Health and Care Bill

Lord Warner Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Warner]

225ZA: After Clause 80, insert the following new Clause—
“Regard to the reports of the Office for Health and Care Sustainability
The Secretary of State, in discharging his or her responsibilities under Part 1 of this Act, must have regard to the reports of the Office for Health and Care Sustainability established under section (Office for Health and Care Sustainability).”

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 225ZA and will also speak to Amendment 285. I thank the clerks for their help in devising Amendment 225ZA, which enables us to discuss Amendment 285, which I regard as important, today. Amendment 285 is the substantive amendment I shall address.

The amendment is important because it places in legislation recommendations from the 2017 report by this House’s Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care. I am delighted to see two members of that Select Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Scriven, here this evening. Unfortunately, the Select Committee’s chairman, my noble friend Lord Patel, who did an extremely good job, is unable to be here, but I believe he will join my noble friend Lord Kakkar to discuss a less detailed amendment, Amendment 286, which tries to achieve the same objectives as Amendment 285. For the record, the two Select Committee recommendations which are germane to this amendment are recommendations 33 and 34, found on page 98 of our report. In the interests of time, I will not spell these out, because they are effectively set out in Amendment 285, but I will draw the Committee’s attention to some of the evidence which caused us to make these recommendations.

On page 84 of the report there is a section on:

“A culture of short-termism”.


This starts at paragraph 322 with the sentence:

“Our inquiry uncovered endemic short-termism in almost every area of policy making.”


We made it clear on that occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens—then plain Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England—was “the most notable exception” with his Five Year Forward View.

The committee was very concerned about the approach of what was then the Department of Health, particularly the evidence given to it by its Permanent Secretary, now Sir Chris Wormald, who remains in post today. I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 324 of our report, which sets out what the Select Committee made of the Permanent Secretary’s evidence:

“Although we questioned him at length on the work taking place in his department on the long-term future of the NHS, revealingly, we were not provided with any concrete examples. Moreover, he questioned whether this was work that should even be taking place in his department”.


We concluded at the end of paragraph 324:

“We were unconvinced by the answers he provided and we are left with no choice but to conclude that the Department of Health is failing to plan for the future”.


I have been in this place for 22 years. This was a pretty damning conclusion for a cross-party committee of this House to come to. The Permanent Secretary of the government department with the biggest budget after cash benefits, and which would be spent on the biggest public or private workforce in the country, was saying that it was not the department’s job to do long-term planning. This seemed to have been left to NHS England’s chief executive, who had been given no responsibility for securing the workforce he needed or settling the pay and conditions of service for that workforce—matters determined by the government department, whose boss thought it was not his job to do any long-term planning. The Select Committee was rather stunned by this view of what the job of a government department was.

Is it any surprise that your Lordships’ Select Committee made the recommendations it did? I see no evidence that much has changed for the better since the Select Committee’s report. When the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, spoke in the debate on the amendment on the workforce tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, he seemed to confirm, if one looks back at Hansard, that this was the case, with his account of endless delays before any kind of workforce future plan saw the light of day.

The workforce amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has much to commend it, as I said when we debated it. It is certainly a big improvement on the current situation and puts statutory pressure on the Secretary of State to produce regular workforce plans. My worry is that the plan that that amendment would produce may not be long term enough or closely tied to funding streams. Moreover, any planning done under the noble Baroness’s amendment would still be subject to Whitehall negotiation and Treasury and No. 10 interference if it had data or messages that were politically uncomfortable at the time of publication. I had serious doubts about the wisdom of leaving health and care workforce planning totally in the hands of elected politicians and their civil servants. I say that having been a senior civil servant and a Minister.

Two recent stories in the Times have reinforced my view. When we discussed my Amendment 72 on 24 January, I raised the matter of the front page headline in the Times of 18 January: “Javid plans NHS revolution modelled on academy schools”. I thought this was odd, given that we have not completed the legislation on this NHS reorganisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, did not totally reassure me when she said in response:

“No further plans have been agreed.”—[Official Report, 24/1/22; col. 37.]


I therefore assumed something odd was going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, that is pretty much what I expected from the Government Front Bench, so no surprises there.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of Amendment 285. I also support Amendment 281, though I did not mention that in my opening remarks. I want the Government to reflect on the fact that, when the person who had been Secretary of State—for what was then health only—for five or six years was released from office, and what I might call the adrenaline of office had calmed down a bit, he was able to give a pretty lengthy interview in the Times in which he effectively said, “I should have accepted that recommendation”. He explained that it was an amendment which would keep Governments honest—those were his words, not mine. This was someone who had been through the mill, had seen it all, had had to deal with these issues and had had a damascene conversion when he had left office. It is a bit like when Permanent Secretaries suddenly become supporters of freedom of information legislation after they have collected their pension.

