having said that, we accept that public concern could well be a political one, so we understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords.

We expect this power to be used infrequently and, when it is used, it will be done proportionately and transparently. All decisions made using the new reconfiguration call-in power in the Bill must be published, which will ensure transparency and proper scrutiny. The new call-in power for reconfigurations will allow the Secretary of State better to support effective change and respond to stakeholder concerns, including from the public health oversight and scrutiny committees and parliamentarians in a more timely way.

I turn to Amendment 183. Given the role of the Secretary of State, it is proportionate to ask him or her to ask local commissioners to consider service change where there is concern. Once again, we do not expect this power to be used frequently, and all service changes, regardless of whether a Secretary of State has been a catalyst, will still be required to go through due process and where appropriate local consultation. Before any proposal was agreed, the planning and assurance for a proposal would still have to include strong public and patient engagement, consistency with a current and prospective need for patient choice, a clear clinical evidence base and support from commissioners.

I turn to a couple of points from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who said that the powers were unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable. To look at the necessity of the power, the current system can lead to referrals coming very late to the Secretary of State, and the power will allow the Secretary of State to intervene earlier to avoid that. For example, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to the Kent and Medway stroke services reconfiguration proposal. One reason why it was lengthy was the need to review the right options for the system. We are hoping that it goes something like this—that you could either knock heads together or, as someone put it more starkly, have a sword of Damocles over them to come to a decision more quickly. But once again we understand the concerns.

I turn to Amendment 180. It is vital that all local views, including that of the health overview and scrutiny committees, are represented in the reconfiguration. The new power in the Bill will not replace the important local scrutiny and engagement that plays such an important role in service change decisions, and a duty for those locally responsible for service change proposals to consult local authorities will remain. It is right that for commissioners and providers who are responsible for planning, assuring and delivering reconfigurations the duty to consult HOSCs and other local stakeholders continues. We are also introducing a duty for NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts to provide information and other assistance required for the Secretary of State to carry out functions. That will allow the Secretary of State to take into account local views. We expect the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to consider the views and carry on the way it works.

On Amendment 181, we recognise the importance of timely decision-making—

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that the Government and his department do not trust NHS England to fulfil this function any longer?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

No, we are saying that, where there is an issue and it is taking a long time, this measure allows the Secretary of State to come in in a more timely manner rather than waiting for a late referral.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that will save time?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I shall briefly make two points. First, having looked at this quite carefully, it is good to see that there is nothing in the proposals for the payment scheme that would intrinsically give rise to the concerns just articulated. Secondly, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, there are very good answers that can be provided, even if not now, to the questions that he poses. One starting point would be to look at the judgment that the Court of Appeal handed down at the end of 2018, which essentially confirmed that what he said is correct. It is just about possible to torture the 2012 tariff system to make it fit for purpose, but an incredibly elaborate set of workarounds is required to do so, with an enormous amount of bureaucracy and that covers only about 60% of the fund flows in the National Health Service. Hence the desire for something more flexible, which this set of clauses enables the NHS to take forward.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very gratifying that so many noble Lords have decided to come in to take part in a debate about NHS finances tonight; I am very grateful for that.

I shall speak briefly to Amendments 199, 200 and 202A in my name. Amendment 199 provides that the Secretary of State must set out rules for determining the price to be paid for NHS services. Amendment 200 ensures that the key policy documents covering NHS services are approved by the Secretary of State. Amendment 202A provides that the rules must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

I am very pleased that the complexity of NHS funding was not mentioned in great detail tonight, but there has been speculation about how funding may work and how the various financial responsibilities in and across ICSs may develop. What we think we know is that complex funding approaches, such as payment by results, will become less important. In Clause 70 and the associated Schedule 10, however, the Bill is wonderfully uninformative. It just says, “Out with the old”—the national tariff—“and in with the new”, the NHS payment scheme. I am again with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in saying that these questions need to be answered, because they will affect the regulations, procurement rules and so on.

The payment scheme—actually, I am not going to talk about the history of the NHS payment scheme at this time of night, but, unless the Minister can justify it and answer the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, this part of the Bill should be quietly dropped. We seem to have something that works, so why replace it with something that we do not know very much about?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness and echo her gratitude to all the noble Lords who have turned up for this group of amendments.

Before I turn to specific amendments, it may be helpful to make a few general points about the new payment scheme and explain why this clause should stand part of the Bill. For many years, the national tariff improved access to services and drove up quality across the NHS. The new scheme will build on that success. NHS England will continue to make rules determining the price paid to a provider, by a commissioner, for healthcare services for the NHS, or for public health services commissioned on behalf of the Secretary of State. Also, expanding the powers to enable NHS England to set prices for public health services, such as maternity screening, will allow for seamless funding streams for different care episodes.

However, we need to update the NHS pricing systems to reflect the move towards a more integrated system focused on prevention, joint working and more care delivered in the community. This will support a move from a “payment by activity” approach, towards an approach that promotes integration and early intervention, while discouraging perverse incentives for patients to be treated in acute settings. It will allow flexibility over the current pricing scheme, and allow rules to set prices, formulas and factors that must be considered when determining the prices paid. I assure noble Lords that, when developing the scheme, NHS England will continue to consult any persons that it considers relevant, which will include ICBs, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, as well as trade unions and representative groups. I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the valuable role that trade unions play in a free society.

I turn briefly to the points made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. On regional variation, the NHS payment scheme will encourage commissioners and providers within an integrated board area to work together to agree prices that are in line with the rules set out in the scheme. To date, only one provider has applied successfully for local modification, and closer working within ICBs should remove the need for disputes. On paying different providers differently, there may be scenarios where it is appropriate to pay non-NHS providers different prices from those paid to NHS providers, to take into account differences, different starting costs or a different range of services provided. There may also be cases where the financial regimes of different providers make it appropriate to set different prices or pricing rules. When setting any prices, NHS England will aim to ensure that prices paid represent a fair level of pay for the providers of those services, as well as fair pay between providers of similar services. We will not introduce competition on price rather than quality. We hope that these changes will increase the flexibility and reduce transactional bureaucracy at the ICP level.

I must disagree with the proposal in Amendment 199. While the Secretary of State will remain responsible for setting out overall funding for NHS England, NHS England, alongside Monitor, has set the rules successfully since 2013. I cannot see the benefit of this duty being transferred to the Secretary of State, beyond separating it further from those making operational decisions in the system. Following that logic, we must also reject Amendment 202A. However, I assure noble Lords that the payment scheme will be published in the usual way, and your Lordships will of course be able to table Questions, secure debates, hold us accountable and ensure that the mechanism is scrutinised.

I turn to Amendments 201B and 201C. As part of the broad consultation duties, we expect NHS England to work closely with trade unions and staff representative bodies, such as the Social Partnership Forum, NHS Providers, the Healthcare Financial Management Association and all the royal colleges, when developing the national tariff.

On Amendment 200, I assure your Lordships that the NHS payment scheme will be published by NHS England following consultation. The Secretary of State will also have the general power to require NHS England to share the NHS payment scheme before publication, not to publish a payment scheme without approval, and to share the contents of the scheme should that be necessary.

On Amendment 201A, in setting the rules for the payment scheme, NHS England will of course want commissioners to consider staff pay, pensions and terms and conditions. NHS England will continue to take account of cost growth arising from uplifts to Agenda for Change. New Section 114C makes it clear that, before publishing the payment scheme, NHS England must consult any person that it thinks appropriate. Again, in practice we expect this to include representative bodies and trade unions. NHS England must also provide an impact assessment of the proposed scheme.

I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the department and NHS England remain committed to Agenda for Change. Independent providers will remain free to develop and adopt the terms and conditions of employment, including pay, that best help them attract and keep the staff they need. However, we expect that good employers would set wage rates that reflected the skills of their staff.

On Amendment 202, it is right that the commissioners and providers of NHS services should be able to make representations and, if they feel it necessary, object to pricing mechanisms set by NHS England in the payment scheme. That is why we have retained the duties to consult commissioners and providers. We have also retained the ability for ICBs and providers to make representations and to formally object in response to consultations on the NHS payment scheme, as they can with the national tariff.

The current prescribed thresholds are set by the National Health Service (Licensing and Pricing) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, and the current objection thresholds since 2015 have been set at 66%. My department consulted on these thresholds in 2015 and it remains the Government’s view that they are proportionate, preventing the delay of future payment scheme publications and giving the NHS the certainty that it needs to plan for future financial years.

If I have not answered all the questions from my noble friend Lord Lansley and others, I ask noble Lords to remind me and I will write to them. This has been a very important discussion—as we can see by the attendance—and I hope I have given enough reassurance to noble Lords for them not to move their amendments and have explained why the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 24th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall]

That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, before we formally move into Committee on the Health and Care Bill, I will raise a matter of general importance about the parliamentary process upon which we are embarked and seek guidance from the Government about a serious matter which is of immediate concern in the parliamentary process we are currently undertaking. I have no wish to delay proceedings so I will get to the point.

In August, the Government and NHS England issued a Readiness to Operate Statement guidance and checklist to all the relevant parts of the NHS concerning planning for the forthcoming legislation. On 19 January this was updated concerning the ICB establishment timeline, regarding the implementation date for the legislation moving from April to July. The words “subject to parliamentary process” may have been included in the guidance but the actions which flow from the NHS England guidance are contrary to those words. For example, it seems that the latest advice from the Government and NHS England confirms deadlines for appointments of leaders, chairs and boards, many of whom have been appointed, possibly involving the spending of public funds, long before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. Indeed, there are many other matters which are still subject to parliamentary process. This is pre-emption of parliamentary process.

The issues in the guidance are at the forefront of the Committee’s deliberations and it is possible that much may have changed before the Bill receives Royal Assent. Our scrutiny in your Lordships’ House is important, not least because both the Constitution Committee and the DPRRC have been highly critical of the Bill and the department. They have stressed the importance of the Bill receiving sufficient scrutiny, since it did not have pre-legislative scrutiny and is significant “disguised legislation”, including more than 60 delegated powers and directions which have no parliamentary process at all.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the rules governing preparation for the enactment of legislation. After Second Reading of a Bill, some work may be undertaken, but guidance from Her Majesty’s Treasury in May 2021 is very clear what actions can and cannot be taken. Box A2, point 4C, refers to:

“Expenditure which may not normally be incurred before royal assent.”


First, there is,

“significant work associated with preparing for or implementing the new task enabled by a Bill, eg renting offices, hiring expert consultants or designing or purchasing significant IT equipment”.

Secondly, there is,

“recruitment of chief executives and board members of a new public sector organisation”.

Thirdly, there is,

“recruitment of staff for a new public sector organisation”.

We understand that NHS England was advised by others not to issue this guidance. Will the Government confirm that: first, the legitimate role of this House in the scrutiny of legislation should be made clear to NHS England; secondly, the current guidance will be withdrawn and it will be made clear to NHS England that further action must await the completion of the Bill and Royal Assent; thirdly, it will be made clear that aspects of the changes within scope of the Bill can and may well be amended; fourthly, that adequate time will be allowed for proper scrutiny of the Bill? I shall be referring the guidance to the two said committees. If the Minister is unable to provide a response today, please can he confirm that he will respond in writing by the end of the week; otherwise, we will need to raise this again in your Lordships’ House?

