Health and Care Bill

Baroness Wheeler Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords in their quest in this suite of amendments to underline the important and crucial role played by Healthwatch, particularly at local level, and to ensure that the new NHS structures and processes in the Bill fully recognise this.

Under the 2012 Bill, the noble Lord and others who have put their names to the amendment and who have spoken in today’s debate were all strong advocates of Healthwatch, and clearly remain so today. The concerns deeply expressed then of the Government’s decision to make national Healthwatch a sub-committee of the CQC, and not the independent organisation that it needed to be, have again come to the fore. Amendment 220 would add a new clause after Clause 80, seeking to establish Healthwatch England as a body corporate that provides an annual report of its activities to Parliament; it has the full support of these Benches. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has strongly emphasised, failing to provide for the independence of Healthwatch was a fundamental error that needs to be put right. He set out a particularly strong case, as have other noble Lords this time around.

Amendment 42 to Schedule 2 seeks to ensure that Healthwatch is a non-voting member of the ICB, so that there can be a genuine championing of patients’ voices and views, which many noble Lords have spoken so strongly about today. These are views fed back from evidence and surveys conducted by both national and local Healthwatch organisations. At the very least, it is crucial to seek to ensure—as set out in Amendment 103 to Clause 20—that the ICB is obliged to fully consider Healthwatch reports and that that body leads any local consultations proposed in the ICB forward plans.

Amendment 149 to Clause 21, seeking to ensure that ICPs have a Healthwatch nominee in membership, is also important, given the local Healthwatch links to both the NHS and local authority bodies, patients and clients.

Key questions on how Healthwatch, both at national and system level, is to be funded were raised by my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Harris, particularly about the whole process of allocating funds. This is important in view of the increased role of Healthwatch in the additional 42 ICSs. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Finally, I also endorse noble Lords’ comments on the excellence of the reports produced by national and local Healthwatch organisations. Their guidance on access to social care, mentioned by several noble Lords, and comments on the detailed proposals later in the Bill on the care cap and the recent White Paper, are clear and accessible to service users, and closely examine the impact for them, and for the thousands of people currently waiting for assessment and access to key services. However, those are issues for another day. I hope that the Minister has listened to the debate.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments deal, in their several ways, with the role of Healthwatch both locally and nationally. I begin with Amendment 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would require ICBs to make provision in their constitutions for a non-voting member to be appointed from local Healthwatch branches.

I lay great importance, as do other noble Lords, on Healthwatch’s work on patient advocacy. However, as I said in relation to other amendments on the membership of ICBs—I know this is turning into something of a mantra—we want to avoid the Bill’s provisions being too prescriptive. It is essential that we provide local leaders the flexibility to design the board in a way that best suits each area’s unique needs. Even a non-voting member risks making the boards less nimble, undermining their ability to make important decisions efficiently. As I am sure the Committee is already aware, the ICB can appoint more members, including a Healthwatch representative, if it wishes, and I am sure many of them will. What is key is that local boards should be able to decide for themselves to appoint individuals with the necessary expertise to address local needs, and we want to allow them as much scope as possible to do so by not prescribing who all those members should be.

That said, I recognise that the growing complexity of health and care demands that we listen to the voice of patients, carers and the public. We want to ensure that they are heard throughout the system. I contend that there is adequate provision in the Bill to ensure that patients and the public are appropriately consulted and involved in decisions made by the ICB. I draw noble Lords’ attention to new Section 14Z36, regarding the duty to promote the involvement of each patient, and new Section 14Z44, regarding public involvement and consultation by ICBs.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, as I always do, about the particular need for adequate and appropriate funding of local Healthwatch. If I may, I shall take away the points he made on that issue and others and write to him about them. We would expect Healthwatch to be closely involved with ICBs in carrying out their engagement and involvement duties. On what do we base that expectation? Many systems already have some system-level arrangements in place with Healthwatch. Indeed, NHS England has published guidance, which would apply to ICBs, on working with people and communities that encourages working closely with Healthwatch. Therefore, given that ICBs will already be required to engage patients closely in their decision-making process, and that we expect Healthwatch will be closely involved in that, we consider it unnecessary to require in legislation a member drawn from Healthwatch.

Amendment 103 would alter ICBs’ duties in relation to public involvement to require them to make adequate arrangements for the receipt and consideration of any relevant Healthwatch reports. As I said, the existing ICBs’ duties in relation to patient involvement are already comprehensive, and the amendment could unintentionally limit ICBs’ ability to form relationships with Healthwatch and other organisations appropriate for their area. As was the case for CCGs, ICBs will be required to make arrangements to involve patients in the planning of commissioning arrangements in areas that may impact the manner in which services are delivered, or the range of services available. This will ensure that patients receive appropriate representation where decisions are being made that could affect them.

