Health and Care Bill

Lord Patel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 311 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. The heart of the complaint which has prompted the amendment is that the Bill fails to provide a proper balance between the role of the HSSIB and the role and standing of the PHSO, and it fails to recognise and provide for the PHSO to be treated as part of the HSSIB’s safe space under the Bill.

The Bill’s prohibition on disclosure by the HSSIB to the PHSO of material obtained by the HSSIB in connection with its investigation of incidents that may have implications for patient safety impedes the statutory functions of the PHSO, diminishes the standing of the PHSO, is contrary to the independent, non-judicial constitutional role of the PHSO, and is contrary to the UK’s obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and the United Nations regarding ombudsmen.

The PHSO in his role—and it is a “he” at the moment —as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration acts pursuant to the statutory framework in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967; and, as the Health Service Ombudsman, he acts pursuant to the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993. Under those statutes, his role is to investigate complaints by members of the public who claim to have suffered maladministration or to have sustained injustice or hardship in the delivery of a health service.

The legislation which I have just mentioned effectively gives the PHSO unrestricted access to evidence and other information in order to carry out his investigations fully and effectively. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said and as is obvious, there will often be an overlap between the work of the PHSO and that of the HSSIB both in respect of particular incidents and in relation to general inadequacies in practice and procedure—reference has been made to eating disorders and learning disabilities. There are very limited exceptions under the Bill for disclosure by the HSSIB of protected material to third parties. These do not include routine disclosure of evidence and information which is relevant to investigations by the PHSO, who will be able to obtain such material only if he obtains an order from the High Court. This is so even if both the PHSO and HSSIB are investigating the same incident and even if the PHSO in his capacity as parliamentary commissioner is investigating a complaint by a person of maladministration on the part of the HSSIB itself. This simply does not make any sense.

Notwithstanding the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, it seems that the restriction on disclosure is based on a misunderstanding about the confidentiality of material held by the PHSO and about the safe space in which he currently operates. The legislation governing the PHSO provides that he must conduct his investigations “in private”. Subject to limited exceptions, the PHSO is not permitted to disclose to third parties information obtained in the course of an investigation. Disclosure cannot be made by the PHSO in any circumstances where that would be contrary to the public interest. Information obtained by the PHSO is also subject to absolute exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. No persons are identified in the PHSO’s reports, and names are anonymised. Mirroring the safe space provisions in the Bill for HSSIB investigations, reports of the PHSO do not apportion blame to individuals, and do not assess or determine civil or criminal liability or whether disciplinary action needs to be taken.

Furthermore and critically, the terms of the proposed amendment would impose a complete legal block, prohibiting the disclosure to a third party of any protected material disclosed to the PHSO by the HSSIB except by order of the High Court, and then only for certain very limited purposes. The effect of the existing statutory provisions and the conditions in the amendment prohibiting disclosure to third parties mean that the PHSO and the HSSIB fall legally and naturally within the same safe space.

As presently worded, this will be the first occasion on which the PHSO’s access to information will have been curtailed. At the same time, in extending the right of disclosure of the HSSIB’s protected material to coroners, the Bill discloses an incomprehensible inconsistency, since not only are inquests increasingly adversarial, as has been noted by a number of speakers, but such disclosure is not allowed by the PHSO under the PHSO’s governing legislation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said, ombudsmen are internationally regarded as having a constitutional role in addressing the imbalance of power between the individual and the providers of public services, and in their autonomy and independence from the executive and judicial branches of government. That constitutional role is enshrined in the Venice principles adopted in 2019 by the Council of Europe and by the UN’s General Assembly in 2020. A written opinion of the Venice Commission, published in October 2021, concluded that the exclusion of the PHSO from the safe space created by the Bill, and denying the PHSO to full access to the HSSIB’s protected material, would be contrary to the Venice principles. It would therefore place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. The amendment is, for all those reasons, both necessary and desirable.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief, and to cover the points about the exercise of a patient safety investigation and learning from it, which is the important part. My name is on amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I listened carefully to my noble friend Lady Neuberger and my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton. I could not argue with him on constitutional matters; I would not even try to. But I can say this: after nearly five years of experience as chairman of the National Patient Safety Agency, which carried out such investigations—it was an arm’s-length body rather than a statutory one—the purpose of the exercise is to use an index case, where an event may have led to harm to a patient, to learn if there was a systems failure. If an event happened in one hospital, the chances were that it was also happening in other hospitals. The aim was to do an in-depth, root-cause analysis to get the necessary evidence in detail, and to find out where the systems failure might be occurring. I can give you several examples of what happens and how it can be corrected.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and with my noble friends that the coroners should not be able to invade the safe space and access the protected material. If I was asked to choose between the coroner and the PHSO, I would choose the PHSO, because of the less adversarial way of dealing with matters.

