NHS Winter Pressures

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

First, I welcome the noble Baroness to the NHS England board, with high expectation of the value that she will add to it. I am very interested to understand her point further; I will speak to Minister Whately about that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing. Where people have knowledge of a patient at home, they can add that to their care when they come back out again.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, one of the lessons we learned, sometimes very painfully, during the earlier stages of the pandemic was the importance of working with, and often through, local government to tackle some of these issues. The same is true now. Would my noble friend explain how the NHS will use discharge funding and purchase social care provision? Will integrated care boards do that locally with local government, which has been managing social care purchasing for decades?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. The best ICBs that I have seen have the local authority as part of their board and their decision-making on a day in, day out basis. One of the best control systems that I saw in an ICB actually had the local authority social care people in the room making the decisions with them, so they are a key element in all of this. On purchasing and funding, they are very much a strong player.

NHS Industrial Action: Government Preparations

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I do not have those figures to hand, but I believe there is a Question on this subject tomorrow, when we will be talking very much about the use of agency staff and bank staff. From memory—the right reverend Prelate will get the exact figures when I have done a bit more swotting up overnight—I think the cost of agency and bank staff work this year is around £3 billion. Clearly, the workforce strategy will be all about making sure we can recruit staff to minimise that.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend referred to the NHS Pay Review Body. As Secretary of State, I thought it was rather important that I did not determine the pay of nurses, for example; the pay review body made recommendations and I adhered to them. Will the Government continue to explain that they are not refusing to negotiate on pay with the trade unions but adhering to a long-established principle? The trade unions appear to be seeking somehow to overturn last April’s pay award, when they should be providing evidence to the pay review body on what the pay award should be next April, with the remit letter already published.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. He is quite right. As mentioned before, this body was set up in 1984 and extended to other areas of the health service in 2007. Since then, Governments of all colours have followed its recommendations because, after all, it is the expert in this field. We have honoured that in full because it is right that the experts determine it. Working towards making sure that the next settlement in April—which, let us face it, is only three or four months away—covers the latest situation would be a good way ahead.

Health Promotion Bill [HL]

Lord Lansley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord and to welcome his Bill, not only because I agree with its content but because it affords us an important opportunity to discuss how we might improve public health through not only legislation but local, voluntary and community action. I declare an interest: I have a long-standing relationship with ukactive. In that context, I mention the recently retired chair of ukactive, our own noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who participated in the debates about a national plan for sport and recreation to which the noble Lord referred. I thoroughly endorse what that committee had to say and the purposes of his Bill.

I will go a bit wider in the public health context and talk about the structure of support for the promotion of public health in this country. Noble Lords will recall that I was responsible for health in the coalition Government for two and a half years. We published the Healthy Lives, Healthy People White Paper in December 2010—exactly 12 years ago—and if anyone wants to see my prescription for public health, they still only have to look at that. It followed and reflected Sir Michael Marmot’s ground-breaking work on the social determinants of health and a “life course framework” for working on public health issues.

The Government have recently talked about the importance of preventive work through the NHS, which I thoroughly endorse. But, although preventive services are a key priority for the NHS, they are not a substitute for a government-wide and societal focus on improving public health. Inequality, poor housing, environmental quality—we discussed this on Third Reading of the clean air Bill—and, not least, economic disadvantage are the major social determinants of health. They require Governments to provide leadership, resources and structures to help us improve public health across society.

This was the originating purpose of Public Health England, which pursued both this agenda and the complementary tasks of combating the key risks associated with poor mental health: tobacco and smoking; obesity, both in terms of diet and activity; air quality; drug misuse; and sexual health. The then Government brought forward plans to address each of those causes of poor health. For example, my noble friend will, I hope, tell us that a tobacco control plan renewal will not be far off.

This was not done at the expense of the health security functions, in respect of which UK expertise was, and is, internationally recognised. For example, in the year following the White Paper, the pandemic flu preparedness plan was published. However, within two years of its establishment, Public Health England’s capacity to meet its responsibilities was progressively limited because of budget cuts and staffing limits. From 2015 onwards, local government’s public health grant was cut by £200 million, and Public Health England saw a 40% reduction in its real-terms funding, reducing its capacity by a quarter.

The classification of Public Health England as not part of the NHS was wrong at the time and a mistake in public policy terms, and in the pandemic we paid for the results of that mistake in lives and many billions of pounds. Public health policies should seek to address both communicable and non-communicable diseases. The pandemic demonstrated, not least in this country, the interaction between vulnerabilities to infection and the effects of chronic disease in the population, often as a result of smoking, poor diet or inactivity.

