Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

93: Clause 20, page 18, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) the impact on the diversity of provision of health and care services, including social enterprises, independent providers and charities in that area.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would place a duty on NHS England and Integrated Care Boards to ensure that there is a diversity of provision within local areas including social enterprises so that there is a range of choice and expertise available to local communities.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been rather a long wait, though I doubt that we shall spend as much time on this group as we did on the last. I do not pretend that the issue of procurement is as important as that of the workforce; none the less, when we come to Clause 70 there are some very important considerations.

I should say that, although my own two amendments are narrowly focused, in opening this debate I must register with the Minister concerns about the open-ended nature of the power to be given to Ministers under this clause. In essence, through secondary legislation, the whole procurement regime can be changed at the whim of an executive order. Services could be privatised or outsourced or whatever Ministers choose to do with them subject to regulations. It seems rather extraordinary that we are taking out the marketisation sections from current legislation only to replace them with an open-ended power and a procurement regime when we simply do not know what it will be.

I remind the Minister that the Delegated Powers Committee has been very clear that Clause 70 needs very careful attention. As it says,

“initial consultation has been carried out by NHS England on the content of the”

procurement regime, but

“full analysis has not been completed and there has not been time to produce a more developed proposal.”

The Delegated Powers Committee concluded:

“We do not accept that the inclusion of regulation-making powers should be a cover for inadequately developed policy.”


I hope that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will say something more about this and how the Government intend to respond. I think it very unlikely that we will let this Bill leave this House with this clause unaltered. Indeed, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, intends to oppose that Clause 70 stand part of the Bill.

My two amendments are probably the easiest that the Minister will have to deal with in this group and I hope that, for once, he will just get up and say that he accepts them both because they are very sensible and helpful to the way in which one wishes to see the NHS develop commissioning arrangements at the local level. The first, Amendment 93, requires NHS England and integrated care boards to consider the impact of their decisions on the diversity of provision for health and social care services, particularly social enterprises and charities.

I just want to talk about social enterprises: they are set up with a social mission and deliver that mission with all the income that they receive. Over the past 20 years, they have become an ever more important part of delivery of healthcare services. My understanding, from Social Enterprise UK, is that there are 15,000 social enterprises delivering health and care services in this country and that there is very strong evidence to suggest that these organisations are very good at what they do—often better than the alternatives. Indeed, according to a review of public service mutuals, a form of social enterprise, commissioned by DCMS in 2019, these organisations are developing high levels of productivity and better outcomes than their peers and the private sector. Their productivity has increased 10 times faster than that of the rest of the public sector over the past decade. Why? They have done it through innovation: by listening to communities and focusing on their social mission, social enterprises have been able to prepare to make changes to service delivery that other providers have been unwilling to do. As a consequence, a report in 2020 by the King’s Fund described social enterprises as

“‘engines of innovation’ within health and care”.

The Bill as it stands does not provide any duty, responsibilities or guidance for integrated care systems or NHS England to consider social enterprises within their activity. My understanding is that, because we already have these shadow ICBs, it is being interpreted at local level that there is not a future for social enterprises within local systems. There is a risk that decisions are now being made by these shadow organisations, which have no statutory being at all, that there will be a reduced role for these social enterprises in the future. That would be a tragedy, and I must ask the Minister to look at my amendment. It is very innocuous: all it asks ICSs and the NHS to do is to consider the impact of their decisions on a wider provider lattice. He could go further. It would be very simple for a message to be sent down the service from this debate to say that they got it wrong about social enterprises and they should indeed be thinking of commissioning more services in the future from there.

My Amendment 211 is linked to it. It deals with social value and how they should be embedded into procurement processes by integrated care boards. The definition of social value is the process by which public bodies seek to maximise the additional social, environmental and economic outcomes of the money that they spend. The coalition Government in 2012 supported the passage of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. The adoption of the Act in the NHS has been very patchy indeed. I shall not delay the Committee by going into the details, but it is very disappointing. All my amendment would do is put a simple duty on NHS England to create guidance and ensure that social value is clearly understood across the system. It would be only guidance: it surely could not be a problem for the Government to endorse their own policy on social value in the NHS. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is taking part remotely and I now invite him to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As the noble Lord will recognise, when I was appointed to this job, I did say that I wanted to consult as many previous Health Ministers as possible, as well as people who have worked in the field. It is clear from this debate that more consultation and discussion are needed, so I would welcome noble Lords’ advice. On that note, I beg that Clause 70 stand part of this Bill and hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the hour is late. We cannot have the extensive debate that we probably require. I shall be very brief. I should have declared an interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, the NHS procurement professionals.

On social value, I am very grateful to the Minister because he said that guidance will be issued to the health service on this, which is gratifying. On social enterprise, my noble friend Lord Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Thornton of course, all referred to the value of social enterprises. The Minister is not convinced that we need to put anything in the Bill. The point I need to put to him is this: it is clear from intelligence from the health service what the people running what I call the shadow ICBs want. I do wonder what we are doing legislating when obviously, everything is up and running; it is very difficult to know why we are here tonight debating these issues. Clearly, the NHS wants it, so it has got it and it is Parliament’s job, presumably, to just legitimise what it is already doing.

Having said that, these integrated care boards believe that social enterprises are not to be invested in in the future. So, my appeal to the Minister is this: fine, do not put it in the Bill, but please get a message out to the 42 ICBs telling them not to be so silly as to think that they should carve social enterprises out of the new regime.

More generally, on procurement, it is very interesting to be debating with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We fought tooth and nail for days on Section 75 of the 2012 legislation. Along come the Government, now saying, “Oh, we’re going to get rid of it. We don’t know what we will replace it with, but it is all right because we can have some negative regulations which mean we can steam it through without any scrutiny apart from a desultory debate as a dinner-break business sometime in the future. Oh, and by the way, there’s procurement legislation coming along too, but we can’t tell you what will be in there.”

Somehow, between now and Report, collectively we need to find a way through. I confess to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that I am rather pleased to see Section 75 go. However, something has to be put in its place, or we will just leave the NHS to get on with it and await future regulations and legislation. One thing for sure is that the idea of leaving the Bill with Section 70 and not even accepting the noble Lord’s sensible suggestion of the super-affirmative procedure is quite remarkable, and clearly it will not run. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 93 withdrawn.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 109 and 226, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I also have my own Amendment 204, which I will not move or speak to, because we dealt with Healthwatch in a debate which seems a long time ago but was only two Committee sittings ago.

I refer to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Lansley. It seems to me that behind this is the hard issue we face that the huge increase in the number of people waiting will, I am afraid, take us back to the very bad old days of the perverse incentives existing within the NHS for patients to be encouraged to go for private care because of the length of the waiting list and waiting times. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, will recall that under the Blair Government, as part of our attack on waiting times, we had to tackle this issue of certain consultants—I suppose I should declare my interest as a member of the GMC board, though I am certainly not speaking on its behalf—and certain perverse incentives for patients to be encouraged to go to the private sector. Of course, much maligned though they were, that was why independent sector treatment centres were set up, and they were part of the process of driving waiting times down. We now have a huge problem of huge waiting times and a huge number of waiting lists, and we have to be very careful to ensure that these kinds of perverse incentives do not come back into the health service.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

Does the noble Lord recall that, when independent sector treatment centres were established, they operated on the basis of NHS prices, so people were getting NHS treatment in these independent sector treatment centres at the same price that the NHS would have had to pay for that treatment?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a very important intervention, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for jogging my memory. I think that he would agree, though, that apart from the price, the point was that it was an important element in getting waiting times and waiting lists down. At the moment, we are clueless about how the Government are going to do this. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, we will have a debate—I hope tonight—in relation to procurement, but I say to the Government that the open-ended nature of the regulation-making power that they propose to give to Ministers in such an important area is utterly unacceptable and has been drawn to the House’s attention by both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, as the noble Lord knows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

I personally believe that international collaboration and engagement in research across all parts of the United Kingdom go hand in hand. It should not be either/or; it is a combination, and we need to do both. The amendments that I am speaking to call for every NHS organisation to participate and become research active.