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

I start by thanking the noble Baroness for giving me advance notice of her intervention today. It clearly reflects the mood and concerns of the House that we heard last week. We recognise the strength of the House’s feeling on this matter. I have spoken to my department, and it told me that it is meeting NHS England this week to discuss this matter, and I will update the House accordingly. On the request that the noble Baroness made, I commit to write to her.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 24th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I have my name to Amendment 93 and Clause 70 stand part. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, just told us, Clause 70 is a bit of a mess, and having listened to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of why it is a bit of a mess, I do not find much need to say much more. However, on the issue of compulsory competitive tendering, I understood that the Bill will reduce its importance. I wonder how those things link together and whether the Minister can explain it to me.

On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about diversity of provision, it is usual that those with the biggest voices shout the loudest and, in the health sector, it is often also those with the biggest budgets, such as the acute hospitals. We have this very valuable not-for-profit sector that has a small voice and a small budget—at least individually, although it adds up to quite a lot—and a great deal of it comes from the NHS.

As has been said, many of them are spin-offs, comprising former NHS staff who prefer to work in that context. There are an awful lot of them—about 15,000—and they feel particularly threatened by the Bill because, despite the fact that they are specifically mentioned in the ICS design framework as a vital cornerstone of a progressive health and care system, they are not referred to in the Bill and there appears to be little, if any, recognition of the potential impact of the new structures of provider collaboratives and place-based partnerships on their funding and, crucially, their involvement in decision-making. As others have said, that missing piece has caused a lot of suspicion and concern in the sector, and we must not lose these important organisations, because they really understand their client base: they are local, they are flexible, they are fleet of foot, they innovate and they are vital in providing services, in particular for those with complex needs. We must make sure that their voice is heard.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, this group is in two parts. The first part consists of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I need to declare an interest as a patron and the founding chair of Social Enterprise UK, and also as an associate of E3M, for public sector social enterprise leaders, particularly in the healthcare sector, so I have been living with this. Indeed, I must declare an interest as the Minister who helped take through the right to request in the NHS for our staff. I am very committed to these amendments, and to the need for social enterprises to continue to innovate and deliver in our health and social care system, which they do at the moment. There is a report due out very soon from the group chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on Covid and social enterprise; the way that social enterprises have delivered during Covid is stunning.

I turn to the amendments in the second part of this group, many of which have my name on them. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I find ourselves in broadly the same place: it is a mess. Our first thought was, “Why is this clause here?”, because it does both the things that my former noble friend Lord Warner—I still regard him as a friend—said. This clause does not tell us what is going to happen but it makes us extremely suspicious about what might happen. My amendments—and also, I think, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey—are about that suspicion. It is quite right that the regulatory committee also said that we needed to pay attention to this, because it gives the Secretary of State very wide powers and it does not tell us what the Secretary of State will do with them.

I have quite a long speaking note, but I do not intend to go into the detail now. I simply say to the Minister that if, by the next stage of the Bill, we have not resolved the issues behind this clause, the Government may find themselves struggling to get it, as it stands, through your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, again, I have heard the excellent contributions that have been made, really holding the Government to account on a number of these amendments.

I begin with Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I assure him that social value is a very important matter for the Government. I know that this importance is echoed across the NHS, as the country’s largest employer and public service, and that we see the value of the excellent services and innovation that social enterprises, independent providers and charities bring to health and care—indeed, not just to health and care but to the wider economy. However, we do not think that this is an appropriate duty to put on NHS commissioners, or an appropriate addition to the triple aim.

We have been discussing the triple aim and other issues around how that ends up. We fundamentally believe that the focus of NHS commissioning decisions should be on offering the best possible treatments and services based on quality, rather than any decision being based on the type of provider, but, again, while recognising the diversity of non-clinical providers, especially social enterprises, voluntary organisations and charities. The duty of the triple aim is intended to be shared across the NHS. The aims represent a core shared vision of what the NHS should offer, and are intended to align NHS bodies around a common set of objectives and support a shift towards integrated systems. In this context we would not want to split the duty by adding a section relevant to commissioners, NHS England and ICBs, but not to trusts and foundation trusts.

On Amendment 211, in its long-term plan the NHS committed to reducing health inequalities and supporting wider social goals. Again, this refers back to previous debates on how we make sure that we really capture the essence of tackling inequalities in the Bill. We recognise that NHS organisations can contribute to social and economic development, and aim to reduce the impact of social determinants of health and reduce heath inequalities. It is with this in mind that social value, alongside sustainability, has been proposed as one of the key criteria which will be used for decision-making under the provider selection regime.

We believe that this amendment, at this stage, is not necessary, as alongside the role of social value as a key decision-making criterion, NHS England and NHS Improvement will produce guidance on applying net zero and social value in healthcare procurement, which includes taking account of social value in the award of central contracts.

The Cabinet Office social value model has been applied to procurement decisions taken by NHS England and NHS Improvement since 1 April 2021 and will be extended to the whole NHS system from 1 April 2022. Adopting the Cabinet Office social value model across the NHS complements strategic initiatives and policy within the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

If a contract were not awarded to a trust or foundation trust, Amendment 207 would require a commissioning body to conduct a consultation on the process and to specify terms and conditions. As we have set out, we intend that the new provider selection regime will allow the NHS and local government the flexibility to best arrange healthcare services for patients.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Will the consultation on outsourcing be published?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I assume it will be but, as I am about to say on a number of other issues, there is clearly a lot to take back to the department, not only tonight but on the whole Bill. I pledge to take that back to the department.

Where there is only one possible provider or where the incumbent is delivering well, it is intended that the regime will enable commissioners to continue contracts in an efficient way. However, if a trust or foundation trust currently holds a contract or did hold a contract, it should not be assumed that it is or was always with the most suitable provider. It is the view of the Government and the NHS that patients should be able to access services based on quality and value, delivering the best possible outcome, rather than basing the decision on what type of provider they are.

Amendment 208 would require a competitive tender for contracts with an annual value of over £5 million. While we recognise the role of competitive tender—and expect that, in many cases, this may be the appropriate route—the NHS asked the Government for greater flexibility in tendering contracts. It is for local commissioners to select the most appropriate provider for a service and to do so in a robust way. We agree with the importance of open, transparent and robust decision-making. Regulations and statutory guidance made under the provision in Clause 70 will set out rules to ensure transparency and scrutiny of decisions to award healthcare contracts. Decision-makers will also need to adhere to any relevant existing duties, act with transparency and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. This and other aspects of the regime will provide sufficient safeguards to fulfil the important need for fairness when making decisions about the arrangement of services.

On Amendment 209, the Government’s position on trade agreements is clear. We have been unequivocal that the procurement of NHS healthcare services is off the table in our future trade negotiations. This is a fundamental principle of the UK’s international trade policy. In fact, it dates back to the days when we were a member of the European Union; this issue came up a number of times. I remember working in the European Parliament with colleagues from the Labour Party and elsewhere to ensure that this was part of our agreements. Therefore, we do not consider the noble Baroness’s amendment necessary. My department has worked with the Department for International Trade to ensure robust protections for public services. For example, in the recent UK-Australia trade agreement, it was clearly stated that the procurement of health services is not included in the scope of the agreement’s services procurement coverage. We will ensure that our right to choose how we deliver public services is protected in future trade agreements.

Amendment 212 would mean that the provisions of Clause 70 expired three years after the day on which they commenced. In 2019, the NHS provided recommendations to the Government and Parliament for this NHS Bill. These recommendations told us that

“there is strong public and NHS staff support for scrapping Section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and for removing the commissioning of NHS healthcare services from the jurisdiction of the Public Contract Regulations 2015.”

The recommendations also voiced support for the removal of the presumption of automatic tendering of these services. Our intention is that, through this clause and the new procurement regulations to be made under it, we will deliver what the NHS has asked for: new rules for arranging services that work for the NHS, and, most importantly, for patients.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I am very sorry—I know it is late—but, frankly, these are not rules that will serve the locality. At the moment it looks as if these rules will be set by the Secretary of State and will serve the Secretary of State. That is what the Bill says at the moment; those are the powers that this clause takes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord raises a concern that I have heard a number of times: that we should be careful about saying “This is what the NHS wanted”—that the focus has to be about patients. We clearly take the view that this should be patient-centred and patient-focused. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with many noble Lords about how we make sure that it is patient-focused. We understand, however, that concerns have been raised that Clause 70 may in part be a temporary measure, to be replaced or significantly edited by the Cabinet Office procurement Bill to follow. This is not and never has been our intention, but I understand the concern and recognise that there is value to aligning processes when such alignment is in the wider system interest. We continue to engage with the Cabinet Office on its proposals.

Amendment 213 would make regulations under Clause 70 subject to the super-affirmative procedure. I appreciate the intention behind this amendment. However, we do not feel at the moment that the super-affirmative procedure is necessary. As set out in our delegated powers memorandum, the powers created by Clause 70 are inserted into the NHS Act 2006, in line with the vast majority of regulation-making powers under that Act.

We know that there is significant parliamentary interest around the rules determining how healthcare services are arranged, so it is vital that we strike the right balance between democratic scrutiny and operational flexibility. The negative procedure provides that balance and ensures transparency and scrutiny. We will continue to engage widely on the proposals for the regulations to be made under these powers, to ensure that they will deliver—

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord knows that there is actually no parliamentary scrutiny with the negative procedure—none.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

May I explain about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on Clause 70—

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, this is an enormously important debate because it deals with my favourite word in health and care: prevention. Prevention is so important because it is cost effective. Although successive Governments give more and more to health services, no Government will ever be able to give enough to the NHS, because we have an ageing population and innovative medical interventions are getting more and more expensive, unless we do things differently and more cost effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, outlined one very good, cost-effective intervention. It is an excellent example of something that has absolutely powerful evidence of its cost effectiveness but which is not being undertaken everywhere. I would like to know what evidence those areas that are not using fracture liaison services have that their way of doing it is better and more cost effective. I do not think they have that evidence. It is an example of where if you do not mandate it they will not all do it, and then they will not be spending their money effectively. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

It is also very important that we prevent not just the second fall but the first, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said in her very important intervention, including what she said about tourist areas, which is very significant, people do die from falls. I had a very old friend who recently did. It was the first fall. I am afraid that person died because he had internal bleeding that nobody spotted. It is really important.

My noble friend Lord Rennard mentioned something really important that is pre-primary intervention: health education. If you know that you are likely to have good, strong, healthy bones from weight-bearing exercise and a diet that has enough calcium and vitamin D, you are much less likely to have the first fall. Fortunately for the Minister, that is beyond his remit. I am sure he is pleased about that, because he has quite enough to do. The Department for Education should listen to that.

My noble friends on these Benches have highlighted some other areas where effective prevention services are not being done properly. I think we were all struck by the chaotic situation that my noble friend Lady Barker highlighted; something really has to be done about that. A lot of good has been done but a lot more could be done, and, again, it would be cost-effective.

The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has suggested a very cost-effective intervention. If we diagnose and intervene on mental health issues early then we can prevent all kinds of more severe mental and physical health problems. I support the ratchet method that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, referred to of increasing the amount of funding that goes there. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, rightly listed the number of times that the Government have put more money into mental health services, the question is: have they kept up with the demand and the backlog? I do not think they have.

We have an opportunity in the Bill to improve our measures to prevent ill health, as well as treat it, which is of course more cost-effective, especially when services are delivered by small social enterprises working at community level. I have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, because I believe these prevention services should be available as close as possible to those who need them most. If that does not happen then the people who need them will not access them, and health inequality will continue.