There are two problems in the legislation. One is compulsion: as a doctor, I will be compelled to give the evidence and the information required by the HSSIB to investigate a case and to find out where the systems failure might be. That compulsion comes with a protection—that the information I give will be completely protected from being used by anybody else against me or in any other legal procedures that may arise. That will give the health professionals or anybody else the confidence required that there is openness, honesty and transparency, because the purpose is to have as much information as necessary to find the systems failure that may occur.

If you look at the list of the 22 investigations carried out by the HSIB so far, you will find that they tend to be generic. I could read out the list, but I will not. They are not about individual investigations. I take the point that the PHSO’s role is to protect against harm done to an individual but also to deal with the system failures that may occur—I get that. My plea would be that to make the HSSIB a success, the principle of protecting the information given in confidence is a key part of the whole process. If that confidence is destroyed in any way at all, the whole exercise will not work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is regrettable that we are dealing with the very important Clauses 88 and 89 at this time of night—and obviously it is regrettable that the House has to have me as a poor substitute for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

These amendments relate to the abolition of the Health and Social Care Information Centre and the implications for the integrity of patient data. Clauses 88 and 89 give the Secretary of State powers through regulations to transfer a function from one relevant body to another, and the relevant bodies are defined as Health Education England, the Health and Social Care Information Centre, the Health Research Authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Tissue Authority and NHS England. Other than NHS England, each of those bodies can be abolished under the clause as the result of a transfer of functions.

Amendment 227 to Clause 88 refers to the abolition of the Health and Social Care Information Centre. The Government have announced that they will be using the powers in that clause to merge NHS Digital to form part of the new transformation directorate within NHSE, and of course we have seen that NHSX has now been abolished and the relevant personnel have moved into the transformation directorate. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is an executive non-departmental public body created by statute, usually known by the term “NHS Digital”. This amendment, which would prevent that from happening to the HSCIC, is designed to ensure that NHS Digital continues as an entity to safeguard patient data. The merger of NHS Digital with NHSE risks losing the skills and experience that currently sit within NHS Digital. I have mentioned that NHSX has ceased to exist.

There are two risks for patients. One is that important knowledge and skills will be lost as talented people leave the organisation and time is devoted to the nuts and bolts of making the organisation function rather than on achieving its aims. The other is that the new merged organisation will just be too big and unwieldy to respond in an agile way to major challenges such as workforce planning and digital innovation. If NHSE leaders understand how important these challenges are then they will be able to prioritise them and make them part of the organisation’s core function.

I turn to the functions of the statutory safe havens in relation to Clause 89. Part 9 in Chapter 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 lays out the functions and obligations of what is described as the statutory safe haven for patient data from across the health and social care system required for the production of national statistics and for commissioning, regulatory and research purposes, in addition to supporting patient care. Amendment 228 seeks to keep these statutory protections in place and ensure that NHS England does not take on that responsibility, because of a potential conflict of interest in its role.

The bottom line is that we need to retain NHS Digital’s statutory safe haven functions separate from NHS England. As the BMA has said, it is of the utmost importance to retain a quasi-autonomous body for the purposes of collecting, storing and distributing sensitive patient data—something that would be lost under a merger of NHSD and NHSE.