Finally, and briefly, I urge the Minister to embrace this opportunity to embed what is genuinely cross-party support for clinical research in legislation. We all want to put the UK on the path to being the best place in the world to participate in health research. We will do that, as the noble Lord suggests, by collaborating internationally, but we will address the health inequalities that we have all spoken about over the many days of Committee only if all NHS trusts have a duty to conduct research.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the thrust of all these amendments. Most of the discussion has been about research—encouraging research in clinical trials within NHS trusts and foundation trusts—but I want to speak in support of Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which looks at the issue of commissioning and the role of integrated care boards, because I believe that it is just as important to ensure that integrated care boards have in mind the need, through their commissioning policies, to encourage innovation. In our last debate on NICE, last week, we discussed the same issue, which is the fact that the reason NICE exists is that there are many innovative new medicines and treatments coming on stream, many of them developed in the UK, which the health service has found difficulty in adopting more generally.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 78, about ICBs, is designed to encourage the ICB boards to consider that they have a responsibility in relation to innovations. It also proposes that integrated care boards must appoint a dedicated innovation officer to the board. I do not want to open up the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Thornton as we went into Committee, but we come back to the issue of the composition of ICB boards. She referred to guidance issued by NHS England a few days ago, which is not obtainable in the public domain. It is obtainable through something called “NHS Net”, but the Library has not been able to get hold of it. It is a bit much that advice on the contents of the Bill has been given out which we cannot even see. I hope that, as part of his response to my noble friend Lady Thornton, the Minister will look into that.

On the question, “Why add another postholder to the board of an ICB?”, I point to the Nuffield Trust report, which says that no organisation in the health service at the moment—or very few places—has someone with a direct responsibility for encouraging innovation. The Nuffield Trust thinks that having chief innovation officers with broad oversight could make what it calls a fundamental difference. I refer the noble Lord to research by the ABHI, which is essentially the trade association for medical devices. It showed that fewer than 20 NHS trusts across the UK have a member of their board with explicit responsibility for the uptake of innovative technologies.

Sometimes one must be wary of having a board appointment that may seem to be a token appointment. However, when it comes to commissioning, having someone around the table who is constantly reminding the board that through commissioning we must encourage and invest in innovation, would be very helpful. The slew of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is valuable in getting that message across.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I am seriously concerned, for my sake, that I am invisible to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding—which I regret, but I will tease her about it.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments with an emphasis on Amendment 101B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, whom it is a pleasure to follow.

Last night, I went to the ballet and saw “Raymonda”, which has been placed in the context of the Crimea. It reminded me that Florence Nightingale took a hammer to a store-cupboard to get food and blankets for some of her patients because nobody knew what was inside it. She went on to be a leader in sound data for health- care, recognising that without data we could not plan for the future. This amendment emphasises measuring the outcomes of mental health nursing and other mental health interventions in order to ensure that we learn from practice and develop best practice cost-effectively. That is why I have put my name to Amendment 101B.

We need to look at similar patterns for care to those for physical illness. For example, the onset of paranoia and delusions which threaten the safety of an individual or those close to them could perhaps be equated with a suspected cancer where you wait for two weeks for an initial diagnosis. How many people are sectioned under the Mental Health Act for assessment because they have not managed to get an out-patient appointment for assessment earlier? I believe that is an example of discrimination against people with severe mental health problems. If we could get parity of access for assessment, it would be an extremely good beginning. I recognise that there are other physical and mental health problems that are less urgent, but I use that as a comparison.

Yesterday at a meeting concerning mental health reform after the pandemic, the Minister for Care and Mental Health Gillian Keegan and the chief executive of Mind were panellists. At that meeting, it was noted that investment in NHS mental health services currently increases year on year, largely due, I think, to action under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. It was £11 billion in 2015-16 and is £14.3 billion today and it will continue to increase, including an additional £2.3 billion by 2023-24. It was said yesterday that the Government will ensure ICBs will increase spending on mental health in their area in line with growth in their overall funding allocations to meet the mental health investment standard. To address backlogs, the Government have published their mental health recovery action plan backed by an additional £5 million to ensure that the right support is in place. This illustrates that the Government are committed to the improvement of mental health services. The amendment would place a duty to monitor this investment and evaluate its effectiveness. I hope that the Minister feels able to support the principle behind the amendment and will meet those of us interested in this area to try to find a summary solution to the issues we are raising on parity not only for mental health care but for the care sector that has been outlined so comprehensively by my noble friend Lady Hollins.

All the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, concerning osteoporosis could be made for drug-induced psychosis, schizophrenia and other severe mental illness problems. I hope that this Committee will be able to influence an amendment to the Bill that will ensure that the monitoring outlined in the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, will be taken forward.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but I want to say how much I agree with Amendment 297J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the mess we have between local government and the NHS on sexual health services in general and the HIV services that she mentioned.

My view is that local government has a choice. It either accepts that it is part of a national service here and agrees to earmark funding allocations, or the service will have to go back to the NHS. The current situation is not working. Some local authorities are having to take on the responsibilities of others because some local authorities are not spending sufficiently. There is a movement of people, largely into the big cities, and it is an unfair system. We have to do something about it.

I also support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her Amendment 110. Anyone listening to the debates during the recent passage of the domestic abuse legislation would have noted that one of the big challenges is the lack of integration among local agencies. I am afraid the NHS is a part of that and the noble Baroness’s amendment would give a very clear indication to the NHS that we expect more of it.

I have no doubt that, in winding, the Minister will say that Amendment 50 is not necessary because there is already a general duty on the NHS to provide fracture liaison services and the department is doing all it can to encourage the NHS to implement them. However, the dilemma for us is that the positive outcomes from those services have been known about for many years, yet progress in moving to the standard adoption of them through the country is very slow indeed.

As far back as 2010, the Royal College of Physicians produced an audit of the quality of clinical care of patients who had fallen, had a fracture and had been seen in a hospital emergency department. It reckoned then that only 32% of patients with a non-hip fracture received an adequate fracture risk assessment. Just 28% were established on anti-osteoporosis medication within 12 weeks. As a result, the Department of Health incentivised primary care services to initiate these treatments for relevant patients, but, by the end of the first year of that scheme, fewer than one in five patients were receiving the treatments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

One of the reasons for the introduction of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships is to give local systems, both NHS and local authorities, a platform on which to build new ways of working. That includes social care. If the noble Lord feels that this duty is not explicit enough or that we should bring it out, we should have further conversations.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The architecture is very curious regarding why we must have an integrated care board and integrated care partnerships. It has never been clear to me why the Government have not attempted to set up a health and care board to bring those services together. We know that the funding systems will be different and that there is a clear difference between free at the point of use and means-tested social care, but surely that is what an integrated board, jointly owned by the NHS and local government, with councillors at the table not officers, is trying to sort out. Why have we ended up with this nonsense of a structure? We are carrying on with health and well-being boards as well. That is the great puzzle here.

If the Government are not willing to move on that, we must come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. By splitting it, you then must say to the integrated care board, “Ah, but in your duties, you must ensure that you integrate with social care as well.” It really is a mess. The Minister said earlier that this is what the NHS wanted. Yes, this is an NHS Bill designed by NHS managers with a focus on the NHS. I do not know why it is called a care Bill, because it has nothing to do with care.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

Before the Minister responds to that, can I amplify what is being refused here by the Government? As I understand it, he is trying to rely on the Care Act to get local government to co-operate and integrate care with the great elephant, the NHS. This is asking a minor player to take on a major player with far more resources. Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, makes the NHS come back every two years about the outcomes. That is a fairly modest challenge to the NHS and I fail to understand why the Government cannot simply accept that in principle and then negotiate the drafting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My noble friend Lord Patel has had to leave because of pre-booked travel, but he has given me the honour—and it is an honour—of having his brief speaking notes, from which I would like to start, and then move on.

Before I get on to that, I think it is important for us to remember that NICE was set up to establish the evidence base behind what we do. Before NICE was established—and I have worked with Deirdre Hine, who was very involved in setting it up when she was Chief Medical Officer for Wales—people were doing things because they had always done them and because they liked doing them that way, with no evidence base, and often they were doing things that made situations worse, not better.

As Lord Patel wanted to stress, clinicians have a strong belief now in evidence-based healthcare, and guidelines are critical to ensure high and consistent levels of evidence-based clinical practice across the NHS. The guidelines developed by NICE can be adapted to the local situation, and they are also under review. I should declare that I have served for three years as vice-chair of the group looking at ME/CFS guidelines, and it was very instructive to see the depth to which everything was explored and the rigour of the processes; to the point that, when we were asked to review again some papers, we went back to the beginning and reviewed them all over again. Interestingly, in doing that, we slightly downgraded their scoring, rather than upgrading it, which is what had been expected. I was really impressed at the rigour of the process, including the health economics impact.

That experience has been behind the push to make sure that there is compliance. My proposed amendment would be a way of assessing compliance with the guidelines as predetermined and set out in the NHS mandate. The mandate could select a few that would act as proxy markers across the piece and include a date line, so that their implementation across the country could be benchmarked. It would not increase the workload, because it could draw on existing sources of data in the NHS. As the Minister has said, data is our key to understanding and unlocking things.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her comprehensive introduction to this group of amendments, spoke about type 1 diabetes and highlighted that, in some areas, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring is as low as 0%, whereas in other areas it is up to 20%. There are a couple of other emerging areas; one is in atrial fibrillation, where direct oral anticoagulants have made warfarin a drug of the past. Yet the variation between clinical commissioning groups’ adoption of the guidance is quite horrifying. There is a threefold variation in prescribing, so there are areas of the country where a lot of patients are being denied an intervention that has been shown to be beneficial compared to what was done before.