That is particularly important for those communities where health inequality is at its worst and where preventable diseases are most prevalent. For example, the services might include healthy weight management services, therapies to address less severe mental health conditions, and alcohol and drug addiction services, in addition to the usual GP services. The population groups are not just those in poverty but marginalised groups such as homeless people, those in temporary accommodation, refugees, Gypsy and Traveller communities, and others who may not be plugged into regular services, and that includes those in rural areas.

Many of these services are delivered very effectively by social enterprises or charities, where any surpluses are ploughed straight back into more services. Many of them also provide weekend services, which were mentioned as lacking by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Boards that do not ensure the survival of such services are really missing a trick that would help them to deliver their duty to level up health inequalities, because these organisations are usually very close to their communities and know exactly what is needed and where. They are not constrained by the regulations or the culture of large organisations, and are therefore more flexible and fleet of foot, and therefore very cost-effective.

On rural areas, I shall give your Lordships a brief example from my noble friend Lady Jolly, who lives in a very remote part of Cornwall. She says:

“We have a satellite surgery in our local village, it is in the ground floor of an old cottage. The pharmacist visits once a week, and a practice nurse visits once a week. When she is seeing a patient they have to switch the radio on so that no one can hear the conversation”—


because of patient confidentiality. In that village you have to drive 20 miles to reach a GP. That is the sort of place where we really need community access to health services of all kinds. It would be nice to think that the ICB would be aware of that and act accordingly, and it might perhaps be worth putting a duty in the Bill.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an assortment of amendments that are all linked to the core of the Bill, which is about integration. The issues, as ever, are about whether it is appropriate to place such a detailed level of specification in the Bill, and where.

Amendment 50 seeks equity of access for fracture liaison services. In many ways the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Black, supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt and others, is about the balance between a national mandate and local delivery in order to ensure that there is equity of access—in this case, for fracture liaison services. I would be interested to learn how the Minister believes such a thing could be implemented and assured, and in how we can best express that in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, covering issues around prevention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, and talking about what we mean by integration and how we make sure that it is more than just a word. I remind noble Lords that we have a forthcoming paper on integration as part of the overall package of the Bill, and a social care paper as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned culture and attitude. I think it is very important to recognise that you can change structures and have legislation but you have to make sure that the culture and attitude are right across the system. I say to noble Lords that we fully sympathise with the intentions and I hope I can offer some reassurance.

In my departmental job as Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences, I feel very strongly that one way to drive integration is through better use of data across the system. Even before we look at integrating with social care, the NHS as it is at the moment is not sharing data well across the system. There are still a number of inefficiencies. I really believe in the digital transformation agenda and will give a quick example of that.

Just before Christmas, at a time when the NHS was under extreme pressure, I had my annual check-up in two parts. One part was an ECG at a local community centre; the second was supposed to be a telephone conversation with a consultant a week later. When the phone call came from the consultant, he started talking and I had to stop him. I said, “Have you seen my ECG results?” and he said, “No. What ECG? When was that?” I said, “This is all part of the same appointment. Can I now give you the date and time when I had it so you can look at the results?” “Don’t worry about that,” he said, “we’ll just have to make a new appointment”.

This was at a time when the NHS was under extreme pressure, as it is every winter. That shows the challenge. Even though we have been talking about the integration of health services since 1948, we still have these problems. That is why I believe so strongly in the digitisation and data-sharing challenge. It is not just because I am a geek and love technology; it really can make a difference, save money and lives and mean a more effective service all around.

I start by addressing Amendment 50 on fracture liaison services. Fracture liaison services and fragility fracture prevention are recognised by NHS England as critical to both healthy ageing and elective recovery. Within its high-impact restoration strategy, NHS England recommends that all systems optimise the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. NHS England is working closely with stakeholders to support the implementation of secondary fracture prevention services where they do not exist already and to support sustainability and quality improvement where services exist. Once again, this will rely on good data being shared across the system.

There are already duties in the Bill to require ICBs to commission such services. As fracture liaison services aim to identify people at risk and therefore prevent future fractures, their provision would already be covered in Clause 16 under new Section 3(1)(h), which places a duty on ICBs to commission such services or facilities for prevention, care and aftercare as the ICB considers appropriate. As I hope noble Lords will agree, it would be inappropriate to be overly specific in setting out the services to be commissioned as part of the new Section 3 that would be inserted by Clause 16, given the wide range of services the NHS needs to commission. However, I hope I can give assurances to noble Lords that NHS England will continue to monitor this and ensure that ICBs are commissioning effective fracture services. I hope we continue to drive this data being shared appropriately.

I turn to Amendment 51A. It makes sense that people should be able to receive emergency treatment wherever they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to. We believe that is already the case. Once again, data would make a huge difference. If I am in Newcastle and fall off my bike and am taken to hospital, and if I have an existing condition, would it not be great if the clinicians when they triage me could know about it? I have asked my local GP practice to share my data on the app and it still has not done it. The mechanisms are there but the culture and attitudes are a huge challenge for whichever Government are in power.

The Bill confers a power on NHS England to publish rules that determine the people for whom each ICB is responsible. Those rules must make sure that everyone registered in the area, or everyone who may have need of services, is looked after. The Secretary of State may make regulations expanding that responsibility or creating exceptions where necessary. This was the case with existing CCGs and will continue under the ICBs. I hope I can reassure your Lordships that these regulations will be replaced to ensure continuity in this between CCGs and ICBs,

I now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and his amendment. I also thank him for sharing his wisdom and his experience of family hubs. It is incredibly important. We agree with the spirit behind Amendment 57. We fully agree that, generally speaking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, prevention is better than cure. One of the things that I have been reassured by in my early conversations in my role as a Minister for Health is the number of people in meetings who have said that they want to move towards a focus on prevention. That is not avoiding cure. We have to tackle cure, of course, but we can avoid a lot of that and save resources and time and promote better health and healthy living if we focus on prevention.

There are also duties in relation to the improvement of services for the prevention of illnesses as well as a duty to obtain appropriate advice, which expressly includes a requirement to seek advice from people with expertise in the prevention of illness. The NHS is already working hard to prevent ill health but, once again, we have to make sure that, in this prevention, people are all talking to each other, we are learning from best practice, and ICBs and trusts are learning from each other. As a number of noble Lords have made clear in their contributions in Committee, the issue is wider and social prescribing, for example, and other issues are really important.

Commissioners have also developed good practice, including funding alcohol care teams and tobacco treatment teams in hospitals, and expanding the diabetes prevention programme. This was re-emphasised in the NHS Long Term Plan, which contained commitments for the NHS to focus on major causes of ill health such as smoking, poor diet, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol and drug use.

I remind noble Lords that prevention is not simply also a matter for ICBs. It involves local authorities and sometimes law enforcement authorities. It is a multiagency approach, led by local authorities but with ICBs, the NHS and other agencies playing their role.

I acknowledge the point that my noble friend made about cannabis and young people and I will write in more detail about that rather than take up time now. But we also have to look at such issues in the round. For example, in the United States Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute wrote that a lot of drug enforcement or anti-drug policy disproportionately affects young black men who then get thrown into the criminal justice system. How do we tackle that? One of the interesting conversations I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was about his experience as borough commander in south London, an area that my noble friend mentioned. He gave the example that young black men in possession of drugs were far more likely to be picked up than a white middle-class male or female.

We have to make sure that we look at this as a whole. When we look at the tackling inequalities strand that we all feel so strongly about, we have to make sure we get the right balance. It is, of course, very difficult on a case-by-case basis but we have to be aware of unintended consequences.

On the integration duty, we are sympathetic to the intent behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and support greater integration between health and social care. We hope that we can make sure that stakeholders work together and that, with all the papers, we are able to push through this integration.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I hesitate to take the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, away from her, but she is talking about putting a duty for this integration in the Bill. That is the way forward. Assurance is not the point here. I think we have gone past the point of needing assurance. We have been assured about this for years. This is about the duty.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I was just about to come to duty, so I thank the noble Baroness for hurrying me along.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I am delighted that her status has now gone up again because of her ennoblement and all the excellent work that she has done. We really benefit from her knowledge and wisdom in your Lordships’ House.

I support the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Crisp, and want to make just one point. Correct me if I am wrong or if I am out of date—I am sure that some noble Lord will if I am—but I think it is the situation that if an acute hospital overspends, the NHS bails it out, whereas social care and primary care cannot overspend because nobody will bail them out. I think that says it all.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, in many ways we are drifting back to 1946, when the NHS started on three legs: hospitals, services such as health visitors and ambulances provided by local authorities, and services that were contracted out, such as GPs, dentistry, ophthalmology, pharmacy and so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, in response to that, may I say that when I was shadow Secretary of State for several years, GPs consistently told me that if only they were given the responsibility, they could do it so much better than primary care trusts? So we gave them the responsibility in ways that were very like the locality commissioning that was the endpoint of the GP fundholding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. To be fair to them, there was less money, but no sooner did they take this responsibility than NHS England said, “Hang on a minute, you’re not doing what we’ve told you to do.” It took about 18 months, perhaps slightly less, before NHS England effectively said, “You have no further autonomy. You’re going to be in the sustainability and transformation plans,” which are the forerunners of ICS. I do not think that the clinical commissioning groups ever got the chance to do what they were asked to.

We have now reached the point where, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly says, they are being written out of the script, but they are not complaining, which is very interesting. They are not complaining because they do not want to be responsible for the budgets; they want to be responsible for the patients. They always said that they wanted to decide how locality commissioning should be done and the good ones have put tremendous things in place in terms of population health management, patient pathways and commissioning linked to those patient pathways. That is why, if we can do something with this Bill, it is to retain all that locality commissioning with GP input. But be prepared for the ICS, the big battalions, to go away and fight with the barons in the big hospitals.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I wish you good luck.

--- Later in debate ---

If Parliament as a community can benefit from all these things, then every community can. It is absolutely right that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, should raise these issues. I would be interested to hear how the Minister feels that this principle can be incorporated in the new world of integrated care services.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Howarth has brought this suite of amendments in front of the Committee and is bringing the wealth of his experience to our debates on the Bill. He is a great proponent of the role and value of the non-clinical services in healthcare and well-being, and quite rightly too. It would be great if, somehow or other, this could be recognised in whatever comes out of our considerations, though I challenge the Minister to tell us how we might do that.

We support the amendments in this group to establish a role for wider considerations beyond remedial, interventionist clinically-led care. Amendment 90 covers housing. The role of decent housing in good health and in tackling health inequalities cannot be overestimated. Amendment 103A would require IBCs to consult on youth health prevention and treatment through an advisory board consisting of young people. All these amendments have huge merit.

I know that we will have a wider discussion about the role of the voluntary sector and social enterprises in provision of healthcare in a later group. However, voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises have been central to the delivery of non-clinical services in healthcare and well-being, particularly during the pandemic.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, before I respond on this group, I want to apologise for the chaos that I caused at the beginning of this Bill today. I hope that noble Lords did not think I was being discourteous to the House. Luckily, next Wednesday, normal services will be resumed when my noble friend Lady Penn is in her seat.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and other noble Lords for bringing this suite of amendments before the Committee. It was interesting that several noble Lords brought up my noble friend the Minister’s band, Exiled In Brussels, which I think he is now going to rename “Exiled From Brussels”. I can say that there is a YouTube clip of the band which my noble friend said he is willing to send out to everybody, so that is something to look forward to.

On Amendment 59, I recognise the noble Lord’s concern to ensure that the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors are represented in the Bill. I understand the intention of his amendment. I certainly acknowledge the important work of these sectors and their contribution to our health system. I am sure that we all have examples of how these non-clinical services are of benefit to our health system.