There is one other major advantage of keeping NHS Digital as the digital safe haven. The statutory safe haven’s legal name is the Health and Social Care Information Centre, so there is some obligation to social care. NHSD has always given some thought to integration, even when there was very little on the social care side to integrate with, and little interest from NHSE in doing that work itself. If it all gets merged into NHSE then how will the obligation to collect social care data continue to exist, since NHSE’s responsibility is to the NHS? If this transfer of functions takes place, who will be responsible for the national collection of social care data? Each bit of the social care world will see NHSE as a different entity from NHS Digital. What are the Government’s joining-up plans in respect of the future governance of this kind of data? I beg to move.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 229 and 230. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for adding their names to them. The House of Lords Constitution Committee report on the Bill raises serious concerns about the range of Secretary of State powers in the Bill and concludes that these new powers, coupled with new powers for the Secretary of State of oversight, delegation and transfer of function,

“could alter the balance between the Government’s constitutional responsibility for the provision of health care and providers’ ability to function in a manner that can respond effectively to local needs. It also risks undermining accountability by making it more difficult to understand which body is responsible for a particular function of the NHS.”

That is a claim that we must take seriously.

All the amendments in the group are important but, as has already been said, the hour is late and we need to rush so we cannot discuss them fully.

As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State would have the power to confer, abolish or change the function of a list of bodies that includes NHS England, Health Education England and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to name but a few. One safeguard included in the Bill in relation to NHS England is that the Secretary of State would stop short of changes that would make NHS England redundant—but “redundant” is not defined. However, nothing on the face of the Bill sets out how high or low that bar would be set.

I recognise the logic of the Secretary of State having powers to confer responsibilities on arm’s-length bodies via secondary legislation. However, these new powers are far more extensive than that, and there is a real danger that their application could threaten the operational independence of key parts of the NHS. The Secretary of State should not have the power to abolish a body such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, or to transfer the majority of its powers. Health Education England and the Health Research Authority were established through the Care Act 2014. If the Secretary of State believes that any of these bodies should be abolished or have functions removed, Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and understand why he desires to take that action, hence my amendment to reduce the scope of these powers and remove the Secretary of State’s powers.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, after consultation with the clerks and for the convenience of the Committee, I have moved my Amendment 318 into this group. Before I speak to it, I say that, as a person who has culled a few quangos in his time, I think that the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Patel, are important. Even I never had the nerve to actually abolish bodies set up by Parliament just because I thought that it would be a good idea. That seems to be the approach taken in some parts of this legislation. It is worth bearing in mind a point made already: that attracting skilled professional staff to many of these bodies would be much more difficult if they were in an omnibus body such as NHS England. Many high-quality professionals would not want to work in that environment.

The purpose of Amendment 318 is simple: to delay implementation of Parts 1 and 3 of the Bill until the Government have reduced substantially the huge backlog of patients awaiting NHS diagnosis and treatment. The amendment is based on the proposition that, however meritorious the NHS reorganisation that the Government propose is, implementing it when they have told the NHS that their top priority is reducing the backlog seems a considerable risk. As a former Health Minister, I regard this as highly ill-advised and not in the best interests of patients. Let me briefly set out the arguments.

In its report of 1 December, the NAO made clear the unprecedented scale of the backlog that the Government have finally faced up to. It has taken over two months for the Government to come to Parliament, which they did yesterday, to acknowledge the true scale of the backlog. Some 6 million patients are now known to be on the NHS waiting list; 300,000 of those have waited for over a year, and 18,000 for over two years. But the NHS data tells only part of the backlog story, as the NAO pointed out over two months ago. We know that 10 million patients have not come forward during the pandemic. The Health Secretary has acknowledged that it is unclear

“whether it will be 30% or 80%”

of this 10 million who come forward. We do not know how many of these people will request treatment. The Health Secretary said:

“Even if half of these people come forward, this is going to place huge demand on the NHS”.— [Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 805.]


The Institute for Fiscal Studies forecast

“a likely peak of between 8 and 11 million”

people on NHS waiting lists.

What will the new NHS plan do to deal with this? It says that the waiting lists should start to fall “around March 2024”. But that assurance is without knowing the true size of the waiting list, as the Secretary of State acknowledges. The Treasury—the good guys in all of this—wanted more ambitious NHS targets. Instead, the NHS has been allowed to retain a March 2025 deadline for dealing with the 300,000 patients waiting more than a year for treatment. This is the situation in which the Government are trying to introduce a major reorganisation of the NHS, and that is why I have put forward this amendment, which would defer implementation of Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill.