We have already alluded to another emerging area: the new biologics. On the face of it, they are very expensive, but they are often remarkably effective—they can revolutionise the management of some diseases. We have a budgetary problem here, because the NHS budgets are year-on-year, and the face-value cost of the new biologics is very high; but if you look at the whole lifetime cost of healthcare interventions then they come out much lower. Take the example alluded to, of Crohn’s disease, and consider the cost of someone having their bowel removed, who might then end up on total parenteral nutrition; it is not only the cost of that nutrition but the costs in all other domains in their life, and the lives of their family. In comparison, the new biologics can rapidly get this disease’s process under control and revolutionise things.

The proposal is to give the CQC the powers routinely to address the adherence to guidelines—that would be specified by the NHS mandate, so a national standard could be set—and introduce a reporting metric using current data sources as a starting point to establish a benchmark. I want to stress, as I know does my noble friend Lord Patel, that we are not advocating for guidelines to be mandatory—that would not be right, because each patient is different and individual—but we are asking for a system to be introduced that gives powers so that there can be scrutiny of whether the guidelines are being adopted, because their adoption would narrow the gap in inequalities. We both feel that we need to commit to address this in this important legislation, because it is a way of achieving tangible action to ensure equity in access to quality in healthcare.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the three amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has referred to. I was the first Minister for NICE, going back to 1999. At that time, we were confronted with a paradox which continues to this day, which is that, although the NHS is full of innovation and we have an incredibly strong life sciences sector and industry, the NHS is also very slow to adopt those innovations. NICE was developed to speed up the introduction of effective new medicines and devices. Right from the start, we had a problem with the NHS being reluctant to implement its recommendations and, within a few months of it starting, a regulation had to be put through which required it to implement them within 90 days. That has been slightly modified since, but none the less, it is still in being. The NHS has become very adept at finding ways to get round this through the various blocks that have been put in at CCG level—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained clearly the kind of blocks, devices and bureaucratic machinations that are put into place.

The result is that we continue to be very slow to introduce proven new technologies and medicines. NHS patients are very disadvantaged compared to patients in most countries. It then impacts on pharma and the devices industry—I think that pharma is more reluctant now to introduce medicines and develop R&D in this country as a result.

The Minister knows that there is an agreement—it is called VPAS at the moment—whereby NHS expenditure on drugs is capped and industry pays rebates if the cost goes over that cap. Given what I have always thought to be an imaginative agreement and given that industry is essentially underwriting some of those additional costs, surely there must be a better way to approach this which would allow the NHS to implement NICE recommendations enthusiastically, rather than essentially putting into place blocks.

I doubt that we are going to spend two and a half hours on this group of amendments, but these are just as important as the last group, because they go to the heart of whether NHS patients get access to the drugs, devices and technologies that they should. At the moment, they do not. I hope that the Minister might be prepared to take the amendment away. Legislation is the only way that we can see of leveraging the kind of change we need.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to which I was delighted to add my name.

Perhaps I may remind the Minister of his very first session at the Dispatch Box. He confirmed to your Lordships that the Government had full confidence in the processes at NICE. In a follow-up letter to me he wrote:

“The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body that develops authoritative, evidence-based guidance for the health and care system to drive best practice. NICE is one of the few organisations with a remit spanning the NHS, public health and social care, meaning it is well placed to provide a system-wide perspective and support Government priorities for the health and care system.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene at not too much length. I welcome these amendments and am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing hers forward. It enables us to touch on a subject which those of us involved in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act will recognise. This is a short version of the debates we had then, but it gives us an opportunity to update a little on those and me an opportunity to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench a few questions arising from that. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who clarified some of the terminology, which saves us going wrong. But I want to do a bit of clarification about some of the amendments as well.

The timing of this is terrific. We are discussing this today and NICE published the outcome of its methods review yesterday, so we can respond immediately. My starting point is to applaud NICE for having taken up and accepted the proposition that there should be a modifier in relation to its appraisals and assessments on severe diseases. We can argue about the precise detail, but it has taken that up.

Secondly, randomised control trials are terribly important but they are not the whole story. NICE has rightly accepted it should look at more real-world evidence and that, too, we can welcome, but it leads me directly to a question. Part of that real-world evidence, and one of the reasons it is not going directly to NICE, though NICE can use it, is the innovative medicines fund. NHS England published its proposal for the innovative medicines fund in July and said that it would consult on it, but it has not done so yet. My first question to my noble friend is therefore: when will NICE and NHS England consult on the innovative medicines fund?

The third point on NICE’s methods review is that it will take account of the wider impacts of the treatments it appraises. That is terribly important, especially given the present opportunities for personalised medicines and gene-based treatments, when one looks at how these can impact substantially on people’s lives from a relatively early stage and the contributions they can make to society and the economy. That is all good news.

The press release from NICE, however, did not draw specific attention to where it had proceeded in a way that its stakeholders did not support. It has maintained a reference-case discount rate of 3.5%, although NICE itself admitted that there was evidence that a lower discount rate would give significant benefits. It said that there would be wider implications for policy and fiscal complexities and interdependencies if it were to do this, which I think means “The Treasury said no”. We need to think very hard about whether a discount rate as high as 3.5% is appropriate for NICE’s application of its appraisals. I ask my noble friend, though he will not be able to give me the answer to this: who is telling NICE that it cannot adopt what it regards as the evidence-based discount rate for the appraisals it undertakes?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on that basis, I have seen it said elsewhere that NICE has referred to its “national stakeholders.” I can only assume that they are Her Majesty’s Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both to the amendments and in making wider points about NICE. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gillian Leng, who recently stepped down as chief executive of NICE after a number of years.

I turn to Amendment 54. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that we all want NHS patients to benefit from proven and cost-effective treatment; no one would want otherwise. That is why we see NICE as playing a vital role in supporting patient access to new treatments. I have heard the criticisms from previous Health Ministers, who were responsible for NICE. I sometimes feel in debates such as this, when I am with former Health Ministers, that it is like a special edition of “Doctor Who”, with previous regenerations. I hope we do not create a fracture in the space-time continuum. NICE recommends the vast majority of new medicines for use by the NHS. In fact, in 2020-21 100% of new medicines were recommended by NICE and many thousands of NHS patients have benefited from access to some of the most cost-effective treatments as the result of its work.

Another interesting thing is that when a decision is made and it is difficult to access medicines, patients will get frustrated—rightly so, given that they know it is available or maybe has been recommended. At the same time, on the global stage NICE has a well-earned reputation. It is one of my three priorities; I have mentioned technology, the second is life sciences and the third is international health diplomacy—how we use our position on health as part of UK soft power. One of the institutions people across the world look to and want to learn from is NICE. NICE is looking to be at the centre of a number of global networks on the issues where it has a reputation.

NHS England and clinical commissioning groups are already under a statutory obligation, under Regulations 7 and 8 of the snappily titled National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Constitution and Functions) and the Health and Social Care Information Centre (Functions) Regulations 2013, to fund any treatment recommended by NICE through its technology appraisal or highly specialised technologies programmes, usually within three months of guidance being issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned, NICE also operates a separate medical technologies programme, which supports faster and more consistent adoption of medical devices, diagnostics and digital products.

I assure noble Lords that these funding requirements will apply to the ICBs once established. Therefore, we do not see the amendment as necessary at this stage for clinicians to prescribe NICE-recommended treatments for their patients. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for pointing out some of the unintended consequences and scope of such amendments. I remind your Lordships that, since April 2021, NHS England’s medtech funding mandate has supported faster access to some of these innovative technologies recommended by NICE.

I know that I am going to try to reassure noble Lords on a number of things but, on Amendment 74, I hope they note that the funding requirement on ICBs for NICE-recommended treatments goes even further than the requirement to promote what the noble Lords propose in the first part of the amendment. This will ensure that clinicians will continue to be able to prescribe NICE-recommended treatments for their patients.

The second part of the amendment would replicate existing arrangements that are in place to measure uptake and use of NICE-recommended medicines. Since 2013, NHS Digital has published an innovation scorecard that reports uptake of medicines that NICE has recommended in the last five years at a national and local level. Data on the uptake of NICE-recommended medical devices is not currently reported in the innovation scorecard as it has been more complicated to collect. However, I assure noble Lords that work is under way, by both NHS Digital and the Accelerated Access Collaborative, to address this gap. The Government consider that it is more appropriate and proportionate that this information is collected and published by a single national body using an agreed methodology, not by multiple organisations that will each have different ways of measuring and presenting the data.