However, our intention, quite rightly, is to use the Bill to set out a framework of duties for ICBs that ensures they fulfil their functions effectively while avoiding being overly prescriptive. The provision in question sets a clear requirement on ICBs to discharge their functions in a way that promotes continuous improvement in the quality of services, particularly in health outcomes.

The intention is to establish a culture of continuous improvement in everything the ICB does, but, importantly, leaving ICBs to decide how this will work for them. Setting specific parameters, as this amendment seeks to do, would in practice narrow the focus of how they may look to improve the quality of services. This may be to the detriment of taking a more holistic approach to how to improve the quality of services. That said, the current drafting of the provision would not prevent ICBs engaging providers of non-clinical services, including those mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. Indeed, we would expect that, where appropriate, ICBs would consult with relevant stakeholders, such as those from the voluntary sector, to ensure continuous improvement.

Turning to Amendment 69, co-production, where people, family members, carers, organisations and commissioners work together as equal partners to design and deliver services, is an important principle, and one that we would expect ICBs to champion. This is reflected clearly in NHS England’s draft implementation guidance on working with people and communities, which also sets out several practical steps ICBs should consider to appropriately promote and embody co-production. This includes visibly supporting and sponsoring co-production, and supporting the adoption of co-production approaches where appropriate. I feel it is important to point out that mandating co-production in all circumstances risks narrowing the duty and may lead to other valuable methods of involvement being marginalised. Therefore, while it will often be a desirable aim that we would expect ICBs to pursue, it may not be appropriate in every case, and we want to allow ICBs and patients discretion to determine what is best in their area.

I will address Amendments 71 and 77 together. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I appreciate the interest in including social prescribing in the Bill. On Amendment 77, I begin by assuring noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to the rollout of social prescribing in line with the NHS Long Term Plan commitment. The plan was to have 1,000 new link workers in place by 2020-21, a target which I am pleased to say has been exceeded, so that we now aim for at least 900,000 people to be able to be referred to social prescribing by 2023-24. As of September 2021, there were at least 1,582 social prescribing link workers in place. Furthermore, in relation to innovation, the Government have set up the National Academy for Social Prescribing, in line with our manifesto commitment, which has continued to support the expansion of social prescribing and promote innovation in health and well-being across all sectors.

The duty to patient choice should be considered by ICBs as part of the broader move towards more integrated, population health-management approaches. This requires embedding more personalised care models that enable patient choice and also consider non-clinical approaches, in line with the NHS Long Term Plan. This commitment is to make personalised care business as usual across the health and care system. Social prescribing and community-based support is already a core component of the NHS’s comprehensive model of personalised care. I hope I have reassured noble Lords of the progress being made and work being done on social prescribing and that they will feel able not to press these amendments.

I turn next to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would insert a number of references to the voluntary community and social enterprise and creative and cultural sectors. This Government hugely value the contributions of the voluntary community and social enterprise sector, including creative and cultural entities, to the health and well-being of the nation, and recognise their important role in integrated care systems. However, we feel that the amendments are not necessary, as their intended effect is already possible through provisions within the Bill.

A key principle of the Bill is the legislative flexibility to empower local leaders to develop bespoke solutions to meet specific local needs. This principle is reflected in the current drafting of Clause 20. Several of these amendments would have the effect of being overly prescriptive in areas where we would already expect the VCSE sector to play a key role.

I assure noble Lords that many of these concerns will instead be addressed in guidance. NHS England and NHS Improvement have published guidance relevant to ICBs on partnerships with the voluntary community and social enterprise sector, outlining the importance of the VCSE sector as a key strategic partner in local health systems. It provides guidance on how VCSE partnerships should be embedded in how the ICBs operate. Furthermore, the guidance sets out that, soon after they are established, ICBs will be expected to develop a formal agreement for engaging and embedding the VCSE sector in system-level governance and decision-making arrangements.

I turn to related Amendment 80. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has a special interest in this issue, and I listened with interest to his speech at Second Reading on the work of the National Centre for Creative Health, which he chairs. Research is very important, and I am pleased to say that the department funds research in this area through the National Institute for Health Research. The NIHR funds and supports a range of research conducted by multidisciplinary researchers from diverse fields, including social sciences, behavioural sciences and the humanities. For example, the MODEM project, jointly funded by the NIHR and UKRI, reviewed evidence on music therapy and identified that a structured programme of music therapy given by a trained therapist can reduce agitation among people with dementia—which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned in her speech.

We do not consider it appropriate or necessary to specify particular research areas in primary legislation. In addition, we expect that ICBs will already promote a range of research, including those on non-medical interventions, and the noble Lord already cited in his Second Reading speech where this has been done by existing integrated care systems.

On Amendment 82, the Government place the utmost value on supporting the health and well-being of NHS staff. We are taking a range of actions to ensure that this remains a priority across the health and care system, and we do not believe that a legislative duty is needed in this area. Over the past two years we have seen as never before the intense pressures on the workforce, and we recognised at an early stage the toll that this may place on the mental health and well-being of health and care staff, with a clear need to prioritise enhanced well-being and mental health support for all NHS and social care staff. We all know that the whole country owes these staff an immense debt of gratitude.

At a national, strategic level, the People Plan, published in July 2020, puts NHS staff health and well-being at its core and ensures that all NHS staff have access to a comprehensive psychological and emotional support package. This includes a dedicated support line that is available for staff 24/7, and free access to mental health and well-being apps. Alongside this, 40 dedicated mental health hubs have been established and are accepting referrals across the country to proactively identify at-risk people and groups and focus on staff with more complex needs, ensuring that they receive rapid access to evidence-based mental health services. To ensure that this offer continues to improve staff mental health throughout 2021-22, an additional £37 million has been invested in 2021-22, building on the £15 million in 2020-21. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, will accept that this work is worth while and important and will continue without the need for legislative amendment.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s proposal for this simple reason: it would enable focus on the very particular needs of women’s reproductive health. As we heard earlier in our debate, children have specific needs. Well, so do women, particularly with reference to their reproductive cycle.

I am particularly keen on the element of prevention of ill health. Many services for women focus on it. Obviously, we all have cause to be grateful for the breast and cervical screening services that are available; I was professionally involved with them many years ago. It is also, however, cause for concern that the number of women taking advantage of those important preventive services has been falling. A national lead would have the expertise, responsibility and ability to focus on areas where women need to be encouraged to take advantage of the services that are available to them.

There must be concern about the quality of maternity and perinatal services, given some of the dreadful cases that we have heard about and the poor quality that has been rife in a few centres in the country in the past. I hope that things are being put in place to improve that, but there is an element of prevention here too. Good-quality maternity services prevent women and their babies having a bad experience at the beginning of their life together. It is so important for the ongoing mental and physical health of the child that women can bond with their children and babies can bond with their mothers. That bonding starts at the very beginning, but it is less likely to happen with poor-quality maternity services, which of course cost the health services and the country later on.

These services are vital for preventing further problems not just for the mother but for the children. It is the sort of thing that a highly qualified and knowledgeable national lead can focus and advise on in trying to ensure that access to good-quality services is available to all communities in the country. My noble friend Lady Barker highlighted the difficulties that some communities face in getting those good services. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment in a positive light.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for introducing this amendment. Yet again, it is an indication that if this Bill actually presents the opportunities that the Government tell us it does, they need to accept something that recognises the opportunities that are being suggested to them across a whole range of issues, including children, about whom we have just had a very good debate.

The amendment would require NHS England to appoint a national clinical director for women’s reproductive health to provide the kind of clinical leadership that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about and to support this important area of women’s reproductive healthcare. In recent years, the Government have issued policy papers about women and health, so I would have thought that this particular proposal would chime with that.

We know that almost half of British women will experience poor sexual and reproductive care. It is clear that we can take the opportunity to improve this situation, particularly on the postcode lottery that some women face. I can certainly see, as the two noble Baronesses have said, that a single clinical director for the whole of the UK would give the area energy and focus, particularly for the 50% of women who have not had a good experience. We agree with the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, which supports this amendment. I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this important issue, and I hope that the Minister may have some good news for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC. I will speak particularly to Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have attached my name; it is unfortunate that we have not heard from her yet. It is about consultation with local authorities, which is what so much of our debate on this group thus far has already addressed. I particularly associate myself with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Davies. A great rearrangement of the NHS has happened entirely under the radar, and it is deeply disturbing to those of us concerned about the risk of the Americanisation of our NHS and its takeover by private US healthcare for-profit companies.

I am slightly surprised that no one has yet mentioned the report in the Times this morning about the Health Secretary seeking to model NHS hospitals on academy schools, which has been seen as a large privatisation of our education system. Also, we found out only recently and entirely by accident that the Chancellor was giving days of his time to visit US healthcare companies in California. When you look at those facts, the runes seem very disturbing. To defend against the incidents that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to, and the restructuring by stealth, we need local authority involvement. That is what Amendment 23 seeks to ensure, at least in part.

I also want to comment briefly on another amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, Amendment 44, which is about protecting the collective arrangements for pay and conditions for staff. We have to look at it in the context of the survey this week that showed one in four doctors saying that they were exhausted to the point of being impaired in their work. We have an exhausted, utterly worn-down workforce, and we have nurses who are not paid enough and end up going into food banks to feed their families.

It is obviously a matter of justice that we at least protect, and in fact improve, the pay and conditions of healthcare workers. But more than that, it is very much an issue of health as well, because workers who are overworked and underpaid are simply unable to deliver the quality of care that we would hope to provide.

I very much hope that this group of amendments will get some attention, because this has all happened under the radar. There has been no public discussion of this and that desperately needs to happen, so once again it seems to fall to your Lordships’ House to try to get this on the agenda.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments to Clause 14, which is a very important clause. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and the Minister can be in no doubt that that is exactly how we see it. It was touch and go whether we would have a clause stand part debate on this, and I am not sure that we were right not to do so, because this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Hunt’s comments, has highlighted some serious problems.

My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is quite right that the arrangements that we are seeking to put into statute, which have grown up over the last few years to allow areas to collaborate, were the right thing to do. In my area of the world, I have no doubt that it was important that the boroughs collaborated together, particularly in their relationship with and commissioning of services from the very big providers.

The question in Clause 14 is: what is going on with the arrangements that the Government are putting into statute? I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to speak to Amendments 23 and 44 in my name. Amendment 23 addresses the vexed issue of boundaries for an ICB. In this Bill we are dealing with geography, whereas the 2012 Act dealt with GP lists. The area of an ICB is defined in terms of tier 1 local authorities.

Concerns have been expressed, because the NHS is often a bit clueless and sometimes very defensive about local government, its boundaries and its powers. Maybe the Minister will tell me I am wrong, but I suspect that one of the reasons why elected members have been precluded from the boards is that the NHS does not feel comfortable with the direct democratic accountability at that level. That is a great shame. I think it is wrong; accountability is extremely important.

How can we have an integrated service when social care is provided by local government, which is democratically accountable, and we want to integrate that with the NHS at a local level in an area to provide the best service that we can for that population and those patients? The almost offensive way of constructing a board that does not allow elected representatives is not acceptable.

My quite modest amendment seeks to change that situation for the future. There were exchanges in the Commons about this, and there have been meetings with disgruntled authorities that seem to have ended without agreement. We may need to take a step back and learn some of the lessons, perhaps from Scotland and Wales where more logical boundaries have been applied for their health boards.