The resulting division of Public Health England into two organisations is therefore a mistake. The perceived reduction in the independence of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, compared with Public Health England—although both are in fact executive agencies directly accountable to the Secretary of State—is also a mistake and risks undermining future responses to public health challenges, not least by failing to engage and mobilise local government. During the pandemic, we saw how important this was and what might have been, had the Government engaged it more fully at an early stage.

The scapegoating of Public Health England, which in reality resulted from a lack of investment in it, should be called out in the coming public inquiry. Public health should, like tackling climate change, be a priority across government, with leadership from the top and dedicated funding. I believe that Public Health England was the right structural approach, as was the transferring of public health responsibilities to local government. We lose tens of thousands of lives prematurely every year because of smoking, alcohol abuse, poor diet and inactivity. During the pandemic, deaths in all of the older age groups were much exacerbated by obesity and diabetes.

So improving our public health, including by enhancing our environments, reducing inequalities, increasing physical activity and reducing average calorie intake—with less alcohol abuse and drug misuse, and stopping smoking—would be central to our future health security every bit as much as the investment in surveillance and the response to infectious diseases. There is a case not only for the changes proposed in the Bill, but to go further and reintegrate the public health function in an agency that leads for this purpose both across government and in society.

Tobacco Control Plan

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for all his work to reduce smoking; I am grateful for it every time I walk into a smoke-free environment in the evening. As he said, a cross-party approach has achieved many great things. As the noble Lord knows, there are some quite radical things in the Khan review, such as increasing the smoking age every year, which would in effect ban smoking altogether. There are many pros and cons to the prohibition argument, but it is something we take very seriously and we will publish our response. I assure noble Lords that we are going to tackle this issue.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in the former coalition Government, we made considerable progress in reducing smoking in this country, not least by focusing on the level of initiation of smoking among young people? We banned vending machines, for example. Will the Government consider raising from 18 the age at which young people can buy cigarettes?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. The key age group to attack, so to speak, is 16 to 18-year-olds, which is often when the smoking habit begins. We must look seriously at every step we can take to reduce smoking in that age group. I am also aware that 18 is the age of consent, of being able to do lots of things, and changing that for smoking would obviously be quite a radical step, but everything is on the table as we review the best way forward.

Childhood Obesity

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that a healthy lifestyle in terms of exercise gets only you so far and that the amount we eat is critical to that. We have played a very active role on sugar reduction—of course, I say this in the context of this being Sugar Awareness Week. Obviously, the sugary drinks levy has reduced sugar in soft drinks by 44% by using artificial sweeteners, so this is something we will look to continue to research and to add to, if the evidence backs it up.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered relationship with ukactive. I ask my noble friend whether he would agree that there is, on this occasion, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, said once, a silver bullet: it is called physical activity. This is in line with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. In supporting physical activity, my experience was that the Department of Health needed to work with DCMS and the Department for Education to promote school sport partnerships. In my former constituency, 51 primary schools benefit from the school sport partnerships. It is a really important priority that every youngster, not just those who are really good at sport, gets the chance for that physical activity.

Maternity and Neonatal Services

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I agree about wanting to implement the recommendations. My colleague Dr Johnson, the Minister in the other House, already met with Dr Kirkup this week. We also undertook to come back in the next four to six months with where we are on each of the recommendations. I will bring that back to the House then.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My noble friend referred to the first recommendation for the prompt establishment of a taskforce to develop maternity and neonatal outcome measures. It is over a decade since we introduced the NHS outcomes framework but, far too often, it is not used as the basis for accountability inside the National Health Service. Will he say whether that first recommendation will be acted on immediately?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I mentioned before, we have already put this in place with the maternity quality surveillance framework. At the same time, if we feel that more needs to be done, it will be included in my review of the recommendations and report back to the House in four to six months.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