On Amendment 97, I can tell noble Lords that NICE works closely with the MHRA—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for pointing out the distinction —which issues marketing authorisations to ensure that licensing and appraisal timescales are aligned wherever possible. The NHS in England usually funds any treatment recommended through NICE’s programmes within three months of positive final guidance. We believe that three months is a realistic framework for providers to prepare for and introduce a new technology, and I hope I can assure the Committee that NICE and NHS England already work closely to facilitate the adoption of recommended technologies as quickly as possible.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, again alluded to, there is a high level of transparency in the operation of local formularies. Formularies have their own public websites, which list the selected medicines and associated guidance, and area prescribing committees publish the minutes of meetings, which identify the medicines added or removed from formularies. We believe that there is therefore no need to publish an annual list.

Although healthcare providers are encouraged to use local formularies when prescribing, they are not restricted to them. The decision as to what to prescribe lies with the prescriber, who will act in the best interests of the patient. Indeed, some of the correspondence I get as a Minister for Health often refers to when people cannot get access to a medicine that is not recommended, but the clinician has the authority to suggest that that medicine can be available to the local area.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister is right about how this system is meant to work, but there are far too many examples of clinicians seeking to prescribe medicines that have gone through the technology appraisal and then finding that CCGs have set up the various devices that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned to delay or stop it. Does he recognise that CCGs are engaged in a process of seeking to delay implementation for as long as possible? Will this be accepted under ICBs or will it be tackled?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue. I should be honest; I was not aware of the suggestion that CCGs often delay and whether that situation will be transferred to ICBs. I ask noble Lords whether I can look into that situation further to understand it more. I simply say that I was not under that impression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 112 and 17 others that are in my name. I am very grateful to the three noble Lords who have added their names to these amendments. These are terribly straightforward; it is the same point in a number of different contexts. As we put it in the explanatory statement, the amendments

“would require Integrated Care Boards to work with the four primary care services … when preparing and revising their five year plans, in the same way they are required to work with NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.”

It is a very simple, straightforward point and a matter of proportion. It is appropriate to give a similar level of influence and respect to primary care as we give to acute services.

I will mention that there are some practical difficulties —obviously, there are many more primary care services than NHS trusts—and come back to that at the end. If it is not obvious enough that we should do this, I want to pull out three points about why this is so important; I expect that others will mention other points. I am talking here about GP surgeries, as opposed to the other three services, although I totally endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Low just said about ophthalmology services.

First, if it is true, as Members across this Committee have argued for however many sessions it has been, that a large part of the future is community-based, then alongside public-health figures and their clinical work, it is primary care—nurses and others, not just doctors—who will be the essential guides and specialists to help all those place-based, arts, non-clinical and inequalities-busting activities that we have talked about for a considerable part of this debate. They have that key role.

Secondly, I was dismayed by the way the Government criticised GPs recently. Primary care is under enormous pressure and I do not understand why the Government chose to do that. A large part of the problem is that there are simply not enough primary care specialists of all kinds, including GPs, and I do not think any progress has been made towards the promised 5,000 extra GPs. Primary care is under enormous pressure throughout the country and, while I greatly welcome the focus in the Bill and in government policy on waiting lists, I believe that it will be here in primary care that we will see the real battle for the future of the NHS. It is really important that we give those who are doing so much in our services the respect, influence and prominence that they deserve.

My third and perhaps, in some ways, biggest point is that primary care is changing very fast in all kinds of ways; it is an area where there is enormous innovation. As the Royal College of GPs itself says about the role of the GP, there is a place for one-off consultations—a place for the GP on the railway station, or wherever, where you can have a very quick consultation—but there is an even bigger place for the sort of continuing role based on the relationships between a GP and their patient that we are familiar with traditionally and which I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, described so well in describing her father as knowing his patients “inside and out”. That relationship, however, is not just with individual patients; it is a relationship with the community. Many GPs have taken that role, but more are taking on the role of a relationship with their community.

Some GPs are rewriting this role so that it is more of a public health role in some ways. There is Sir Sam Everington at Bromley by Bow, whom the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, mentioned in his great, eloquent speech on our last occasion in Committee, and others such as Dr Gillian Orrow, who is bringing together groups in the community and leading Growing Health Together in Horley. Others are taking on wider roles, such as Dr Laura Marshall-Andrews in Brighton. People are thinking about their role in a very different and important way and I apologise for giving three southern examples—they happen to be ones I know very well, but I know that this sort of innovation is going on around the country. More generally, of course, we can think about social prescribing and the way that that is changing primary care.

Here is the really big point: these doctors, nurses and others in primary care are acting as clinicians, of course, but they are also agents of change. They are the animateurs, the facilitators enabling local health-creating activity. For that reason, we need to have people like them fully engaged in the planning and all the mechanisms of the new NHS structures so that they can have the influence needed for the future.

I come back to the practical note I made at the beginning. Of course it will be difficult to engage primary care appropriately in every way and there might not be the same structure and arrangements in every part of the country, but it is really important that we get these primary care inputs into the five-year plans, their monitoring, planning and discussion so that they can really influence what will happen in the future. I understand that the Royal College of GPs is in discussion with the Department of Health. I urge the Minister to encourage his officials to find a way to make this obvious thing, which needs doing, work. It is vital that we do not disfranchise a key and currently quite largely demoralised sector or, as importantly, lose their valuable contribution.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 117 and 218 in this group. I have also put my name to the series of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, but I start by endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Low, had to say. I hope the Government will come back sympathetically in relation to that.

My Amendment 117 would ensure that primary care professions would have mandated roles within integrated care partnerships, with members appointed by each of the four practitioner committees: the local medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optical committees. Secondly —and this is very consistent with the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—this would ensure that, in preparing their annual strategic forward plan, the integrated care board and its partner trusts and NHS foundation trusts would need to consult the relevant primary care local representative committees and publish an explanation of how they took account of those views when publishing their plan.

I have the same arguments as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and I will not repeat them because he put them so well. History has shown that, even when clinical commissioning groups were nominally under the control of GPs, they often found it very difficult to get the rest of the system to listen to their issues and concerns. I agree with the noble Lord that there is now so much pressure on primary care that there is a great risk that they will be ignored in the work of the ICBs in particular. That would be a great pity. It is not just GPs, but the other parts of the primary care world. The noble Lord, Lord Low, already referred to ophthalmologists and opticians, but there is also this conundrum about the ability of pharmacists to take some of the load off the system but there is also often the inability of the local NHS to talk to them and embrace them sufficiently.

I hope the Minister will be sympathetic. If he says that he is not willing to tell ICBs that they must embrace representatives of the local committees then there is now a clear conflict. He is saying that it is up to the local ICBs to decide, but it has become abundantly clear that NHS England is giving out very heavy-handed guidance about who should be on ICBs. I would make this point to him: you cannot have it both ways. Either you leave it up to ICBs and withdraw this guidance, or Parliament has a role and a right to determine the governance arrangements. The action of NHS England in being so heavy-handed, such as saying that local councillors cannot serve on ICBs, means that the argument he put forward really does not stand up any more.

I move to my Amendment 218. On this one I must remind the House of my membership of the board of the GMC. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the crisis in workforce issues generally, which I am not sure we are going to get on to today now. In relation to GPs, it is very apparent that not only do we have a chronic shortage but there is a grossly inadequate distribution of GPs throughout the country. Recent data, published by NHS England in November, shows that the primary care network covering an area in Gloucestershire described as 4PCC and comprising Cadbury Heath, Close Farm, Hanham and Kingswood had an average list of 1,138 patients per full-time equivalent GP. There are some others with similar figures. At the other end of the scale, Shore Medical primary care network in Dorset had an average list of 7,317 patients per full-time equivalent GP. York Priory Medical Group PCN had an average list of 7,154 patients per full-time GP and the Marsh Group PCN in Kent had an average list of 7,040 per full-time equivalent GP. These are huge disparities and there are many other areas that have average lists of under 1,600 and plenty with averages of more than 6,000.

The situation is really reminiscent of the situation before the start of the NHS. That is why in 1948 the Medical Practice Committee for England and Wales started work. It was charged with ensuring equitable distribution and, to a large extent, I believe it achieved its objectives. It was abolished in 2001 and I had better confess to the House that, I am afraid, I took through the legislation abolishing it. However, we were at the start of a massive expansion in the workforce at that time and felt that at that point the kind of bureaucratic way in which the MPC worked probably was no long fit for purpose.

We have a real problem here and confirmation of the dire situation was provided recently in research by the University of Cambridge’s department of primary care. A team including Dr Rebecca Fisher found that the significant GP workforce inequalities I have talked about are increasing and that workforce shortages disproportionately affect deprived areas. If you look at the situation in deprived areas, practices often have lower CQC scores, lower quality and outcome framework performances and lower patient satisfaction scores. Patients in those areas often have shorter GP consultations despite the fact that they have more complex health needs.