We may learn a bit more about plans for integrated commissioning at this level when we get the promised but overdue White Paper on integration. It is possible that it will set up a third set of geographies, and who knows how that will line up? This seems to be the wrong way around. Our amendments at least elevate the need to consult with local authorities over boundaries to start off with. That is perhaps a pious hope, but we can agree that any future changes can be made only if the local authorities agree.

Amendment 159 arises out of lengthy discussions elsewhere. In the twin-striker model for ICS, we have the ICBs and the ICPs. We know almost nothing about ICPs; all that is said is that it is part of the “flexibility” and so should be valued. Referring back to my previous remarks, I just hope that local authorities will be genuinely involved in the ongoing discussions about ICPs, how they are set up and their governance. What we do know is that the ICPs will own the analysis of needs and the strategy that follows from that. What, therefore, is the role of local health and well-being boards?

There are echoes of 2012 here, as, during the consideration of the 2012 Bill, amendments were advanced on the same issue. In the 2012 version, it was the health and well-being boards that did the strategy and the CCGs that did the commissioning, at least of health. Nobody ever properly addressed how social care would be commissioned in any integrated way in a wider strategy. It was proposed in 2012 that the health and well-being boards had to approve the plans of the CCGs, and that was the glue that would hold the whole thing together. We know that that has not worked. It has sometimes worked on paper, but it is not the thing that has driven the work of the CCGs.

The answer so far for 2022 is that everyone will play nicely and it will all be resolved. I do not think that can possibly be the case when there is such a serious imbalance. Our Amendment 159 acknowledges that there just might be a dispute over whether some decision or plan of an ICB was genuinely aligned to the strategy that it was supposed to be following, so a process for resolution is needed.

I am not sure whether Amendment 44 sits easily in this group, but it is a matter on which assurance is needed. When foundation trusts came into being, they were rather bravely given the power to set their own terms and conditions for staff. One of them might have tried it, and it was not a great success. In general, despite whatever powers exist, almost every part of the NHS follows the Agenda for Change, the collective agreement that took 10 years to agree but which has stood the tests of time.

Now, as with CCGs, we have the power of ICBs to set their own terms and conditions. They are probably unlikely to do so, as it takes an enormous amount of work and the risks that it brings are probably not worth the effort. Without doubt, some staff are worried that they just might be the ones picked on for special treatment. The Minister will no doubt say that the ICBs need the flexibility, but surely, given the pandemic and everything else that faces the NHS, it would be much better to give staff certainty and confidence they will be treated properly.

We agree with the sentiments of Amendments 22 and 24, which try to ensure that agreement on ICB constitutions will be done promptly. We agree with the sentiments of Amendment 53, which echoes a previous amendment about the need to drive improvement. In my noble friend’s Amendment 45, he asks a legitimate question, which I think the Minister will need to answer.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Once again, I thank all noble Lords for bringing this debate before the Committee today. There have been a wide range of views on the establishment of the ICSs and on what is currently going on in the NHS.

I will start with Amendments 22 and 24 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which were supported very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, and on the ICBs’ establishment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing the amendments, and I understand her concerns about ensuring that ICBs are established in a timely way. We agree. We have had an interesting debate here. A number of people have said that it is really important, given that ICSs have already been established, that you put it on a statutory footing, but we are also being asked how they dare to go ahead and do this, because the legislation is not there yet.

In recognition of the fact that ICSs have been set up in some areas and are being established, we are trying to get the right balance. That is why work is under way to prepare existing organisations, including CCGs, for the transition once the Bill comes into force.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly asked whether NHS England is pre-empting Parliament. He raises an important point but I assure him that the powers necessary for establishing each ICB and publishing any statutory guidance cannot be made until the Bill has been enacted and the relevant provisions commenced. However, to ensure that ICBs are ready to begin work, NHS England is producing a range of draft guidance, including a model constitution, so that system partners can start work on preparations—but this does not have the power of statutory guidance. The guidance and the model constitution are based on the proposed requirements—

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that we can have further conversations. I will go back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to raise the issue about NHS England effectively saying that local councils should not be on these bodies, as well as the other concerns raised about the health and well-being board. With that in mind and further conversations, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, decides what she wishes to do with this amendment, I say to the Minister that this is very important; I cannot stress this enough. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I are in agreement again about this. At the next stage of the Bill, the Government could find themselves in very serious trouble indeed if we do not resolve it between now and then.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I appear to have opened a can of worms. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to go back to his boss and talk about some of the serious issues raised by noble Lords.

My purpose in introducing Amendments 22 and 24 was simply to ensure that once the Bill has passed through all its stages in Parliament and an implementation date has been reasonably proposed, from that point onwards there is reasonable coherence across the country so that there are no gaps in the proper commissioning of services and everybody gets on with it in a reasonably timely way.

However, noble Lords will remember that both at Second Reading and when I introduced this group of amendments I expressed my view that it is too soon, for a number of reasons—first of all, the state of the NHS. Also, as has been pointed out by me and other noble Lords, the Bill has not gone through Parliament yet. Last week noble Lords proposed a number of amendments about who should be on the ICB and what skill sets, knowledge and experience should be represented on it. It has become quite clear that, should this House decide to press those amendments, the shadow boards may have to look again at who they have appointed, because Parliament will have said that perhaps they need to appoint some more appropriate people to carry out the objectives that the Government have rightly laid down for them. It became clear to me that the three months I had suggested might not be quite enough, because of the consultation. It would not be the first time that noble Lords had laid amendments that were to some extent faulty but had stimulated an important discussion among other noble Lords.

I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to going back. I hope that, when he has those conversations, he remembers that noble Lords in this House are very supportive of the objectives of allowing local authorities to play their appropriate part in the establishment and running of these new boards, and allowing health and care people to work collaboratively in the interests of patients.

I want to say a brief word about Amendment 53. The Minister gave me several reassurances about where, in other parts of the Bill, there really is a duty to improve. I am afraid that he succeeded only in convincing me that changing “may” to “must” in the place I suggested in the Bill is totally consistent with what he says exists in other places, so I may come back to that at later stages.

Noble Lords will have their say about who should be on these ICBs. Things may have to change and appropriate time may need to be allowed for the now-appointed chairs of all the ICBs to make some corrective measures regarding who they have on their boards. I will leave all those thoughts with the Minister. For the moment, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Government to think again about this. They may want to push on and have it accepted with a fait accompli but, in the end, it is their decision in Parliament as to how these bodies operate. Unless we do this, it is pretty clear that we will be coming back within the next year or two with another NHS restructuring Bill. We have already heard about the ludicrous decision to keep health and well-being boards at the same time as having ICBs. We all know that, looking at it, this structure will not keep. It would be better if the Government started to sort it out now. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise only to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt. I will speak very briefly to Amendment 24 in the name of my noble friend Lady Merron, which would ensure the involvement of the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership in the appointment of the ICB chief executive. That seems to me to be sensible.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support that. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, introduced Amendment 34. According to the Bill as it stands, the chief executive of the ICB could be appointed only by the chair—of course with the approval of NHS England. Like many of your Lordships, I have been on a board, including being the chair of a board, and as such, I always thought it good practice to appoint my chief executive with the help and approval of my board members. As an ordinary member of a board, I cannot imagine how I would have managed the relationship with a chief executive officer who had been appointed over my head only by the chair without any consultation with me or other members. If we want to encourage collaboration, that is not the way to do it at board level.

It is inconceivable that the mechanism would work in practice in such a situation. Indeed, it is vital that all the senior people who steer the ICS, the members of the ICB, and indeed the chair and members of the ICP, must have confidence in the chief executive; the word “confidence” was so appropriately used by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. How could that be if they had no involvement whatever in the appointment? It is a simple matter of good practice and I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister can possibly find to say against it.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

11: Clause 3, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 13G (duty as to reducing inequalities), at end insert—“(2) NHS England must publish guidance about the collection, analysis, reporting and publication of performance data by relevant NHS bodies with respect to factors or indicators relevant to health inequalities.(3) Relevant NHS bodies must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under this section.(4) In this section “relevant NHS bodies” means—(a) NHS England,(b) integrated care boards,(c) integrated care partnerships established under section 116ZA of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007,(d) NHS trusts established under section 25, and(e) NHS foundation trusts.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give NHS England a statutory duty to publish guidance on how NHS bodies should collect, analyse, report and publish performance data on factors and/or indicators related to health inequalities.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate on the issue of health inequalities. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have gone through the Bill to ensure that addressing health inequalities is absolutely central. Unless the Bill deals with the kind of inequalities that the pandemic, for example, has brought into sharp relief, it will have failed. Many amendments in this group directly and indirectly address the issue, and I look forward to the many contributions we will hear. This is one area where our NHS may not be among the best in the world. In fact, inequality is often entrenched. Some might argue that, through the famous inverse care law, it even makes things worse. As with other public services, the better-off, with better connections and sharper elbows, get more out of a service than those with less social capital who are already disadvantaged by other factors.

A report published today by the Northern Health Science Alliance, a health and life sciences partnership between the leading NHS trusts, universities and academic health science networks in northern England, says that

“people in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods are 46 per cent more likely to have died from the virus than those in the rest of England, and 7 per cent more likely to have died of the virus than those living in other deprived areas”

that are not left behind. In left-behind neighbourhoods,

“Men live 3.7 years fewer and women 3 years fewer than the national average,”


and

“men and women can expect to live 7.5 fewer years in good health than their counterparts in the rest of England.”

Tackling the health inequalities facing local authorities of left-behind neighbourhoods and bringing them up to England’s average could add an extra £29.8 billion to the country’s economy each year. The co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for “Left Behind” Neighbourhoods, the right honourable Dame Diana Johnson, said that:

“Every person in the country deserves to live a long life in good health”,


but this new research demonstrates that this is not currently a reality.

We are all aware of the work of Sir Michael Marmot. In his review, which explored the changes since 2010, he highlighted five policy areas:

“—Give every child the best start in life —Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives —Create fair employment and good work for all —Ensure a healthy standard of living for all —Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities”.


The key messages from that review make stark reading. This is one of the strongest:

“The amount of time people spend in poor health has increased across England since 2010. As we reported in 2010, inequalities in poor health harm individuals, families, communities and are expensive to the public purse. They are also unnecessary and can be reduced with the right policies.”


In a note that I think all noble Lords will have received from Crisis and other voluntary organisations, they point out that, as it stands, people who experience the most extreme health inequalities, such as those who are homeless, sex workers, Gypsy, Roma, Travellers, vulnerable non-UK nationals and people with substance misuse issues, encounter significant barriers to accessing and receiving the healthcare that meets their needs. These barriers can include stigma, the lack of a fixed address or ID, fragmented services, the lack of continuity of care because of unstable accommodation, and lack of awareness from healthcare professionals of specific needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Hear, hear to that. As I stand in your Lordships’ House, I know that I am between noble Lords and their lunch, so I will do my best to be as quick as I can. I also feel that I need to declare an interest, as I am a non-executive director of the Whittington Trust, so my boss—the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—is in the corner over there.