NICE has recently concluded a comprehensive review of its methods. It wants to introduce greater flexibility in the appraisal of medicines for more severe diseases but is also reviewing the criteria for highly specialised technologies, to make them clearer and more specific. We hope this will benefit medicines for patients with rare diseases and improve equitable access to new and innovative treatment. On the exact detail, I am afraid I am going to have to write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me that the publication by NICE last month, about its work on evaluating new treatments for severe drug-resistant infection, was really valuable, in that it looked at the benefits across the health system as a whole as the basis for an assessment of what an annual subscription for such drugs might be? Can my noble friend say how the Government are taking this work—which is a world first—and working with other countries to try to ensure that, collectively, that kind of subscription can incentivise the drugs industry to bring new treatments for antimicrobial resistance to the market?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for the question but also for highlighting the fact that NICE is trying to change the way it works to be more flexible and responsive. The new subscription-style payment model that the NHS is developing has been designed to try to address the lack of new antimicrobials being developed and the growing threat posed by antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. The recent guidance from NICE on the two new AMRs is a world first and an important step forward. What NHS England has now got to do is enter into negotiations with the manufacturer, with a view to making them available to NHS patients.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to express support for the Motion in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench but principally to comment on Motion E. I know that the Minister and his officials listened carefully and took note of the strength of feeling about unpaid carers expressed on all sides of your Lordships’ House in Committee and on Report. I am most grateful for that strength of feeling and the wise advice given by this House, which has resulted in what I would describe as a satisfactory outcome in the form of a new amendment.

The other place has replaced the amendment passed by a large majority in your Lordships’ House and put forward its own, which was accepted there and brought to us today. I am most grateful to the Minister and all his officials for the work that they have put into drafting this amendment, and for the understanding shown for the position of unpaid carers and the importance of involving patients and carers in discharge planning, as soon as is feasible in that process.

I seek the Minister’s further assurance on a couple of other points. The first is that parent carers are not excluded when a disabled child is discharged from hospital. This is referred to in the guidance when their own discharge is happening but not when the child they care for is being discharged. We need to ensure that services across different disciplines are married up. I know that other Lords and colleagues will be seeking assurances about this and about young carers.

My second point is that the guidance contains references to checking that a carer is willing and able to care. I hope that the Minister may be able to enlarge on this a bit. There will be occasions when the carer’s own situation makes caring impossible: they may simply be too ill to take on the responsibility, for example, however willing they may be. We need to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear in such a situation and that no assumptions are made in the discharge process about the carer’s ability. We have all seen too many examples of where this was not acknowledged, inevitably leading to the readmission of the patient.

We all seek to make hospital discharges as safe and efficient as possible, while not exerting undue pressure on the most important components: the patient and their carers. Of course, we shall need to monitor carefully how the guidance is applied, and we have to be sure too that carers are informed about their rights. I hope that the Minister’s department will promote suitable publicity as the reforms are implemented. I assure him that I, Carers UK and, I am sure, other Peers will be constantly on the case to ensure that carers and patients can trust the discharge system to support them.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to contribute to this group and speak to Motions G1, G2 and H. As context, I say that my noble friend, the Front Bench team and their Bill team have gone to enormous efforts to try to reach a number of compromises; at this stage it is incumbent on us to recognise that. If we were to send further amendments to the other place, we should confine ourselves to doing so only in circumstances where we believe that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a compromise on them.

I was a signatory to Amendment 80. There was a compelling reason to send that to the other place and ask it to consider again the question of excluding local authority contributions from the calculation of the social care cap. The reason was, very straightforwardly, that it was introduced in the Commons at a late stage in the passage of the Bill. At that point—on Report—MPs themselves complained vociferously that they had not had an opportunity to consider it for any period of time, so it has gone back. In sending it back, we have done our job, but I am afraid I see no evidence that the Government, given their majority in the Commons, are going to reconsider the central question of excluding local authority contributions from the cap. I think they are wrong but, particularly given the substantial financial consequences it would entail, it would be wrong for us to think that we could insist—and if we cannot insist, we should not send it back.

Where Motion H is concerned, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who kindly moved my amendment—which was entirely in my name— as at that point I was down with Covid for the first time. I would not now insist on that provision, not least because it entails financial privilege. From my point of view, it was to say, “Would you please get on with it?” My noble friend said in his introduction that the Government are getting on with it. I can promise him that, if they do not get on with it by the latter part of next year, we will be complaining and will be right to do so.

I turn to Motion G. Why have I tabled Motion G2? I confess that I have done it not in the expectation that we will send it to the other place because, as my noble friend said, that would be to intervene with quite a significant argument at this very late stage. However, I think the development of these arguments on the part of the Government has been quite interesting. First, they said, “Well, we are doing something and something is better than nothing.” Indeed, something is better than nothing, but it is not necessarily the best thing. So we said, “Hang on a minute. You said you would do this last September and introduce the cap.” We thought they were doing something that was very much in line with the Dilnot recommendations, even if the cap was set at a higher level, but it then turned out that they were not and that they were excluding local authority contributions.