I previously mentioned that NHS England, in its guidance to ICBs, has encouraged close working with Healthwatch. This guidance comes with the acknowledgement that what an appropriate relationship with Healthwatch looks like will vary from system to system. For this reason, we are seeking to establish comprehensive duties and requirements in the legislation while leaving the specifics of local relationships with organisations such as Healthwatch for ICBs to determine for themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, starting with Amendment 46. After many helpful discussions both today and earlier on in Committee looking at membership, structures and representations of ICBs, these amendments take us back to the first principles and ask your Lordships’ House to look at what should be in scope for the provision of NHS services. This is a really valid question.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to maternity services, but if I were to pick one of the services listed in Amendment 169, it would be dental services. There are millions of people in the country who cannot access an NHS dentist. The result is a worsening of dental health, which is especially worrying for children and young people. I am sorry to say that, over the years, Ministers have ignored the wider needs of the public regarding dental services. I think the point about specifying the provision of services such as this puts a very particular duty on the Secretary of State to force Ministers to make sure that they are also holding other parts of the health service to account.

The amendments turn our focus on to whether we still have an NHS that is a public health system or one that perhaps is paid for mainly by the public but run by a disparate number of bodies, including unaccountable private companies increasingly not based in the UK. They are particularly important in light of the report today in the press that the Secretary of State is planning to create the equivalent of school academies for failing hospitals and says that there will be a White Paper in due course. Just as an aside, do we need yet more reforms? Surely it would have been better to have a full range of Green Papers with an overarching vision of what the NHS in the 21st century should look like and how the structures should work. We are now waiting for two White Papers, while the passage of this Bill is irrevocably changing the structures of our NHS system.

Today’s announcement rings a number of alarm bells because there is an analogy with the education sector that is quite helpful. I remember that, in the 1990s, academies were going to be free from local authority control and that that, on its own, would inevitably make them improve—but that has not been the case. Various reports over the last 20 years have shown that a number of failing schools taken into multi-academy trusts and free schools have remained low performing. Structures on their own do not necessarily resolve this. Indeed, some multi-academy trusts have failed in their entirety, and one of their issues is the lack of public accountability—because Ministers have direct responsibility in the public realm for academies, and I worry that the Secretary of State may be proposing the same. If I was a senior leader in NHS England, I would be very concerned about that.

I am grateful for the earlier comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the need for Ministers to have the ability to appoint and, presumably, remove senior personnel on ICBs. But would the Secretary of State have responsibility for these academy equivalents and give them the right to access separate funding for capital expenditure and special projects? I raise this because part of the problem that we have at the moment is a diversity of funding mechanisms, structures and strands, which often take the eye of a leader—whether a Minister or one in the NHS—away from the provision of services.

The foundation of a public system was essentially removed by the 2012 Act, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, the Constitution Committee suggested that there needed to be an interim remedy. It is important that we have reassurance that this Bill will not weaken it any further at all. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government want to protect the provision of NHS services, as part of a truly public health service.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for moving her amendment and other noble Lords for their contributions, particularly on the specific points about particular services, such as dentistry. All three amendments look back to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the National Health Service Act 2006 on the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the NHS and the services that it provides, restoring certain provisions in the 2006 Act.

Under the Bill, the ICBs and NHS England will have the duties to secure the provision of the services that make up the comprehensive NHS. There are probably noble Lords here today who were Members of your Lordships’ House in 2006. I came in in 2010, just as the equally marathon Health and Social Care Act from the coalition Government got under way, when the whole issue of the Secretary of State’s powers and duties came to the fore. As explained at the time, the aim was to separate the political from the operational responsibility and to better align the language to the reality of the purpose of the NHS, in “securing the provision of services”.

The arguments in 2010 and 2011 were fierce and passionate, centred around the subtle changes in the way that the duties were defined, as compared to the words in Sections 1 and 3 of the 2006 Act. They caused suspicion, confusion and fears that the NHS would be changed forever. These arguments remain a bit of a blur in my memory, but I recall the overwhelming view among leading experts on NHS law that the changes were technical and did not involve any substantial change in practice. We know that, in respect of this role, no change has happened.

I also recall the 2012 consideration of the issue by our Constitution Committee and the compromise recommendation subsequently adopted in the 2012 Bill of what became Section 1(3) of the 2006 Act, as amended:

“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.”


No matter what is in any Act, this is and will always be the political reality.

Currently, the law places the duty on the Secretary of State to

“continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and … in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness”—

very much in the spirit of the NHS’s founding 1946 Act.

Amendments 46 and 168 seek to continue the 2006/2012 debate. It was claimed about the 2012 Act, and now about this Bill, that the change in wording implies that people will be denied access to treatment from the NHS because, for example, a particular ICB decides to exclude a service and because there is no duty on the Secretary of State to prevent this happening. However, there is no evidence that anyone has ever been denied access to an NHS service or that any service has been refused in general simply because of the change in the wording of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Amendment 169 returns to the same point, seeking to place a duty on the Secretary of State to “provide” a list of services, with some general headings such as ambulance services. But the reality is that this is not how the NHS functions or indeed ever has.

I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about today’s announcement of yet another restructuring on the academy front, but, again, that is a debate for another day.

We could go back on the Secretary of State issue to the 2012 arguments and spend a lot of time on it. While we fully understand the concerns and fears that the current wording could engender among those who suspect a deeper reason for the changes in language, continuing to argue over this issue would not be very productive or get us anywhere. We need to get on with scrutinising the sweeping delegated and Henry VIII powers later in the Bill that our current Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers Committees have expressed such deep concern about.