Ambulance Queues: Health Outcomes

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, NHS workers on the front line have been warning for months and months that the service is under strain due to a combination of waning workforce, Covid, respiratory infections, a backlog of patients and a build-up of health problems over lockdowns. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has been calling for months for a response from Ministers to provide short-term and long-term solutions. We called on the Health Secretary last summer for urgent additional support to be put in place. Why are we still waiting for that leadership and necessary support to materialise?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will acknowledge that a number of people have been calling for ways to address this. The Government announced the Urgent and Emergency Care Recovery 10 Point Action Plan last year, which includes supporting 999 and 111 services, looking at primary care and community health services, greater use of urgent treatment centres, increased support for children and young people, better communications and call handling, improving inflow and hospital discharge, looking at mental health needs and a number of other issues. In each of those 10 points we have drilled down on working with trusts and the ambulance service to make sure we can address the issues that are currently being raised.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 17 from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. There are of course different waiting-list lengths in the different Administrations, but I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about fair funding. She makes a very good point about Wales.

I too have had experiences like those of the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, over my Covid vaccination status, because I live in Wales and the NHS app in Wales did not seem to speak to the other one. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that is something that needs sorting out at a different level.

As I said, I live very near the border in Wales, so I am acutely aware from personal experience that the nature, quality and resources of healthcare in England affect the people of the devolved Administrations. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said: it is not just about people near the border—Anglesey is not at all near the border—but in day-to-day working it affects people near the border very frequently.

These are of course devolved matters, but in their practical, day-to-day operation the borders are what people call “leaky”—in other words, people travel both ways for work, school, shopping, leisure and indeed health services. So, particularly in the border areas, it makes a lot of sense to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said happens all the time: for GPs to be able to refer patients for a particular service to or from the devolved nations. That is why anything that affects the provision and quality of services in England also affects Welsh and Scottish people in particular. I suspect it is slightly less the case for people in Northern Ireland, although waiting lists there are particularly concerning.

So this is particularly important in relation to the location of specialist hubs, because the border areas of both Wales and Scotland are very rural and the distances and transport difficulties to their own hospitals can be long and difficult—even more so if the patients have to cross the border. We need to ensure that anything done in the Bill makes cross-referral able to continue as easily as it does at the moment.

What discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations about the Bill? Are there any aspects of it that are still waiting for the agreement of the Governments of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because she has helped me to clarify my thinking about this group of amendments. Basically, they have good intentions and they make good points about the things that need to happen, but I am not absolutely certain they need to be in the Bill. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her very well-informed contribution about what actually goes on. There are of course problems in relationships between the devolved nations and NHS England, some of which are down to not being very well organised, some of which are down to arrogance on the part of the bigger ones, and some of which are down to the funding not actually being available—and some of them might be politically motivated too.

Amendment 17 opens some new thinking on the subject of integration, and accepts that devolution has given us different systems for care in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but seeks to ensure that what is done in one part of the UK—that is, England—does not adversely impact on other parts. The intention to bring collaboration between the nations is, of course, commendable.

I note that Amendment 205 places some requirements such that

“Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and a Northern Ireland department must make regulations providing that the choices available to patients in England by virtue of regulations under section 6E(1A) or (1B) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 69 of this Act) are available to patients for whom they have responsibility.”


Again, we can understand the need for consistency, but I am unclear about how that will play out against the devolved nature of healthcare—so I think the case will have to be made out for that and, indeed, why that would be included in the legislation.

In a similar fashion, Amendment 301 looks to establish interoperability around the use of data across the whole UK. Again, that is a wholly worthwhile intention, and one that I would hope that the various authorities could collectively work on and agree. Once more, what the role is for primary legislation to address this point is not entirely clear, and I welcome the discussion. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Morgan for raising these important matters both via this Committee and by engaging—as I understand she has recently—with my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health. I am also grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully and knowledgably on these issues.

There is no escaping one overarching reality in this policy area, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has just alluded. As a Government of the whole United Kingdom, Ministers are responsible for all people of the UK; that is a given. However, while the core principles of the NHS are shared across all parts of the United Kingdom, it is the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are responsible for developing their own health policies. Health is largely a devolved matter in the UK, and the commissioning and provision of health services for people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will continue to be a matter for the devolved Governments.

It will not surprise my noble friend to know that the UK Government continue to respect existing devolution settlements, so our aim is close collaboration with the devolved Administrations to deliver the best outcomes for the people across the four nations. This means that, while we are sympathetic to the spirit of these amendments, I am afraid that we cannot accept them.

I shall address the detailed issues. On Amendment 17, I agree with my noble friend that there is more we can do to align our healthcare for the good of patients across the United Kingdom. We are already exploring several projects to support the NHS to work more closely across the UK, and this includes refreshing the current memoranda of understanding between all four Governments and working with the Office for National Statistics to establish a number of UK-wide datasets. Steps like that will improve transparency and collaboration for the good of all patients across the UK. We do not believe that these steps require primary legislation, but we will keep that question under review. We will also continue to work with NHS England to ensure that a number of groups that it currently hosts, such as the rare diseases advisory group, and their specialised commissioning processes, also meet the relevant needs of the devolved Administrations.

Turning to Amendment 205, we know that choice of healthcare is an important right for patients across the UK. The NHS Constitution for England, for example, enshrines the patient’s right to informed choice. We will be preserving the important right for patients in England to choose their first elective outpatient appointment, GP and GP practice through regulations made under powers provided by the Bill. NHS England works closely with the devolved Governments, including on commissioning and ensuring access to specialised services. Requests for patients to have treatment in other nations are generally to secure continuity of care, to provide care close to patients’ support mechanisms, or because of specialist expertise.

The health services in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland already have the power to contract with any NHS provider in England. As my noble friend Lord Lansley rightly pointed out, they already have in place arrangements for commissioning specialised services from English providers, including cross-border agreements, referral schemes and service-level agreements. Taking further steps, as suggested in this amendment, would place a significant burden on a smaller number of providers, particularly those along borders, with consequences for the smooth running of those health systems. From a legal perspective, such a change would be a significant impingement on a devolved competence and would require the consent of the devolved legislatures. Of course, patients matter most, but such a change would also be unlikely to greatly benefit them, since they are already served by existing arrangements.

Amendment 301 deals with data interoperability. The UK Government are committed to working with officials across the devolved Administrations to explore the benefits that healthcare data can provide while working collaboratively to respect the devolved nature of this work. As in other areas, we are looking at ways to improve collaboration on data matters and address issues with data sharing. There are commitments within the data strategy for health and social care to work across central government and the devolved Administrations to improve appropriate data linkage, thus supporting people’s health care outcomes. This builds on the work of units such as the Joint Biosecurity Centre, and the newly established UK Health Security Agency.

That work will help us to collaborate to solve public health issues, improve disease surveillance and overcome any behavioural or structural obstacles to appropriate data sharing across our respective health and social care systems. In addition, we are speaking to the Office for National Statistics about collecting data on performance and outcomes across the UK. We are pursuing this with it, working in concert with the devolved Administrations. The ONS has assured us that it does not need additional powers to gather such data.

The problems encountered by the daughter of my noble friend Lady Fraser in proving her vaccination status are being actively addressed on both sides of the border. I must concede that the problems are not fully resolved yet, but understand that a Covid status pass from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland will be recognised in England and vice versa.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

18: Clause 7, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Assistance or support provided under this section to a person or organisation which is not an NHS body or representative of an NHS body, may only be provided after consultation with the relevant integrated care board and integrated care partnership.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides that the relevant ICB and ICP must be consulted before assistance is provided to bodies other than NHS bodies. It aims to ensure a transparent process where private providers are provided with assistance.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendments in what is now group 4, commencing with Amendment 18 in my name, which address the various ways in which the board of an ICB should be constituted. I thank the noble Lords who have supported the amendments in my name and will speak also to Amendments 28 and 37.

Amendment 18 covers who should be on the board and, crucially, who should not. These amendments are about the governance of ICBs. They are going to be very powerful bodies—they are already operating in a shadow way, as it were—which will allocate hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds on our behalf. The question is about who should have a seat at the table where the decisions are taken. We should perhaps begin with who should not be on an ICB. There appears to be agreement that private sector interests should not be permitted, so I see no point in repeating the debates that took place in the Commons because that principle has already been settled. However, as ever, the devil is in the detail of how that translates into legislation and the ICB constitutions. It is my belief that what is in the Bill so far is not strong enough.

The objective is that private providers cannot have any part in decisions about how NHS resources are allocated or how contracts are placed. In my other amendments, I have extended the scope of this to ban GPs with APMS contracts, as they are definitely private sector interests. How someone from a social enterprise or the voluntary sector might be regarded is an issue to address sensibly, and I very much welcome that the Minister has said on several occasions that he believes that a margin of flexibility will be needed to make that happen. We all know that there is a single example of someone from Virgin Care being on a non-statutory non-decision-making ICS, one out of the 42 ICBs and one person on a body with 20-odd other members. That is still one too many. It is the principle that matters.

Private providers are bound essentially and legally to be addressing shareholder value, which is absolutely right and as it should be for their particular business interests, but they are not the values that underpin the NHS, which is absolutely not about striving for profit and shareholder value in any way. That is not to say that the NHS at every level should not strive for value for taxpayers’ money and effectiveness, but the best service for patients and communities is surely the underpinning objective of our NHS and it should be that for ICBs. Nor is it saying that the NHS should not be commissioning or working with a variety of providers, but we need to safeguard those values and the social value that underpin the NHS.

In the Commons this has been debated and Ministers are on the record about their intention not to have private providers represented. Sadly, some of us are still sceptical. This is particularly so when one looks at the easing of the 2012 commissioning and procurement regime. I await with interest the Minister’s reply on this matter. In making appointments to ICBs we are clear that there should be some kind of test so that if someone has something in their background which a reasonable person might think makes them unreasonably favourable or disposed to the use of private providers within the NHS, then they have no role on an ICB. I suspect that one might have to see, when the Bill finally takes effect as an Act, that those tests might be brought to bear on some of the ICS/ICB chairs and non-executive directors who may fail it.

The ICBs have similar duties to the CCGs they replace, at least on paper, but the board of an ICB will be very different from the CCG GPs and sometimes, it has to be said, the rather ad hoc arrangements that existed there. ICBs will be much closer to the unitary board model of trusts, FTs and the PCTs of recent memory. We agree with the intention of more effective commissioning of health services in the new era of co-operation and collaboration and with better integration with related services, so there should be a new kind of board made up of fewer NHS insiders and more who may have a wider perspective and fit better into the new model and the aspirations of the Bill.

We have had what feels like a dozen different ways of making commissioning work, and I have been directly involved in some. My observation is that as soon as they look like they are starting to work, they get reorganised. The trouble has always been the split between commissioners and providers, which some may say is essentially bogus. Both bits are still core NHS, and the big trusts have massive influence because they are massive. There is no democratic accountability, and the big providers had all the clout, not the commissioners. The NHS commissioning operation is often in splendid isolation from the rest of the public services, disconnected even from social care, to say nothing of where primary and community care and public health come in. This Bill aspires to be different, so we need to look at how it is served differently by the ICBs.

There has been some pretence that this will all change under the Bill, just as there has been for previous ones on commissioning. ICBs are given flexibilities and can build place-based sublevels, but the reality is that, as they are constructed at the moment, they are the same old NHS cartels. They have all the freedom they are allowed, but they may ultimately be powerless. The public will have as much idea about what ICBs do as they did about CCGs, and we all remember the marches to save our PCTs in the distant past. Just to make this clear, vested interests get a place in the ICB as of right but the public, patients and staff are not given that honour and responsibility. That is what part of these amendments does. Amendment 37, in my name and that of others, sets out our view about which voices are most important, and it breaks the mould of NHS appointing.