On the financial implications of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, set out very well, if it saves £900 million, from whom principally is that saving to be derived? It is from those who are otherwise the beneficiaries of local authority contributions and who, as a consequence, are not asked to pay towards the cap. As the noble Baroness said, particularly if they have dementia and long-term care needs, over the years their assets will be substantially more depleted than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think we should kid ourselves: the Government are planning to do something which, in my view, exacerbates significantly the inequitable characteristics of the way the cap works. It is regressive in its effects.

Curiously, when they were debating this at the other end, they looked at the risk that incorporating local authority contributions would mean that, in different places across the country, different local authorities would provide different levels of contributions and therefore people would end up with some inequity in the amount they had to pay. This is no doubt true, but it feels like the Government shrieked at the mouse of inequity that would result from that and ignored the elephant of inequity that is in the removal of the local authority contribution to the cap.

I am always rather amused when the Minister is briefed—this happened at the other end as well—to tell us about what happened in 2012 or 2014 on the Care Act. Yes, Andrew Dilnot looked at whether the cap should be expressed as a percentage of people’s assets and did not recommend it, but that is not what is proposed in Motion G2. The model that was rejected was that there would not be a cap figure and that the cap would simply be expressed as a percentage—the so-called limited liability model. We did not support it, but the Dilnot model also had a lower cap and its structure, with the changes in the means test, would have had the effect that nobody would have lost more than about 45% of their assets. The structure the Government are now bringing in will mean that people with relatively few assets will continue to lose, in effect, 100% of their assets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, correctly said, people who have substantial assets will only ever lose a modest proportion of those. It is not fair.

I am going to retreat, but I tell my noble friend that I think the Government should say, and I hope he will say in response, that if this turns out to be inequitable, which I believe it will, and the Government want to find the money to do something about it, they have the means to do so. I think that using the concept of a percentage of one’s assets is a legitimate way of doing it. Finally, just to put this on the record, my noble friend said that we cannot do that and that it is unworkable because people’s assets are constantly changing. No: if you do it in the context of the cap, people whose assets are significantly in excess of the requisite calculation of the amount of relevant assets would never have to be checked again. It is therefore perfectly possible to do it in relation only to those people whose financial means have to be regularly assessed for the purposes of the local authority means test in any case.

It is entirely workable; it could be done. Frankly, I think that with the passage of time the Government will realise that it is a better way of managing the cap; saying, for example, that 50% or 60% of one’s assets may be required to meet the cap but never as much as 100%. So I am retreating, and I encourage noble Lords not to insist on something that has substantial financial implications and on which the other place—as was quite clear from the debate—is not willing to shift. I hope my noble friend will say that, if this or indeed any future Government were to decide that they wanted to ameliorate the regressive effects of the exclusion of local authority contributions, there are other routes to doing so. Setting a percentage of the assets of people who are subjected to the means test as their contribution to the cap would be an effective way.

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

Lord Lansley Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, we are here this afternoon to debate two important statutory instruments which will amend provisions in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and support our work to ensure continued access to critical vaccines and medicines across the country. The first SI will maintain vital arrangements which have underpinned our vaccination campaigns against flu and Covid-19. The second SI will support our ambitions to ensure that patients with unmet clinical needs can access the innovative treatments they need. I am grateful to be able to debate such important provisions today.

The purpose of the provisions I have laid in the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations—which I will refer to as “the regulations”—is to amend the temporary provisions that cease to have effect on 1 April this year. They support the continued deployment of safe and effective Covid-19 and flu vaccinations at the pace and scale required both now and in the future as part of the pandemic response. This SI amends provisions in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, SI 2012/1916, originally amended by the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1125, and the Human Medicines (Coronavirus) (Further Amendments) Regulations 2020, SI 2020/1594, either to make permanent or extend by a further two years these key regulatory flexibilities.

There are five provisions before us today, three of which we are seeking to make permanent. The first will enable injectable prescription-only medicines, which includes vaccines, to be given under a patient group direction commissioned by the NHS or a local authority, which effectively expands the workforce of vaccinators. The second will enable pharmacy-led Covid and flu vaccination services to operate outside their registered premises. This has enabled, for example, “pop-up” vaccination clinics to be run by pharmacists at convenient locations for patients, and these have been very successful. The third will add several additional groups of healthcare professionals to those who can administer vaccines under occupational health schemes, thereby expanding the workforce to vaccinate health and care staff. The final two provisions relate to a further temporary extension of easements to licensing requirements for assembly and preparation of vaccines prior to use and sharing of vaccines between sites.

Why do we need this SI? The success of the mass vaccination rollout on the scale and pace that has been possible to date will not continue if the SI is not approved, and the Covid-19 and flu vaccination programmes will not be able to continue running as they currently do. Nor would they be able to be re-established at the pace and scale which has been so vital to our success—for example, in response to the emergence of a new variant, leading to recommendations for an urgent booster campaign.