General practice is paid according to how many patients they have, with an adjustment made for the workload associated with those patients. Since 2004, the global sum allocation formula, known as the Carr-Hill formula, has been used to make that adjustment. However, Fisher argues that the consultation length is a flawed proxy for need and that the formula has long been widely acknowledged to be incapable of accurately weighing needs associated with socioeconomic deprivation. In 2020, after accounting for need, practices serving deprived areas received about 7% less funding per patient than those in non-deprived areas.

There is also the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme. This offers trainee GPs a one-off payment of £20,000 when joining a practice in an area that had long-standing difficulty in getting more doctors. However, this has not made a significant difference and clearly is not the answer to this enormous problem.

In the amendment—and I am very glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness—I have proposed the creation of

“the General Medical Practitioners Equitable Distribution Board”

as a first step. I envisage the board being invested with discretionary powers of negative direction, as was the MPC. It would consider applications from primary care networks, and they would be expected only from adequately doctored, or more than adequately doctored, PCNs. It would be a way of intervening in the market and making it more difficult to appoint GPs in those areas that are already very well supplied with doctors.

I accept that this is not the only approach, but it is an approach that has worked in the past. Frankly, I do not think that we can carry on without some major intervention to try to spread the load, because it is clear that all the odds are stacked against you if you are in an area of high deprivation where there are many more patients per GP. You get burnout among the professions and things become very difficult indeed. It looks as though financial incentives are not the answer. Clearly, we need to get more GPs into those areas to lessen the load, and then improve the quality and outcomes. I hope the Minister will be prepared to take this back and give it some consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner (CB)]

I have listened very carefully to what the Minister is saying in response to these amendments but, at the risk of being a historian again, is he aware that influence on key decision-making in the NHS is diminishing for primary care in general and GPs in particular? If we go back to 1990 and the GP fundholding changes to the NHS made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, if we move through the Blair years of practice-based commissioning and go to the changes by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with clinical commissioning groups, these are three examples where GP influence on decision-making—strategic, local and tactical—is very considerable.

As far as I can see, that has been diminished in this Bill and they have been put back in their box without a lot of influence on key decision-making. They are poked down at the local place level. That is not right. What the Committee is saying needs to happen in the NHS. The Minister must go back to his department and talk through what is happening here, because it is diminishing the role of the GP in particular.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Bill came because this is what the NHS wanted. But we must be clear who in the NHS wanted it, and it is obvious that it was the senior chief executives at the local level and NHS England. No wonder primary care has been completely squeezed out of it. Listening to this debate, it seems to me that the proposals from NHS England never had any scrutiny. Ministers just accepted this and, because NHS England does not engage externally, there has not been the testing that you would normally get, and we are having to do it now. Frankly, the wheels are falling off. It is tempting to invite the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to come in, because clearly CCGs were all about putting primary care in the driving seat. This seems to be removing them altogether and it is worrying.

[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.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I offer the support of the Green group for all the amendments in this group. My name is attached to Amendments 51 and 87 and it would have been attached to others had there been space. I can only commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for identifying a serious lacuna in the Bill and for providing practical, careful and sensible solutions to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the Bill was “by adults for adults”. The other amendments in the group address only half that phrase. It addresses the “for adults” part but not the “by adults” part, which is what my Amendment 103A aims to address. Young people are experts in being young people. We may think about the life experiences of a 12 year-old or an 18 year-old, but none of us really knows what it is like to be 12 or 18 at this moment. A phrase often used particularly by marginalised groups is “Nothing about us without us”—given the hour, I will spare noble Lords the Latin version.

Young people are undoubtedly a marginalised group in our society in that their voice is far too rarely heard. As I have reflected previously, they are hugely underrepresented in this place and in the other place. The under-18s do not have the vote. The under-25s in the voting population, for structural reasons that could be fixed but have not been, do not have the same kind of voice.

I entirely accept that, among paediatricians and social workers, there are many older people who have much expert knowledge, but it is crucial that we actually hear. My amendment seeks to address ICBs and sets out that, in statute, there should be an advisory board consisting of young people on every ICB. I believe that this is an important addition to ensure that young people’s voices are heard. It might be said that many ICBs may set up such a structure, but that is not the same as it being statutory, ensured in the Bill with a message from Parliament saying, “You have to listen to these young people’s voices”.

I doubt that I need to address this in detail, particularly with the occupancy of the Chamber for this group, but I want to mention the Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report 2021, which looked at 10 to 17 year-olds. Among them, one in 15 were unhappy with their lives—the highest level in a decade. We know that children who are unhappy at the age of 14 are significantly more likely to display symptoms of mental ill health, to self-harm or, sadly, to attempt to take their own life by the time they are 17.

As the report makes clear, the pandemic is only part of this story. There is a climate emergency and a pervasive fear about the future that young people have lived their entire lives through. We are talking about people whose whole life experience, virtually, has been since the financial crash. One thing that we know addresses a sense of powerlessness, with all its negative effects on mental and physical health, is giving people a sense of empowerment—that is, a sense that they can take control of their lives, make choices and make a difference. I often see this with young climate strikers.

I believe that the measure proposed by my Amendment 103A would ensure that this group of amendments collectively addresses the two sides of the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, identified. I want to take this forward and I invite noble Lords who are interested to talk to me about it. This should be included in the Bill. Let us hear from children and young people and make sure that ICBs listen to the children and young people they serve.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness and I support the broad thrust of these amendments. As this is my first intervention on the Bill, I should declare my interests as a board member of the GMC and the president of GS1 UK, the British Fluoridation Society and the Hospital Caterers Association. I am also a trustee of the Foundation for Liver Research.

I support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. As she said, she, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who also put his name to the amendment, and I are members of the Lords Public Services Select Committee, which has just produced a report on vulnerable children. When taking evidence and listening to the arguments, it was sobering to hear that it is now estimated that the number of vulnerable children has accelerated, particularly during Covid, so that more than 1 million children are growing up with reduced life chances. Too many of them end up in our criminal justice system but, despite this, there is no government strategy to deal with vulnerable children.

The result is a lack of co-ordination both nationally and locally. Too many children fall through the gaps. Public services intervene far too late to prevent some of these children from getting into difficult circumstances. Although the amendment deals with only one aspect, it is but one aspect of a more general problem that we believe the Government need to address. The particular problem that we wish the Committee to take account of is the silo working that continues to be evident both nationally and locally, as well as the frustrating unwillingness of public bodies to share data even though it is abundantly clear from both the law and the Information Commissioner’s comments that they are perfectly able to do so.

I do not pretend that passing an amendment to the Bill will change everything overnight, but we look to the Government to be firm in their intent. It is unacceptable for public bodies, many of which have a direct relationship with government, to refuse to share information for all the miserable reasons of tribalism and managers not being willing to let go. We need to do something here.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister will see the parallel here: a mandatory duty to improve is exactly what the Government want, and have committed themselves to by laying the Bill before Parliament. Therefore, it should be made clear in the statute. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, brought us very persuasively to the point of Clause 14, which I must say I am extremely puzzled about, because it purports to set out the whole set of arrangements that have to be gone through before integrated care boards can be set up as statutory bodies. However, it appears that that has already been done.

I register a very strong protest with the Minister at the actions of NHS England in going ahead and establishing these bodies, issuing extraordinary edicts such as no local authority councillor being able to serve on an ICB. What right does a quango have to say that local authority councillors cannot be represented on ICBs? This is absolute abuse of parliamentary power, because quangos do not have the right to set out what should happen on governance issues at local level in the NHS without parliamentary endorsement.

NHS England has put out a note that says that, subject to parliamentary progress, arrangements for the new statutory bodies are to come in now, on 1 July. How can that be, when we have not even gone through the sections that deal with the composition of integrated care boards? It is quite possible that your Lordships might insist on Report that local authority councillors are members of the ICBs. That is not impossible, so what will happen? Will the Minister say that, despite what Parliament says, the ICBs will go ahead, or does it mean, as I read this legislation, that the Government have to start again?

Lots of issues will be raised in this and the next group, not least the outrageous governance issue, which says that NHS England basically appoints the chair and the chief executive officer is also at its disposal. There is no attempt locally to have a board that elects its own chair or one that is appointed independently; they are essentially place-people put in there by NHS England. These are matters that Parliament should decide. I accept that Parliament may say that it is happy to go ahead on that basis—but I strongly object to this clause. It is dishonest; it purports to go through a process from the start that says that this is how ICBs will be set up—but they have all been set up, the boundaries settled and the chairs nominated, without any proper public accountability process whatever.