I divert briefly to say that elsewhere we will discuss more about how those appointments are made. Our view is that some independent appointments commission ought to make a comeback. I took great encouragement from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Tuesday, which helped in this regard. But there is still far too much control from the top and far too little say from the bottom on all the appointments that will be made under the Bill. Amendment 37 at least offers a way to have some diversity and possibility to challenge the interests that dominate the NHS.

Surely nobody who looks at what the amendments suggest would argue that these interests do not have a right to some voice. The public, patients, staff, social care, public health, mental health—which of these can be safely ignored and which has no part to play? We know the Minister in the Commons gave a minimalist defence in the interests of the new mantra of flexibility. He rightly said that boards should be of a manageable size and that ICBs should have some flexibility—as much as NHS England would allow—to add others to the board, beyond the minimum. The NHS actually has to do what it is told and, unless a more stringent requirement is put in the legislation, it will do what it has always been allowed to do. If we really want a better care system and some change to make organisational upheaval worthwhile, let us have a go at doing something different, with a wider group of voices to be heard and take decisions.

Our Amendment 37 deals with appointing key non-executive board members to represent interests, but within a unitary board. On Tuesday, colleagues pointed out that all board members share collective responsibility, which is a tried and tested model, but we need a discussion about this. I can see from the amendments in this group that other noble Lords have views—my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for example—but our amendments and others in the group, if we discuss them together, would make for a better balanced board, which does not necessarily have to be a larger board. I hope the Minister will consider these submissions carefully. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate, and I really am grateful to all noble Lords who tabled amendments today.

With your Lordships’ leave, I turn first to Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would mean that the relevant ICB and ICP would need to be consulted before NHS England is able to provide support and assistance to bodies other than NHS bodies. The NHS has, under successive Governments of all political colours—indeed, since its foundation in 1948—commissioned care from various sectors to help it be more responsive to patients’ needs, and particularly to help deliver the commitments set out in the NHS constitution.

The vast majority of NHS care has been—and will rightly continue to be—provided by taxpayer-funded public sector organisations. But experience before and during the pandemic has demonstrated how important it is for NHS England to have the power, as the Trust Development Authority currently does, to provide support and assistance to any providers of services on behalf of the NHS. This will ensure that independent providers can, if necessary, be commissioned to provide important additional capacity where needed.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I really rather hoped the Minister would not go into whether or not I was suggesting that we should or should not be using private services. This is about who commissions services; this is not about who provides services. In my opening remarks, I said that a variety of providers is exactly what we have and will continue to have.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification.

The amendment seeks to exclude individuals whose GP practices hold an alternative provider of medical services, or APMS, contract from being a member of an integrated care board. While APMS contracts may not be appropriate for all GPs, they offer the ICBs, as commissioners, greater flexibility than other general practice contract types. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, acknowledged, the APMS framework allows commissioners to contract specific primary medical care services to meet local needs. APMS contractors include some private and third sector social enterprises and GP partnerships, which provide outreach health services for homeless people, asylum seekers and others. It is quite clear that none of this diminishes the commitment to ensure that care is provided free at the point of use, paid for by taxpayers.

All contract holders providing NHS core primary medical services are subject to the same requirements, regulations and standards, regardless of the type of contract. The Care Quality Commission, as the independent regulator, ensures that all contracts meet these standards.

Some GP partnerships concurrently hold a general medical services contract for core medical provision, as well as an APMS contract. Some individual GPs provide services for a range of practices. The concern is that this amendment would exclude GPs working for one or multiple practices which operate under APMS contracts from being members of the ICB.

NHS England’s draft guidance states that nominated members of an ICB will be full members of the unitary board, bringing knowledge and a perspective from their sectors, but not acting as delegates of those sectors.

This amendment would prevent some individuals being on integrated care boards, based on what type of NHS GP contract their practice holds. This could limit the ability of primary medical service providers to appoint an ICB member who understands the health requirements of the local population. This could reduce the diversity of GPs who could be appointed, based on their contract type. If we think of the unintended consequences, this may inadvertently exclude representatives with much-needed expertise in serving specific local populations and addressing their health needs.

Earlier, we talked about tackling inequalities. I feel very strongly that there are sometimes unintended consequences, where people think that they know better what is best for their communities. It would be unfortunate to exclude APMS contracts, or anyone who had an APMS contract and who had the expertise needed for those communities that are not receiving an adequate service, or for poor, immigrant communities. This could go against the goal that we all want to see of tackling inequalities.

I now turn to Amendments 29 and 30. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for bringing this issue before the Committee. I understand the interest in the role of independent providers in the integrated care boards. I also understand the concern across the Committee to ensure that independent providers, including companies seeking to produce health and care products, should not be appointed to the board of ICBs. We agree. Integrated care boards will be NHS bodies whose board membership consists of a minimum of individuals nominated by NHS providers, GP services and local authorities whose areas coincide with that of the ICB.

Although, as has been acknowledged, service provision by the independent and voluntary sectors has been an important and valuable feature of the system under successive Governments, it has never been the intention for independent providers as corporate entities to sit on integrated care boards, nor for an individual appointed to be there as a representative of an individual provider, in any capacity. People must therefore be assured that the work of ICBs will be driven by health outcomes, not profit. However, we recognise that this is a matter of concern to many noble Lords, as well as to the other place. We have been keen to put this beyond doubt, which is why we brought forward the amendment on this very point at Report stage in the other place. This amendment makes clear that no one may be appointed to an ICB who would undermine the independence of the NHS as a result of their interests in the private healthcare sector, social enterprise or elsewhere, including the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that suggestion and for trying to narrow the gap that there clearly is. If an amendment were put forward, we would look at it very carefully and consider the unintended consequences from the way it is drafted. We will consider it but, as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, I can make no promises at this stage.

I turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral about how provider input in the work of an ICB will be reconciled with assessing both the suitability and performance of providers. As my noble friend correctly noted, each ICB must make arrangements on managing the conflict of interest and potential conflicts of interest, such that they do not and do not appear to affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes. Furthermore, each appointee to the ICB is expected to act in the interests of the ICB. They are not delegates of their organisations, but are there to contribute their experience and expertise for the effective running of the ICB—a point made most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, my noble friend Lady Harding and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. It is important that this is about expertise, not the trust or organisation that they are taken from, or their skills and knowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said.

We are also keen to allow ICBs to develop their own governance arrangements, which best take their local circumstances into account. We want to give them the flexibility to learn and develop as their best practice evolves, so that other ICBs could learn from that best practice where there are concerns.

To support ICBs, NHS England is working with them to issue guidance and to develop and make clear our expectations of ICB leaders—expectations that have been reflected in the discussions and fantastic contributions from many noble Lords. For these reasons, I regret that the Government cannot accept these amendments at this stage. However, I hope I have given noble Lords such reassurance that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Turning to the membership of integrated care boards, I will begin with Amendments 27, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments today. I understand the interest from all sides in this membership. Schedule 2 sets out the minimum membership of the integrated care board; it will need to include members nominated by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, by persons who provide primary medical services and by local authorities of areas that coincide with or include the whole or any part of the ICB’s area.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, about mental health. I am sure he recalls the debate on Tuesday, when noble Lords felt very strongly about this. I have offered to meet many noble Lords from across the Committee who indicated that they want to see this parity with mental health, which they do not believe is implicit at the moment, even if we believe that “health” refers to physical and mental health. Indeed, it refers to spiritual health in many ways. But we understand that we have to close that gap and I will make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, is invited to those meetings.

It is important for us that we are not overprescriptive, which is especially true of any membership requirement. Any extension beyond the proposed statutory minimum will risk undermining local flexibility to design a board, as my noble friends Lord Mawson and Lady Harding and others have said, in the most suitable way for each area’s unique needs, drawing on the best expertise, but not where they are from. It may also make the boards less nimble and less able to make important decisions rapidly if we overprescribe.

It is important to remind the Committee—I apologise if noble Lords do not appreciate the repetition—that we set a floor and not a ceiling. The ICB can appoint board members if it wishes. Local areas can, by agreement, go beyond the legislative minimum requirements. They will want to ensure they appoint individuals with the experience and expertise to address the needs and fulfil the functions. Areas are already doing this. For example, in south-east London the ICB is proposing to include three provider members—acute, community and mental health—and six place members, one for each borough. This approach is exactly how we want ICBs to use the flexibility available to them.

If, in time, some of the concerns expressed today by noble Lords become clear—such as issues being skated over, ignored or elbowed out by others with louder voices—we may need to add further requirements that relate to ICB membership, and there are regulation-making powers in place in Schedule 2 to allow the Secretary of State to do so. Furthermore, NHS England has the power to issue statutory guidance to ICBs. It could, for example, use this to recommend that each ICB should consider appointing a learning disability and autism senior responsible officer, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has asked for and has spoken about most eloquently many times, most recently in a debate a few weeks ago.

Taken together, our approach reflects our view and, I reiterate, the view of the NHS that we should not attempt to overlegislate for the composition of ICBs and instead let them evolve as effective local entities to reflect local need. Let us get the right balance between the top-down and bottom-up approach, and make sure that they are relevant to their local areas. I am afraid that these amendments are seen to take a different approach, by adding more people to the minimum requirements for the ICB, making them larger but not necessarily better. They also add additional complexity by introducing a significant number of members who are responsible for activity outside the NHS. We think these would be better represented on the integrated care partnerships, which have a broader remit. I come back to the point that it is about expertise, not which trust.

I will consider the comments made by noble Lords very carefully if some of the concerns have not been met, and will have future conversations, between this stage and the next, if they feel that we have not addressed their concerns completely. I regret that the Government cannot accept these amendments. I hope that I have given your Lordships some, if not complete, reassurance and that noble Lords will feel able at this stage to withdraw and not press their amendments.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I was disappointed with the first remarks he made because he resorted to the mantra that the Government tend to go to when the question of private sector interests in delivering healthcare is raised by this side of the House. That is a shame, because the questions that we have raised are legitimate. In fact, his friends in the Commons accepted the conflicts of interest that could arise from private sector interests being represented on ICBs. We were seeking to make sure that that is watertight and there is no way of it changing. That is a legitimate question to ask.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Meacher, for supporting Amendment 37, which is the key amendment in this group as to who may or may not be members of the board.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made a powerful case for the interests of people with learning disabilities and autism being represented. We know that where health systems make the health of people with learning disabilities a central priority, the whole health system benefits from it. That has happened in some places—for example, in Manchester—and it demonstrates how we improve the whole system. It is an important point.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell made the point about Centene and Operose, and that is partly why I put forward my amendment on APMS. The Minister may recall that we raised this matter in Questions a few weeks ago, when I asked him to write to me about what system had been used to give that contract to Centene, or Operose, in Camden, the area where I live. Having served on the CCG in Camden, I was aware of the importance of who runs primary care and of who the GPs in our surgeries are. Having right and proper people and organisations running our primary care was one of the criteria that you would use as a commissioner when you were looking at who was running, and who might wish to run, primary care and GP surgeries. I was involved in that process. As I learn about the history and background of this organisation now running primary care and GP surgeries in the UK, I do not think they are right and proper people to be doing that.

If this amendment does not serve the purpose of stopping that happening, I ask the Minister and the Bill team to reflect on what we might need to do to ensure that those from the private sector, social enterprises and charities whom we commission to run parts of our health service are right and proper people to do so. The remarks made in that regard by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were very interesting and useful, as they often are.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made the point about public health. That is the theme running through this Bill: the need for public health to be represented. She was also absolutely correct to bring us back to the idea that clinical leadership is very important. Of course it is. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked some pertinent questions.