Approval has been sought and agreed both in the other place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I will now provide the rationale in support of these important provisions in this place. We are debating these provisions today against a completely different backdrop to that which was in place when the key regulatory flexibilities were first made in late 2020. We are now in a position that we should welcome, but we should also be aware that vaccines remain our best line of defence against the virus and to help us to live with Covid. This is the very reason why it is vital to make permanent or temporarily extend these provisions.

The provisions have already proved invaluable by enabling mass vaccination against both Covid-19 and flu to be done as quickly as possible while safeguarding patients and limiting disruption to other NHS services. Patient safety has to be at the heart of any vaccination programme, and it is at the forefront of these provisions.

To improve uptake in areas with low vaccination uptake we have used places of worship as vaccination centres, with many more acting as pop-up venues; provided £22.5 million to fund the community vaccine champions scheme, targeting the 60 local authorities with the lowest vaccine uptake and using local networks to promote accurate health advice; established an army of vaccine ambassadors, speaking 33 languages between them, promoting uptake across the country; and taken the vaccines into the hearts of local communities through initiatives such as vaccination buses and taxis. It is vital that we continue to protect and vaccinate those in our society who are hard to reach and it is really important that we continue to reduce health inequality in vaccine uptake. Making these provisions permanent will enable us to achieve this goal. Indeed, the National Audit Office’s recent report on the rollout of the vaccination programme in England highlighted the balance between central command and control structures and wider empowerment locally. It saw this as a success factor in achieving more than 139 million vaccinations in the 15 months since the programme began.

I turn to the second instrument before us today. We are committed to making sure that individuals suffering from life-threatening or serious debilitating conditions and facing unmet clinical need are able to access the therapies they need. The early access to medicines scheme is a vital tool in supporting such patients to receive innovative new medicines. EAMS, as it is commonly referred to, provides a route for patients to be prescribed medicines that either do not yet have a marketing authorisation or licence, or do not have a marketing authorisation for the medicine to be used for that particular illness. Since 2014, the scheme has benefited hundreds of patients across the country. In England alone, over 1,600 patients have received EAMS medicines since the scheme launched. Their lives have been transformed by the chance to receive vital therapeutics for conditions ranging from cancer to sickle cell disease or severe dermatitis. Putting the scheme on a statutory footing allows us to maximise the benefits it offers to patients, as well as supporting the early development of medicines by innovative manufacturers in the UK.

The provisions we are debating today will deliver three key benefits. First, they will reaffirm in legislation the importance of patient safety within the scheme, putting specific provisions on safety monitoring and risk management on a statutory footing. Secondly, they will reduce the regulatory burden on manufacturers supplying EAMS medicines, making the scheme more visible and easier to use. Thirdly, they will help ensure that information on the real-world use of EAMS medicines can be collected. This will help provide more evidence and more data that can support future decisions about patient access to novel medicines. To summarise, we have the opportunity before us to deliver greater access to safe medicines, as well as supporting the innovation of our life sciences industry for the benefits of patients.

I am bringing forward the first instruments using the powers in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, allowing us to use effective regulation to provide patients and the public with timely access to critical medicines and vaccines. The provisions in these instruments are incredibly important. They will be in force if mass vaccination campaigns against Covid-19 and flu are necessary again to protect the public and our freedoms. They will also ensure that patients with serious conditions and unmet clinical needs can be offered new, life-changing treatment options.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity of contributing to this debate. If I may, I shall say something about each of the two regulations we are looking at. Before I go down that path, I should declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Vulnerable Groups to Pandemics.

The first regulation is, in a sense, the product of success: we have made a great step forward in the vaccination programme. For the very first time, I tested positive for Covid 10 or 11 days ago—I am negative now, I promise—but it was not remotely worrying and had no serious impact on my health because I had had two vaccinations and a booster. The process in this country, not least the use of pop-up locations, has been rightly envied in many countries around the world. I got my second vaccination in Poets Corner in Westminster Abbey, a particularly pleasant experience.

The point is, however, that we have now arrived at a position where we are living with Covid, which is a tricky thing to do because the numbers of cases are not small. I was just one of them last week, and not in the least bit surprised when the Office for National Statistics said that there was an increasing number of cases because so many people who I knew of were going down with a case of it. Living with Covid is going to be tricky and I suspect we will, from time to time, find ourselves having to resort to a booster programme—perhaps not for everybody, but certainly among the most vulnerable.