I hope that, when we come to agree Clause 14, the Minister will think again and that he will issue instructions to NHS England to withdraw the letter that says that the new arrangements will come into place on 1 July. I do not understand how that can possibly be.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 45. This is a disparate group of amendments, dealing with the issue of integrated care boards. I strongly support the comments already made. My amendment addresses another issue. There are questions about what the boards are; the issue is for whom they provide services, and how they are defined.

I have been made aware of a case that raises real questions about how this is going to develop. The case was reported in September, in the Manchester Evening News, about a woman who suffered burns while on holiday. She returned to her local urgent care centre in Rochdale and was advised that, because of long waiting times, she should go to another A&E in Bury. When she arrived there, she was told that that centre did not treat people from Rochdale, because of rules laid down by the integrated care board predecessor, which had established the rules in that part of Lancashire. She was left literally on the pavement, unable to obtain the care that she required.

That is a specific case under the existing rules, but it points out the lack of clarity in the Bill about how the integrated care boards will operate. The fear is that they will be membership bodies along the lines of health management organisations in the United States, which are responsible for providing services to members. That contrasts with the residential basis on which the NHS was based, at least up to 2012.

Proposed new Section 14Z31(4) gives the Secretary of State astounding power to set out which ICB is responsible for a particular individual’s care. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance, but the problem with membership-based organisations is that, first, there will be cherry picking of patients and, somewhat counterintuitively, at the same time they will be competing for the less expensive patients. Without far more clarity through the Bill from the Minister, people will have reasonable fears over how these new organisations will work and how people will attain the services that they currently expect from a seamless provision of services. My amendment seeks to address the issue of it being a single service. We have these 43 ICBs, or whatever they are, but it is a single service, and patients can access services wherever it is best for them and not best for the service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I accept that but how can NHS England give guidance to say that no local authority councillor can be on the ICB? That is not for NHS England to say, and how can it do it prior to the Bill going through Parliament? It is for Parliament to decide these matters, not a quango.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord because I was coming to answer that point, but maybe in too long-winded a way. One issue that was clearly raised, and very strongly felt in the contributions from more than one noble Lord, was about banning councillors from sitting on boards. There is nothing in the Bill that expressly bans this. We recognise the points raised in this debate and will raise them directly with NHS England. It is not statutory guidance.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry but this is a very important point. They have made the appointments and are not going to start again, which of course they should, because this is an absolutely hopeless position. No one from NHS England has ever had the guts to come here to explain why they are making this decision, and who will believe it? The chair of the ICB is appointed by NHS England. They know that NHS England does not want local authority councillors on the boards. Who are they going to take notice of? They are going to take notice of NHS England. The Minister has to tell NHS England to stop sending out this ludicrous guidance and telling the NHS that the new arrangements will start from 1 July. It cannot possibly do so if we go through what is contained in Clause 14.

I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but the fact is that we must have a three-month consultation process on the proposals. This is the problem we are in: none of this stands up because Parliament is being treated with absolute contempt by NHS England.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I hear the strength of feeling from the noble Lord. I will take this back to the department and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope noble Lords are reassured by that. I may not get the perfect answer, but I will try. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue; no one can fail to do so. Let us put it this way: it was not subtle but direct. It is really important that, as the Minister here, I take this back and reflect the feeling of the House in my conversations with the Secretary of State, and his subsequent conversations with NHS England. I will take that back and look at the consultation process and the CCGs consulting all the relevant local authorities.

I understand the point made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that we have to be careful about prescribing in a top-down way how to work locally. I have always been a strong believer in localism and making sure that powers go down to a local level rather than being taken away. Let me again assure the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords that I will take this back, because clearly there is concern. I had not appreciated the strength of that concern. At Second Reading the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Adebowale, said, “We are already doing this. It makes sense to go ahead and put it on a statutory footing”. But I have now heard the other side of the argument, and it suggests that I should go back and have a stronger conversation with, in effect, my boss—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope that gives some reassurance.

On Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I assure your Lordships that we intend to provide as much stability of employment as possible while ICBs develop their new roles and functions. I hope that noble Lords are aware that there is already an existing commitment that staff transferring into ICBs will transfer across on their current terms and conditions in line with the NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook. NHS pension rights will also be preserved. As a result, staff transferring into ICBs will not see any change to their existing conditions.

However, the Government are concerned about forcing ICBs to adopt conditions and practices that the ICBs do not believe work best for new staff. We believe that it is important to give ICBs flexibilities relating to staff terms and conditions; they are there for a reason. For example, when it is difficult to recruit and staff are going elsewhere, this would include allowing ICBs the flexibility to diverge from collectively agreed pay scales in order to attract staff from elsewhere or with unusual or valuable skills, or to reflect local circumstances. It will also give ICBs the flexibility to support joint working and bring in staff currently working in local authorities or foundation trusts, for example, supporting integration and the joint working approach that the Bill hopes to encourage.

I also note that ICBs having the independence and flexibility to choose whether to adopt collectively agreed pay conditions and pensions for new staff is not unique, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, acknowledged. NHS foundation trusts, which are already free to exercise their discretion in adopting such conditions, overwhelmingly choose to honour and apply such terms to their staff unless there are good reasons to diverge.

On the proposals for very senior managers, existing procedures are in place to ensure that the most senior staff within the NHS are appointed with fair and equitable salaries. Proposals to pay very senior staff more than £150,000 must be similar to those for other equivalent roles or be subject to ministerial oversight.

The Government are in the process of finalising the procedures that will apply for ICBs. The specifics may differ but the effect and intention will be the same: to afford ICBs agency in setting pay at competitive rates so that we can continue to attract the most senior and experienced leaders, while putting adequate checks and balances in place to ensure appropriate use of taxpayers’ money and keep senior public sector salaries at an appropriate level. The Government believe that this amendment, which also asks for ICPs to approve annual salaries in excess of £161,000, is unnecessary. I am happy to have further conversations.

I now turn to the amendments on how the ICBs will function once established, starting with that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which relates to the question of treatment outside the ICB area. The new clause in question provides that NHS England must publish rules for determining the people for whom integrated care boards have responsibility. Importantly, this clause ensures that everyone in England is covered by an ICB.

We intend that the rules set by NHS England should replicate the current system for CCGs as closely as possible. This means that the ICB will be responsible for everyone who is provided with NHS primary medical services in the area—for example, anyone registered with a GP. It will also be responsible for those who are usually a resident in England and live in their area if they are not provided with NHS primary medical services in the area of another ICB.

It is important to remember that no one will be denied healthcare on the basis of where they live. We want to ensure that, under the new model, bodies that arrange NHS services—decision-making bodies—are required to protect, promote and facilitate the right of patients to make choices with respect to services or treatment. This means allowing patients to choose to be treated outside their ICB area. Choice is a long-standing right in the NHS and has been working well for some time. The Bill continues to protect and promote it. However, I am afraid that we have concerns about this amendment, as it places a requirement on providers rather than commissioners. It would not be reasonable to expect providers to provide services regardless of whether they were funded by an ICB to do so, and it is important that ICBs should be able to make decisions about with whom they contract and where they prioritise their resources.

On Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I hope I can assure the Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to the public. As your Lordships will be aware, there is already a wider range of duties in relation to the continuous improvement of services. Clause 20 imposes on ICBs a duty as to the improvement in quality of services. Furthermore, the ICB must set out how it proposes to discharge that duty at the start of each year in its joint forward plan and explain how it discharged the duty at the end of each year in its annual report. I hope this goes some way to meeting the noble Baroness’s concerns.

Clause 16, which this amendment seeks to alter, recreates for ICBs the commissioning duties and powers currently conferred on CCGs in the NHS Act 2006. It ensures that ICBs have a legal duty to commission healthcare services for their population groups. It also recreates Section 3A of the 2006 Act, which provides the commissioning body with an additional power to commission supplementary healthcare services in addition to the services they are already required to commission. This power enables ICBs to arrange for the provision of discretionary services that may be appropriate to secure improvements in the health of the people for whom it is responsible—or improvements in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness in those persons—so it is important that the clause remains as it is currently drafted.

The Bill will ensure that the existing local commissioning duties conferred by the NHS Act 2006 will transfer over to ICBs. This is set out in proposed new Section 3, which is also to be inserted by Clause 16 on page 13. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be reassured that it rightly uses “must” rather than “may” when referring to the arranging of services. I can therefore assure the Committee that ICBs will continue to commission the services previously delivered by CCGs. That will ensure that service delivery for patients is not impacted.

Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, touches on the important relationship between ICBs and ICPs. I remember that, when we had an earlier consultation, the Bill team had a diagram about how ICBs and ICPs would work together; It might be helpful if I ask for that to be sent to noble Lords so that all of us can have more informed conversations about the intentions of the amendments and the issues that noble Lords want to raise. I will make sure that that is done.