The Government, approved by Parliament, will be asking NHS staff to be pre-occupied with implementing the changes made in this Bill, while often changing jobs as new integrated care bodies and partnerships are established and made to work. The Government are asking them to do this at the same time as they are working to reduce this huge, unprecedented backlog of patients needing diagnosis and treatment.

When he took office, the current Health Secretary’s instinct was to scrap the Bill, and when it began its passage through Parliament the actual scale of the backlog was not known. The Health Secretary needs to return to his initial instinct, which was very sound, and postpone its passage. If he does not, he will be putting many NHS patients at unnecessary risk. I suspect the Minister will tell us that in many areas the boards and partnerships are ready to go. If he does, I would be interested to have a list of those areas, to save a parliamentary Question. If that is the Government’s position, I would be interested to know why the NHS has been allowed to do this before the Bill has been approved by Parliament and the expenditure authorised. Despite the dubious legality of implementing before Royal Assent the changes made in this Bill, Amendment 318 avoids unscrambling what I might call illicit reorganisations.

It is the job of this House to get the Commons to think again. That is what this amendment does. It does not wreck the Bill; it simply defers implementation until the NHS has the huge backlog of treatment under better control. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I originally had an amendment down to criminalise hymenoplasty in this Bill, but I have been pleased to withdraw that and put my name to the government amendment instead.

I asked a question on banning hymenoplasty of my noble friend Lord Kamall back in October. He gave me his word that he would push this as much as possible to make sure that we ban both virginity testing and hymenoplasty. He has kept to his word, and I am very grateful to him.

It is late in the evening—well, early in the morning—but I want very briefly to give your Lordships a first-hand account of why this is such an important amendment. Hafsah—which is not her real name—was raped as a child. Afterwards, her parents became obsessed with the idea of presenting her as “pure” on her wedding night, and her father told her that surgery would “fix her shame”. This surgery is widely available on Harley Street and in private clinics at a cost of around £2,000. In support of this amendment, Hafsah said:

“If hymenoplasty had been illegal when I was a teenager, it would have saved me a lot of emotional abuse. I’m sure it will be a great comfort to vulnerable girls in a similar position to know that the law is on their side. It should give them the strength to stand up for themselves.”


This ban on both virginity testing and hymenoplasty will be a substantial step forward in tackling the damaging myths and stigmas about virginity. Neither procedure has any medical benefit. Both are harmful practices that create and exacerbate social, cultural and political beliefs that attach a false value to women and girls in relation to whether they have a sexual history.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for explaining the work that the Government will do on education in community and clinical settings. I hope that they will also ensure that they implement the other recommendations of the expert panel on hymenoplasty and sustainably fund the specialist organisations that support women and girls at risk of honour-based abuse.

Finally, there have been many campaigners involved over a number of years to bring about this change in the law: IKWRO, Karma Nirvana, MEWSo, Nimco Ali, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, Garden Court Chambers, Richard Holden MP, all those on the expert panel, and many others. I pay tribute to their hard work, tenacity, perseverance and patience. It has been my privilege to speak on their behalf in this place. This amendment will make a difference to the lives of many women and girls, and it has my full support.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for so tenaciously making sure that this important amendment is passed. In my view, this is some of the most important legislation in the Bill. As the noble Baroness said, it will save a lot of young girls and women from a lot of pain and hardship. I was pleased to add my name to the amendment.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly in view of the early hour, I wish to join others in welcoming this amendment and thanking the Minister for taking notice of what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, chair of All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, has done with other actors.

I want to make two points. First, the people who have brought the work to this point recognise that this practice, although rare, happens disproportionately within particular cultural and religious groups. I therefore ask the Minister whether the religious element of this will feature in the materials that are to be prepared.

Secondly, will FCDO staff learn lessons from the forced marriage legislation on how we spot young girls who are particularly vulnerable to this and particularly at risk of being taken abroad? Can I make the assumption that, were any medical practitioner registered in the United Kingdom to be found performing these operations abroad, they would still be dealt with by the medical authorities in this country when that came to light?