The point I make to the Committee today is that, as we move into this very significant new phase of living with Covid, I do not want us to leave behind—or leave out—the small proportion of people who, by reason of being severely immunocompromised, cannot live with Covid. They cannot access or tolerate the vaccines, as they cannot produce the necessary antibodies. If we do nothing about that we will end up with a very small but significant number of people, maybe somewhere between 100,000 or 150,000, for whom the severity of their lack of immune system means that they literally cannot go out and expose themselves to Covid.

I have been asking questions of my noble friend the Minister and I fear there is a bit of confusion here. The Government are in the process of promoting clinical trials for post-exposure prophylaxis as treatments so that, if somebody has the symptoms of Covid, there are antiviral treatments available for them which have significant efficacy. But the trials are all on the basis that their symptoms are detected within three to five days; if they are not, there is a serious risk of severe harm, hospitalisation or even death for this small group of people.

The case I want to put is that the Government should, as other Governments are doing, look at the emergency-use authorisation of pre-exposure prophylaxis. In this instance, it is a drug with the brand name Evusheld. This is an AstraZeneca combination of monoclonal antibodies, the purpose of which is to give protection to people who are severely immunocompromised. I hope it will be apparent to noble Lords that there is the world of difference between pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylactic treatments. The difference is that a sense of confidence is created in the people to whom the pre-exposure prophylaxis has been provided, such that they too stand some chance of living with Covid and of no longer being subject to the isolation and shielding which has otherwise been their unfortunate experience now for two years.

In the data presently available, the efficacy of Evusheld results in an 83% reduced risk of symptomatic disease over a six-month period. That is a very good potential level of efficacy. If we do not do this in the position we are in, many of these people will not feel confident about leaving isolation and not being shielded. They will not rely on the assumption that they would get access to treatments within the time required.

I am hoping that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is just about to produce a positive, emergency-use authorisation assessment for Evusheld. If my noble friend has any information, that would be very welcome. While I entirely accept that the Government need to have that in place, why are they not negotiating with AstraZeneca to get access to it in a contract that depends, of course, on the availability of the authorisation?

Many countries are doing this. For example, the United States has ordered 1.7 million doses. The French have around 150,000, which is broadly comparable to us and the number we would expect to need; indeed, in France, they have administered 15,000 doses of Evusheld. I notice other countries entering into these contracts almost every day. On Friday, it was Switzerland. As we move into living with Covid, which these regulations support, can we have some confidence that we can supply Evusheld and pre-exposure prophylaxis for this very vulnerable group? That is my first point.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Lansley Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

61: Clause 21, page 29, line 14, leave out from “committee” to the end of line 20 and insert “(an “integrated care partnership”) for the board’s area.
(2) The integrated care partnership may be designated as the Health and Wellbeing Board where the area of the integrated care board and the responsible local authority are coterminous.(2A) If more than one Health and Wellbeing Board relates to the area of the integrated care board, the integrated care partnership may be designated as the Health and Wellbeing Boards of each responsible local authority acting in combination.(2B) The integrated care partnership must consist of—(a) one or more members appointed by the Health and Wellbeing Board or Boards,(b) members appointed by the integrated care board (equivalent in number to the number appointed by the Health and Wellbeing Board or Boards), and(c) such further members as are appointed by the integrated care partnership.”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 61, 95 and 96, which are all in my name, are to two separate issues. Amendment 61 relates to an issue we debated a number of times in Committee, when, if I may presume, there was a degree of support among noble Lords for the proposition that integrated care partnerships, in so far as they have to produce a strategy for a needs assessment for their area, have a very complementary—indeed, one might say overlapping—responsibility with health and well-being boards established in local authorities.

I will not go into the detail of how this works, and nor do I rest on the construction of Amendment 61. I freely acknowledge that this is a tricky thing to do. There will be circumstances where one ICS, one ICB or one ICP covers a lot of local authorities and others where it covers only one or two. In the latter case, it is pretty straightforward to integrate health and well-being boards and integrated care partnerships. In other cases, the membership and construction may be more complicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their support, and to my noble friend for responding. I have a couple of important things to say.

First, I was not suggesting these things. I was suggesting that the legislation should reflect what the Government’s intentions are, because the integration White Paper set them out. Secondly, my noble friend said very carefully that the health and well-being boards and integrated care partnerships can have the same membership, but that is not the same as them being the same organisation. I am looking for my noble friend to say, without fear of contradiction, that where they choose locally to do so—and I am perfectly happy for there to be flexibility—local authorities and the ICBs can create an integrated care partnership which serves the functions of the health and well-being boards and the integrated care partnership in one organisation. That is the question.