This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a dispute resolution procedure if an ICB fails to have regard to an assessment of needs, an integrated care strategy or a joint local health and well-being strategy in respect of the ICB’s area. The Bill was introduced to ensure that existing collaboration and partnership, working across the NHS, local authorities and other partners, is built on and strengthened; I recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.

We intend for these assessments and strategies to be a central part of the decision-making process of ICBs and local authorities. That is why we are extending an existing duty on ICBs and local authorities to have regard to relevant local assessments and strategies. The ICB and local authorities will be directly involved in the production of these strategies and assessments through their involvement with both the ICP and health and well-being boards at place—that is, at a more geographical level. As a result, they have a clear interest in the smooth working of the ICP.

More widely, there are several mechanisms to ensure that ICBs and local authorities will have regard and not intentionally disregard the assessments and strategies being developed at place in their areas. First, health and well-being boards have the right to be consulted.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

25: Clause 14, page 11, line 20, at end insert—
“ NHS Appointments Commission (1) There is to be a body corporate known as the NHS Appointments Commission.(2) The NHS Appointments Commission has the function of—(a) appointing the Chair and ordinary members of integrated care boards;(b) other duties as set out in regulations under subsection (3).(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for—(a) the establishment and constitution of the board of the Commission;(b) the financing of the Commission;(c) the duties of the Commission.(4) The Commission must prepare and submit an annual report of its activities to Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would provide for an independent commission to have responsibility for the appointment of the chair and ordinary members of integrated care boards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 25, I will speak to other amendments in this group, which follows on from the previous group and the last comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. On day two in Committee, we had an interesting discussion about the composition of integrated care boards. My noble friend Lady Thornton and other noble Lords argued for specifying in some detail the composition of ICBs, including having representation from mental health trusts, public health, staff and the patient’s voice.

Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, discussed the problems that arise when members on committees are seen to represent what he called “other agendas”. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was supportive of that view, although she argued that

“we should think more about what we want the integrated care boards to do”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1303.]

and how we will measure this, rather than exactly who is on them. I see the force of that argument; I for one am pretty uncertain about what exactly these integrated care boards are all about.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, went to the heart of this when he raised an issue that has troubled me right from the beginning: the provision that NHS trusts and foundation trusts are to be members of the integrated care boards. As he said:

“Organisations that provide the bulk of NHS services”


are therefore brought into the work of commissioning. The current system is one where commissioners—CCGs—hold providers to account

“objectively determining whether they are best placed to provide a service and assessing their performance”

and, as he said, the question then arises as to how the new integrated care boards can

“continue to perform that role.”

He felt that the membership of provider appointees on those boards at least created a risk of

“a conflict of interest between the roles of those individuals on the board and any roles they may hold with provider organisations”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1297.]

In response, the Minister said that

“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”—

this is a very relevant point—

“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”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1308.]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. I am now totally confused as to what ICBs are. I must admit that I thought that reason for having all the key local players around the table was to brokerage deals, sort out the flows of money and keep the show on the road, but the Minister’s vision seems to be for a rather more rarefied forum, where members of the ICBs have to leave their interests behind them and think Olympian thoughts in the interests of the greater good. However, when you think of an ICB, with members of a major trust sitting around the table, and local authorities represented not by their political leadership but by officers, how on earth can they leave their principal interests behind them? Surely the responsibility of the CEO of a trust or presumably of a local authority or the director of adult social care is to represent the interests of the organisations on that board.

I will give a couple of examples. On page 21, the Bill states in relation to new Section 14Z50 on the joint forward plans for an integrated care board and its partners that

“an integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts must prepare a plan setting out how they propose to exercise their functions in the next five years.”

That is fine, because that is probably one of the most important things that they have to do, but what are the trusts’ chief executives on the ICB expected to do? Are they expected to sit there and declare that it is a conflict of interests and therefore take no part in the discussion, or are they there to represent the interests of their trust, because the forward plan is very important to the success or otherwise of their organisation? It would be the same with the local authority representative, even though that representative, because they are an officer, will have to report back all the time to their political leaders to get the green light to what they have to agree to within the ICB board, which is why it is so stupid to keep local authority councillors off that board.

The Minister says, “Oh well, if it all goes wrong, we can use regulation powers to put it right”. But we are at the beginning of this process, and we need to get it right now. I very much ask the Minister to think again about the structure of ICBs and how on earth you can expect them to operate if the large trusts that they are supposed to commission serve round the table. It is really a nonsense in governance terms. Only NHS managers could have come up with this—and, oh dear, it was NHS managers who came up with it. Much though I love them and have represented their interests, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that accountability and democracy do not come very easily to them, and you can see that in the complete mess that we see before us today.

We then come to the question of whether these ICBs are accountable at all locally. I see no evidence of that at all; they are clearly part of a top-down managed hierarchy. How can you explain the reasons for the chair being appointed by NHS England and not by the board itself? How can the chair be removed from office only by NHS England? The chair should hold office at the confidence of the board. It should be the board that decides whether the chair is competent to continue, subject to external regulatory interventions, as of now, where that is necessary.

Secondly, why does the appointment of the ICB members have to be approved by the ICB chair? I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is not here. If I, as leader of Birmingham City Council, for instance, decided that my director of adult social care should go on to the board of the Birmingham and Solihull ICB, what right does the chair have to give their approval or not to that appointment?

We have already discussed the nonsense of local authority councillors being left off, but let me just make one other point. If you were the chief executive of the local authority appointed to an ICB, where you are making big decisions about finance, does the Minister imagine that that officer will do it off their own bat, or does he think that every step of the way they will report back to the leader of the council and the cabinet member for social care? Of course they will.

The problem is that NHS managers think local government is run in the way the NHS is run; they think the officers are in charge. But they are not, because you have political, democratic leadership. It is the same with Ministers in government, which it seems is why they have got themselves into such a mess in relation to this governance.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle. I give my very strong support to Amendment 47, to which I added my name, and Amendment 52. The key arguments have been extremely powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others.

My main concern is to make it abundantly clear that I and everyone I know who supports assisted dying also want to see the highest possible quality of palliative care across the country—not some kind of patchwork, but universally. I, like all noble Lords, have witnessed wonderful palliative care but also what I might describe as substandard care of dying people. The difference to the patient and the relatives is unforgettable for everybody involved. I visited a beautiful hospice with a warm and professional atmosphere recently, but there were empty beds because it had not been able to raise enough money from whatever it was—jumble sales, et cetera. It is entirely unacceptable that hospices are expected to raise funds to provide their services.

As I said, I also support Amendment 52, which details the types of services that must be provided as part of this country’s commitment to providing accessible and excellent care. The inclusion of the definition of palliative care as provided by the World Health Organization would ensure statutory recognition for this most important aspect of healthcare.

Finally, we need to accept that top-quality palliative care must involve patients’ wishes being understood and respected. Patient choice is more and more accepted throughout the NHS, but it is most important at the end of life. Central to top-quality palliative care will be the right of patients ultimately to decide how much suffering they wish to bear and when they have had enough. The lack of control under the current law will inevitably undermine the patient experience of palliative care, however devoted the staff.

The great majority of dying patients will die naturally, even when assisted dying becomes lawful. However, the great majority of dying people will live and die better knowing that they will have some control when it really matters—when their suffering is no longer bearable.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, whatever view we take on assisted dying, I think that there is general agreement that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, deserves a great deal of support in her two amendments. The predicament that we find ourselves in is that the Minister will probably reject them and say that the Government will ensure that the NHS prioritises these services in the future. The trouble is that we have been here many times before, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. He mentioned 2016, but in 2015 the Economist produced its last quality of death index, as far as I can find out, which basically said that the UK had the best palliative care in the world, but it was very patchy. I am afraid that the situation has simply not moved on.

So the question is: what should we do? Clearly, it is not going to get better if you leave it to the health service. It treats hospices dreadfully, with continuous late contract signing and short-term contract signing by bodies that should be able to agree three-year rolling contracts with those institutions. The lack of priority that is given suggests to me that, unless we take legislative action, we will not see any improvement at all. That is the quandary for us in terms of collectively agreeing a way forward that makes it clear to the NHS that time is up on its neglect of palliative care. We really must take action.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I too have put my name to these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Because this is the first time that I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I remind your Lordships to refer to my Second Reading speech and entry in the register of interests for my experience and links around the topic of health. The hour is late, so I shall try to be very brief.

Although Clause 16 currently lists a number of services that the ICBs are required to commission, it fails extraordinarily to include palliative care. We have already heard that current estimates suggest that, although as many as 90% of people who die have a palliative care need, only 50% currently receive that care—only half. I find it somewhat horrifying that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us, a Marie Curie survey found that 64% of people who died at home did not get adequate care, with pain management.