My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley raised the issue of social enterprises, which is close to my heart. I am the honorary secretary of the All-Party Group for Social Enterprise, which I helped to found 20-odd years ago. The APPG has just completed an inquiry, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the impact of Covid on social enterprises, which absolutely illustrates the points made by my noble friend and which I will share with the Minister when it is available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made relevant points about Allied Healthcare. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I agree that the problem with APMS is that there is a lack of clarity and it is a bit of a loophole, and we need to look at it again. This may not be the Bill to do it in, but it might be.

With those remarks, and hopeful that the issue of who the members of the ICBs will be will run through our discussions for the next few weeks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Respiratory Viruses

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very important point that during the winter people quite often need some help and assistance with winter fuel and other issues. For RSV and influenza, this winter we have had the continued offer of vaccination for 50 to 64 year-olds for the first time, and to additional cohorts. By 19 December, 82% of people aged 65 years and over and 48% of people under 65 years in risk groups had received a flu vaccine.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, in July last year my right honourable friend Jonathan Ashworth anticipated the risk of co-infection with both viruses—popularly known as “flurona”—being likely to compound the impact of Covid. He asked then whether the Prime Minister would invest now in testing capacity so that, alongside a Covid test, it would be possible to test for flu and RSV. Is there a plan to take up multipathogen testing for the future—it is obviously too late for this winter—as we learn to live with Covid?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

There are a number of innovations when it comes to vaccines and testing for vaccines. Indeed, some of the companies and organisations we spoke to recently about future testing requirements, for example, have looked at multiple tests or tests where you can identify multiple conditions. It is one of the things that the department and the NHS are continuing to have conversations on with suppliers.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert “after an impact assessment under section 153 has been published.”

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 313 in my name, but I shall allow those noble Lords to leave who do not particularly wish to hear my peroration this afternoon.

It is a pleasure to open proceedings in Committee on the Bill. These amendments concern the need to publish an impact assessment, a matter with which your Lordships’ House is very familiar. I expect that the Minister will now tell us that the Government have now delivered on this amendment because—guess what?—first thing this morning, into our inboxes popped an impact assessment, so I of course claim that as my first victory. We need to find out whether this impact assessment is actually any better than the ones that have gone before and whether it fulfils the requirements in both the amendments, and I confess I have not had time to read it yet, but I commend it to your Lordships’ House.

The real issue is that the Government’s lack of serious and realistic impact assessments is symbolic of the lackadaisical manner that this Government take to Parliament and the legislative process, which is why I intend to take this opportunity to make a few general points for context on themes which I expect will recur throughout deliberations on the Bill.

We have received a highly critical report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, more recently, a report from the Select Committee on the Constitution. In the words of the Delegated Powers Committee, the DHSC is again introducing a Bill which

“falls so short of the standards which the Committee — and Parliament — are entitled to expect.”

The Bill lamentably fails to address the recommendations set out in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation, and the Constitution Committee agrees with that assessment. It says:

“We regret that the powers under this … complex bill are structured in a way that hampers greater detailed parliamentary scrutiny, and note that the Bill … was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny”,


from which it would have undoubtedly benefited. The Delegated Powers Committee further says:

“The Health and Care Bill is a clear and disturbing illustration of how much disguised legislation a Bill can contain and offends against the democratic principles of parliamentary scrutiny.”


These are serious charges, and ones which tell of the nature of the task before the House in the next few weeks. The Bill allows 21 affirmative regulations and 42 negative. It provides for Orders in Council, schemes, rules, licence conditions, 46 directions, and makes 17 references to guidance and one to publishing the document. Of the 156 delegated powers, more than half are subject to no parliamentary procedure. I urge noble Lords to read and reflect on both those reports and allow their concerns to govern the process that we have before us over the next few weeks. Our job, surely, is to put some flesh on this skeleton framework Bill. We need to test the Bill with these reports, and the splendid, if concerning, document Democracy Denied?

On that theme, we on these Benches are concerned about how the Bill centralises powers, with the system being effectively top-down, managed by the new, improved NHS England—for example, with powers to appoint and dismiss key staff without any kind of democratic oversight. On top of that, we have a power grab by the Secretary of State that has drawn widespread opposition.

At Second Reading, and previously in the Commons, views have been expressed about the Bill: how it fails to address the main issues facing the care system and that it risks disruption in the NHS at a time when attention should be elsewhere as we struggle against Covid, which continues.

Of additional concern, we are told to expect two vital streams of information of great relevance: a White Paper on integration and further announcements on changes to social care. It would help to know when these will be available. Is it sensible to proceed without them?

It is welcome that the implementation date has been pushed back and that we have more time to undertake effective scrutiny of the Bill. Our position is clear. We support the parts of the Bill that come directly from the long-standing requests from the leadership of the NHS to remove the worst aspects of the previous 2012 Act. We have already made the point that we warned about the consequences of that Act and, in general, we welcome a return to principles of collaboration and co-operation.

Our aim will be to ensure that the NHS’s desired outcome is achieved with appropriate safeguards against unintended consequences such as a rise in private sector involvement or an increase in the power of vested interests over those of patients, but we will do so in a way that minimises any disruption.

It would of course have been far simpler to have a Bill just reversing the previous Act, which should have been introduced years ago as soon as the negative impacts had been properly recognised. Such a Bill would have passed much more easily, but we are where we are.

It would not be too harsh to say that the Bill has become a bit of a mess and we are here to do our best to get the legislation into shape. So far, there is evidence of a lot of agreement on the major issues with three or four glaring exceptions which we hope we will be able to resolve perhaps between the end of Committee and Report. Our challenge is how valid concerns are dealt with and how much the House is prepared to leave to ministerial assurances of good intent—as it always has been.

The amendment regarding implementation sets out concerns about the extent of any disruption to an already hard-pressed care system. Cynics say, and the evidence tends to confirm, that reorganisations rarely achieve anything much other than disruption and unintended consequences, and this is an NHS reorganisation Bill above all else. It is to be hoped that ending compulsory competitive tendering, putting the integrated care bodies on to a stronger statutory footing and consolidating the top level of the NHS can be done with limited impact.

It should be mentioned that many aspects of the changes are either already implemented or will go ahead even before the legislation is passed. The NHS has got into the habit of ignoring the legal niceties in recent years to get round the problems created by the 2012 legislation, and I am not sure whether it should be congratulated on that or not. However, it should be a fundamental part of our scrutiny that we have a full and comprehensive impact assessment with all the assumptions and expectations spelled out. I am not sure whether this document fulfils that; we may return to it later in the Bill.

The previous impact assessment was very poor and incomplete. Our amendment points this out and suggests that, with a system as fragile and complex as the NHS, there ought to be a reasonable period for assessing the impact and planning accordingly. This is not intended as a delaying tactic. If the alleged impact assessment that we have so far had been a great deal better, the need would not be so strong. Delay will not help the NHS but neither will a bad Bill. Let us remember that aspects of the previous Act were still being argued about years after it had passed.

Others are also intending to contribute on the general point about the need for some assessment of impact, perhaps through a review or through a parliamentary process such as a sunset clause. We will support those too. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, and indeed all noble Lords who have spoken thus far. I will make a general point in response to my noble friend Lord Cormack. I recognise that I am relatively new to this House and that I have much to learn. I hope to learn much, not only from noble Lords who have more experience of the procedures of this House and of holding the Government to account but from many noble Lords from across the House with medical expertise and management expertise in the health and social care sector.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for bringing this debate before the Committee. Amendment 1 would mean that we could not commence the change of legal name from the National Commissioning Board to NHS England until after an impact assessment for each of the clauses in Part 1 of the Bill is published, while Amendment 315 would mean that we could not commence Part 1 until after the publication of an impact assessment for each clause’s impact on the risks, costs and benefits to patients.

I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that my department has published the impact assessments. She acknowledged this and I accept that they were not published in the most timely way. I will endeavour to do my best to make sure that we publish these assessments with as much notice as possible. They are available for noble Lords to review on GOV.UK. I am very happy for the noble Baroness to take credit for the first impact assessment. We will endeavour to do better. We will also commit to publishing further impact assessments for secondary legislation made under the powers contained in the Bill, where those regulations will have significant impact on the health and care system or private businesses, to provide transparency and clarity to the system.

The amendment would also delay the commencement of Part 1 until at least six months after commencement regulations were laid before your Lordships’ House. This would delay the implementation of the key provisions contained in Part 1.

The NHS put forward its recommendations for legislation in 2019. It is preparing, subject to parliamentary passage, to implement the ICB provisions of the Bill from July 2022. We know that ICBs in effect exist in many areas, in whatever form of development, and it is essential that we put these on a statutory footing as soon as possible. The development of ICBs builds on years of development work in local systems to improve partnership working. Delaying the implementation risks a loss of momentum in establishing statutory integrated care boards and the benefits that they are intended to deliver. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that very gracious answer and start to our deliberations. I also thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I really was rather hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would come in, as this is absolutely what he knows about. He is quite right. I hope that noble Lords who are experts in this will look carefully at the Bill and at the two reports I referred to, because they will need to guide us in our deliberations over the next few weeks.

Let us see what the impact assessment says—whether it works or not—and see whether we need to review certain parts of the Bill with a view to looking at the Constitution Committee’s report, for example, which also was published only yesterday. With that, and with the warning that this is the beginning and not the end of the discussion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I must declare an interest, because a lot of the outcome measures that are now used are in place at Cardiff University. I will expand a little on and support what my noble friend Lord Patel said about outcome measures, particularly for something such as cancer. That is in part because the disease process itself is marching on all the time. It is different from many other diseases, where there might be a chronic condition and other things happen as a result of it. If you do not intervene rapidly with some cancers, you miss the boat and go from being able to cure it to a situation where you certainly will not be able to.

The other group of outcome measures that I do not think we should forget has just now been developed: family-reported outcome measures. That is the impact on the family. We know about the number of carers that there are. There are child carers and many unpaid carers. Having somebody in the family with a disease process, waiting for something to happen and seeing that disease process getting worse and worse in front of their eyes, has a major impact on the health of others and stacks up problems for the future in the health service.

That is why, when I was on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, I strongly supported John Baron in all his efforts to look at the one-year survival times in cancer. Looking at outcomes can be far more informative than looking simply at process targets, which is what we have been looking at too much to date rather than looking at the overall impact of disease.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 9 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for introducing this debate and I look forward to supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I think we are about to see harmony breaking out between the four walls of the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I are I think in accord over these amendments.

Historically, the mandate is part of the attempted change—I think that is probably the right way to put it—to distance the role of government and Ministers from the sound of bedpans dropping, if I might put it like that. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, despite the mandate’s intentions, recent Ministers have still tried to micromanage and otherwise interfere with NHS managers. During the passage of the 2012 Bill, the Government had to concede that the Secretary of State remained politically responsible to Parliament for the NHS.

I think it would be fair to say that laying the mandate before Parliament in each year, as was intended, has not brought about energetic debates and wise reflections in either House of Parliament. But the mandate is not without merit. It is good that the NHS knows what is expected of it and should be free from sudden announcements and other surprises. Without something of this nature, it is wholly unclear how accountability works. So we accept that, at least until the next reorganisation happens, there has to be a mandate, and the important thing is to get this right.

For that reason, we support the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If anybody knows how the mandate ought to be used, it is definitely him. Trying to have clearly stated objectives in the outcomes framework, or some equivalent, and ensuring that the mandate is objective, evidence-based and publicly accountable must be correct.