On Amendments 95 and 96, I take the Minister’s point. I looked at it and thought, yes, there’s no difficulty about the place boards being a committee of the integrated care boards, but the Government in their White Paper said that there should be a single person accountable for shared outcomes in each place. That place board would have functions delegated to it from the integrated care board and local authorities. For that to happen, I cannot understand why it is not necessary for that to be reflected in Clause 62, since the existing legislation makes no reference to place boards. Also, if the person who is accountable is the chief executive of the place board, we must assume that that will not necessarily be the chief executive of the integrated care board, yet as things stand in the legislation, the chief executive of the integrated care board will be the single accountable officer. How is the accountable officer to be the chief executive of the place board?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

69: Clause 26, page 37, line 24, leave out “objectives and”

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in my name relates to Clause 26. Noble Lords will recall that we had a rather helpful debate about this in Committee. The point is that the Care Quality Commission is an independent organisation. We want to respect that and see that carried through into its new responsibility of reviewing and inspecting the integrated care systems.

The Bill asks for “objectives and priorities” to be set by the Secretary of State. In another place, Members of the Commons inserted the idea that these priorities must include—as seen in proposed new Section 46B(3)—

“leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of service”.

That is fine; if they want that, let us leave it in, but I have no idea what “objectives” are in this context. Although I do not want to go down the path of semantics, for the Secretary of State to say what his or her priorities are is entirely reasonable and should be reflected in the indicators used by the CQC, but I am not sure that I know what “objectives” are in this context. Either my noble friend will explain to me what the objectives are, in which case the question of why they are not clarified further in the Bill arises, or let us leave them out—which is what most of these amendments do.

Regarding two of these amendments, it seems particularly undesirable for the Secretary of State—as in proposed new Section 46B(5) and (10)—to

“direct the Commission to revise the indicators”.

The indicators that the Care Quality Commission devises require the approval of the Secretary of State, so I am not sure why we should so trammel the independence of the CQC by enabling the Secretary of State to “direct” it to revise its indicators as opposed to denying approval, so I would rather that were not there.

Our noble friends on the Front Bench have been very accommodating; a spirit of compromise and understanding seems to have imbued the Front Bench splendidly so far. If the Minister is not minded to accept my amendments, I hope that she can at least give me some reassurance about the manner in which the Secretary of State’s powers are to be used or—in my view, this would be better—not used or extremely rarely used. I beg to move Amendment 69.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. I hope in the spirit of collaboration and compromise I am able to provide him with some further clarity and reassurance, even if I am not able to support his amendments.

Flourishing systems are critical to the success of integration and many of the proposals in the Bill. In that context it is right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, can set the overall strategic direction of reviews of integrated care systems through setting objectives and priorities for the CQC in relation to those assessments. However, it will be the CQC as the independent regulator and expert which will develop and carry out those reviews.

In Committee, noble Lords across this House raised several matters that these reviews should or could look at—from children to rare conditions—and it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to set objectives to explain the intent that lies behind high-level priorities such as leadership, integration quality and safety. These objectives will aid the CQC in its development of the review methodology and quality indicators and lay out where specific focuses should be given. The current clause allows the Secretary of State to make these distinctions and be more nuanced, just as is permitted for CQC reviews of local authority functions relating to adult social care set out in Clause 152. To remove the Secretary of State’s ability to set objectives is to remove nuance, which in turn could dilute the focus of these reviews on particular patient pathways or integration arrangements.

Furthermore, the Secretary of State must be able to ensure that the CQC’s role is complementary to other assessments, such as NHS England’s oversight of ICBs. This is achieved in part through the Secretary of State’s role in approving and directing to revise the indicators of quality, methods and approach. Removing the Secretary of State’s ability to direct the CQC to revise indicators risks the Secretary of State being locked in after approving the methodology. This could prevent the Government being able to respond to shifting developments in health and care, thus undermining the review’s relevance as time progresses.

I further reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we expect the power to direct to revise to be used infrequently, so as not to disrupt CQC reviews. The Government fully respect the independence of the CQC, and these powers are designed to ensure that its reviews of the integrated care systems are effective without undermining that independence.

It is for these reasons that I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment and not move his further amendments when they are reached.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend and for the support of noble Lords for the concept. I hope the CQC will find that this assists it in ensuring that it remains independent in how it goes about its job, and, indeed, how it derives indicators of quality and fitness for purpose. I take my noble friend’s point about what objectives might be. They might be, for example, objectives of the nature of the service that the review should cover so the Government might have some national priorities. I think the word “priorities” would have been sufficient.