Like others who have spoken, I know from personal experience of family members how hard it was for them to get the care they needed at the end of their life. I am sure that everyone here can share examples of exceptional local hospices, especially facing the challenges of the pandemic, that currently have to fundraise to be able to do the work to fill these gaps—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us, they sell cakes. It is quite extraordinary. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the hospices and the wonderful palliative care doctors for the amazing support they give to those who are dying and their families.

Although I recognise the Government’s concerns about overprescribing the list of services that integrated care boards should commission, it seems anomalous for the Bill to proceed with priority given to ensuring that ICBs commission maternity and other services but have no explicit requirement to commission palliative care services. I am sure that this was not the Government’s intention, but I am concerned that the current drafting implies that health services for people at the end stage of their life are less important than health services for people at earlier stages. Surely the end of life is one of the times when care is needed most. I find it extraordinary that we are even having this discussion.

The addition of these amendments offers a unique opportunity to ensure that nobody with a terminal illness misses out on the care and support that they need, both now and in the future. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these amendments, which will help us to ensure that all of us have the end-of-life experience that we would hope and wish for when our time comes.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this debate, but I will say a few words. First, I am completely against any compulsory vaccination of any kind. It goes completely against all that we should believe in and I am totally opposed to it. Secondly, I recently put down two Written Questions to the Minister’s department: one about people who had been vaccinated and one about people who had tested positive with antibodies. I wanted to know the difference between the two; I wanted to know about protection from the disease and about transmission of the disease. The Answers that I got said, “We’re looking at it, but as far as we can tell at the moment, there is no difference”—it was 84% versus 85%. There is no difference between the protection that the vaccine offers and the protection given by antibodies in the normal course of events. Surely we are not going to vaccinate people who have the antibodies. It is absolutely pointless, particularly if they are thousands of schoolchildren. Can we not test people who have the antibodies and tell them that they do not need to be vaccinated? That seems to be common sense.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems that we have come down to debating two specific issues. The first is, of course, the question of mandatory vaccination for healthcare staff and whether we should support it. The second is the way in which the Government have been treating Parliament over not just this issue but the hundreds of statutory instruments that have been brought in relation to Covid, many of them by the Minister’s department.

We are entitled to a full response as to why the impact assessment was published so late. As I said, I am afraid that this is not the first occasion. I have been following the work of Big Brother Watch over the Covid experience. It has set out clearly the hundreds of SIs that have been brought here retrospectively and the impact on parliamentary democracy. We all know that we are in the middle of a crisis and that, of course, the Government have to act quickly—we all understand that. Even so, the one thing that we are entitled to say is, if they are doing that, they should be able to produce the documentation to justify the action that they are taking.

The mandatory vaccination of healthcare staff was not a decision that was suddenly reached in the last few days; it has been trailed for weeks in the consultation. I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I am not speaking on its behalf, but the GMC and many other organisations responded to that consultation, so there is no excuse, in this instance, for there not to be a full impact assessment published alongside the SI so that my noble friend Lord Cunningham and his committee can consider it with ample time and we can then enjoy their recommendations to us.

Dementia: Art and Music-based Interventions

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As an amateur musician—I stress “amateur”—I know that there is no better feeling than when you connect with your audience as a live musician. Music tugs at your heartstrings. Music touches your soul. But it can also unlock the mind. This shows the importance of music in social prescribing.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that patients get the benefit of what I am sure is the Minister’s excellent playing. He has been very positive in his responses, but he will know that the arts sector has been very stretched financially during the Covid years in particular. Will he open discussions with organisations such as the Alzheimer’s Society, with an offer of some funding to develop some of the schemes that we have heard about today?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his invitation to perform live—I am not sure that he will feel the same way after hearing my blues band. Last year, NHS England and NHS Improvement, in collaboration with the National Academy for Social Prescribing, the Alzheimer’s Society and Music for Dementia, facilitated a series of webinars. We are working in consultation with them. In February 2021, Music for Dementia also published social prescribing guides for link workers to help expand music prescriptions. The important thing here is that we are consulting with stakeholders.

New Hospitals

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The Government have said that we will deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030 and in October 2020 we published the full list of the 40. This includes eight schemes that were announced by previous Governments but are to be delivered this decade and 32 new hospitals. We have also confirmed that we will identify further new hospital schemes, the process for which is ongoing, with a final decision to be made in spring 2022. This means that 48 hospitals in total are to be delivered over the decade.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have here the New Hospitals Programme Communications Playbook, which the noble Lord’s department has put out and which makes it clear that if you build a new wing of a hospital, that counts as a new hospital. What is worse is that NHS bodies are being instructed to lie and propagandise on behalf of the Government. Will he withdraw this disgraceful communication?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that whenever a new project is started and there is a decision to build a new hospital in a community, it surely makes sense to look at whether there is space on existing sites. Otherwise, if we start criticising new hospitals on existing sites, there may be a perverse disincentive for a hospital to say, “Well, let’s build elsewhere”. when there is a perfectly good site. It is important, whatever you call it, whatever the semantics, to recognise that we are building modern, digital, sustainable hospitals for the future.

Covid-19

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

On future vaccinations, my noble friend raises an important point, and many will have seen in the media and elsewhere all the discussion about living with this vaccine. At the moment, we have boosters at six months; as the technology and the understanding get better, it seems likely that we will move to annual vaccinations, as we do flu jabs. I cannot say that for definite, but the trend is going that way, given the development of the virus, the variants and the waning immunity over time. The effectiveness of each vaccine at the moment is six months, but one can see the longer term. However, please do not take that as a given—if that is incorrect, I will update the House.

On public transport: I went to a funeral today, and as I was travelling back on the underground, it said, quite clearly, that you must wear a mask, so that is being encouraged. It is part of plan B if we have to move to plan B, but all that data is being analysed and constantly updated with different factors. There is no one trigger for moving to plan B. In previous appearances at the Dispatch Box, I have read out the list of all the factors that are considered. At the moment, the main message is: the vaccine works. We want to encourage people to get the vaccine and especially try to reach those communities that have not even had their first or second vaccine yet.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the GMC and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Can I ask the Minister about the impact on the NHS generally and the pressure it is under? He will be aware that the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges issued a statement a few weeks ago on its concern about the abuse of NHS staff. What are the Government doing to ensure that NHS staff are able to go about their work without the horrific abuse that many have had to endure?

Secondly, I refer the Minister to the report of the Royal College of Physicians, a census that shows that 48% of advertised consultant posts across the UK were unfilled last year? Does this not show that Covid has exposed the frailties in the NHS? Unless the Government grip this workforce issue quickly, the pressures on the service are going to get worse and worse. What are the Government doing?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord raises a really important point on staff, doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers in our health system. The Government have a zero-tolerance approach to abuse and harassment; we are investing in better security at GP surgeries and are committed to working with the NHS to make sure our primary care workers feel properly supported. We are also constantly having conversations with trusts and the NHS generally about making sure that staff feel safe to work and how we can make sure that that happens. Anyone who has visited a hospital recently will have seen the signs about zero tolerance.

We are constantly talking to NHS England about workforce pressures. We are looking at specific campaigns—for example, we have announced social care recruitment—and other campaigns to attract more workers to the NHS.

Clinical Negligence Claims

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. However, in looking at the system overall, there is no evidence to suggest that the rise in overall costs is due to a decrease in NHS safety. Nevertheless, safety and learning from incidents are essential in their own terms. Our ambition is for the NHS to be the safest in the world and for maternity safety to be a priority, and there are various schemes in place.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell me why the Government do not move to repeal Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which essentially disregards treatment that the claimant may receive under the NHS? Can he also do something about the record of NHS Resolution in paying damages in 80% of litigated cases, with its lawyers being paid on a win-or-lose basis and therefore incentivised to carry on with unsustainable defences?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord raises an important point about how we resolve a number of these issues. As many noble Lords will be aware, when the NHS does a wonderful job, we all support it but, sadly, when it does not do such a good job, there is a culture of delay, defend and deny. Sometimes it is incredibly difficult, and I have heard of people who have had terrible experiences in trying to get someone to resolve their issue. I heard of a very sad case: a young official in the department told me that a friend of hers, a young Afro-Caribbean lady, 24 years old, lost a baby and, miraculously, the papers have disappeared. They are now trying to gaslight this poor patient. It is really important that we resolve this.

In terms of the cost, NHS Resolution negotiates large-scale contracts for defendant legal services, using its position as a bulk purchaser to obtain the best expertise. NHS Resolution is looking to resolve claims promptly and most claims are often settled without court proceedings or going to trial. It is a difficult balance because while we may be concerned about the fees of the injury lawyers, they are able to shine a spotlight on the NHS delay and denial, as it were, and go further when many patients themselves or their families are in distress.