I confess to my noble friend that I did not understand why the Secretary of State might come in and direct the CQC to change its indicators. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to have waited and seen what the CQC said. The CQC will clearly change its indicators from time to time as technologies and services adapt, and it could have been trusted to do it. I will not press the point and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 69.

Amendment 69 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support this group of amendments and to declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal College of Nursing. It is absolutely clear to me that, without the right staff in the right place, you cannot give the right care. This is the situation we are in at the moment, and we must get it right for the future. We are on an improvement trajectory, and there is an increase in the number of nurses employed in the NHS. However, this is not universal across all areas of the NHS, particularly in learning disability and mental health.

If we could get the Government to support Amendment 80, we could resolve the issue through guidance. On Amendment 81, I also speak for my noble friend Lord Patel, who unfortunately cannot be here today and who believes that an elegant solution as described by my noble friend Baroness Finlay, in terms of guidance subsuming Amendment 82 in particular, would enable directors of nursing, medicine and care to be responsible for ensuring that they have a safe staffing structure in the areas for which they commission care. That would be reported up every two years through the Secretary of State, rather than every five years, as indicated in Amendment 82. This would be a much more suitable solution.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will intervene. I was not intending to speak but I was prompted by a recollection arising from the reference to anaesthetists by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I recall that the Centre for Workforce Intelligence produced in February 2015 a report on the future supply and demand of anaesthetists and the intensive care medicine workforce. I have just checked the report, and it projects for 2033 that the number of full-time equivalent staff required will be 11,800, and supply will be 8,000. Therefore, in February 2015, we knew of this set of projections produced by the CWI. It said, among other things, that there should be

“a further review in the next two to three years.”

However, the CWI was abolished in 2016 and its functions were restored, I think, to the Department of Health.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, did not refer to this directly, but we must bear in mind the general presumption that there has never been workforce planning, although in certain respects, there has. The report on anaesthetists is only one of a whole string of reports—I could list them, but I do not need to—produced by the Centre for Workforce Intelligence before it was abolished. Their main purpose was to say to Health Education England, “This is the level of education and training commissioning you should be undertaking in the years ahead”. As the noble Lord said in Committee, it did produce a set of proposals; it is just that they were not acted upon.

I just say this: legislation may be the right way to proceed now, but let us not lose sight of what is actually required, which is for Health Education England not to have its budget cut, as happened in 2016, but to have its budget increased and for that budget to be turned into an education and training commissioning programme that delivers the numbers of trained professionals in this country that we project we will need. It is no good saying, “Oh, we’ve never had planning; we passed a piece of legislation.” I am sorry, it could be a case of legislate and forget unless the money is provided and the commissioning happens. There have been organisations whose job it was to do it—Health Education England, the Centre for Workforce Intelligence—but they were not supported, and in one case, abolished.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. On Amendment 111, I want to emphasise two points. First, GPs are and have always been the gatekeepers to the NHS. Without GPs, there is less primary care and less access to the NHS. Over 90% of patients access the NHS through their GPs and primary care. If you are unlucky enough to live in an area with a serious shortage of GPs, your access to NHS services is highly likely to be diminished and your health put at greater risk.

My second point is that it follows that a shortage of GPs is also likely to contribute to health inequalities, a topic much discussed during the passage of the Bill. In addition, this is likely to mean that you live in a place which the Government say they want to level up. So, if the Minister accepts the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he will be helping to deliver two government objectives: reducing health inequalities and levelling up. What’s not to like? Who knows—he might even get a promotion out of it.

I turn briefly to Amendment 80, which I support and will vote for if the noble Baroness pushes it to a vote. I want, however, to emphasise two points that follow on a great deal from what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. For too long the NHS has relied on buttressing its inadequate system for training home-grown staff by recruiting from abroad. Brexit and tighter immigration policies have significantly reduced this supply line. It will take long-term planning and consistency of purpose over many years to rectify the health and care workforce supply problems.

My second and last related point on workforce is that the track record of the Department of Health on long-term planning is appalling. It is not just me saying that; it was made absolutely clear in the report by this House’s Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who unfortunately, as we all know, is laid low by Covid. Those who support Amendment 80 should hear the arguments in the debate on Amendment 112, which would support its implementation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, thought that something more elaborate than Amendment 80 was required. That may be the case, particularly for social care, but Amendments 80 and 112 complement each other. They are not rivals or alternatives; they put in place a structure thoroughly independent of government and which requires the Government then to pay attention to what has been independently provided.