We cannot ignore the fact that a person who actually did the job saw benefit in having this kind of body. If the Government are resting their case for long-term planning on Health Education England, I am more than ever reinforced by this amendment, having listened to my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham telling us what went on in the workforce planning that he had experience of. It is a pretty unusual situation to be running a big organisation in which two-thirds of the budget is spent on staffing and workforce issues, where the guy or gal in charge of it is not actually responsible for the long-term planning of the workforce. That is an extraordinary system that Stuart Rose—the noble Lord, Lord Rose of Monewden—and others have found very difficult to understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a rather strange grouping. In the earlier debates we were dancing at times on the heads of pins, and now we have the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, with her proposals for a lower cap, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—with whom I agree—largely exempting people of working age with a disability, and it is difficult to cover the whole field. However, I will attempt to give a small synopsis leading up to my own amendment, which is about the taper.

I first declare an interest as an unremunerated president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers—the people who really know a lot about this stuff. I should also apologise for not having participated in the Second Reading debate but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I was in a crucial meeting of our House’s Communications Committee, which made doing so impossible.

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I am a strong supporter of the cap as recommended by Andrew Dilnot, for the obvious reason that it ends an unfairness to people who happen to live for a long time and therefore lose their assets. Unfortunately, in 54 minutes’ time I shall go back to the way I am on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, which is to be broadly opposed to a cap of the kind that has been proposed. That is for two reasons. First, all parties should take into account that it is wildly expensive—some £3 billion, which will rise as the number of old people rises. I would much rather that that money was spent on better care for those who need it than on paying for the rich. Do not be in any doubt: whatever gloss is put on it, half the people in care are paid for by the state now, so all the expenditure on the Dilnot cap will go on the other half. A lot of them are not rich people—some of them are quite modestly wealthy—but it is the richer half of the population that this cap supports. As a socialist, that is why I cannot go along with it—at least on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. It is not too long until next Sunday, when the good Lord will advise me on what final position to take.

Starting from that scepticism about the concept of a cap, I will say one thing about Dilnot’s proposals. Whatever you think, whether you are for it or against it, the case for the cap is much less strong than it was when Andrew Dilnot proposed it in his brilliant report, and for three reasons. First, no one now has to sell their house to pay for care. They did then but they do not now: they can borrow the money from the local authority and pay it back afterwards. Secondly, house prices have risen by 30%, so many people have more assets they could spend on their own care without leaving themselves with no assets to leave to their children. Thirdly—an important point which has been wholly missed so far in the debate—the private sector, belatedly but slowly, has started to get its act together about this. There are two relevant products: equity release, which enables somebody to get some money out of their house to pay for their care without selling the house, leaving plenty for the children; and, more importantly, annuities and deferred annuities, which are paid from the point of care in the case of an annuity, or after you have been in care for two years or so in the case of a deferred annuity. I was amazed to read through the impact assessment, which went through every possible argument on caps and alternatives to them, and not see a single reference to deferred annuities. They are part of a holistic solution.

I ask the Minister in all sincerity—I know he is very open to suggestions—that, before this Bill completes its passage and, preferably, before we have decided whether to leave Clause 140 as part of the Bill, we look at the role that the private sector can play in supplementing a cap, for example in allowing people to pay for better care for themselves, or indeed possibly replacing it with a less regressive way of paying for care. It should be looked at; it has been ignored since Dilnot, and the case that Dilnot then made against it is not quite the same today, so it really deserves to be looked at.

Finally, on my own amendment on the taper, I am very distribution-minded about this cap. What motivates me is that I hate taking scarce state money, which is needed to provide decent services for people who cannot provide decent services for themselves, and spending it on a subsidy for “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. This seems wrong to me. I would love to see the welfare state expand. I am rather shocked to find a Conservative Government seeking to expand it in order to help the better-off at the cost of much more public spending. The better-off should be able to look after themselves.

If we are to have a cap, we should make it as good in terms of redistribution as we can, with less favouring of the rich than is the case with the present cap. That is why I brought in another thing that has not been mentioned in the debate: the taper. At the moment, the taper does not matter much; it applies in only a very narrow band of incomes. However, under this system, the taper will apply to assets of between £20,000 and £100,000. For every £250 you have in the bank, you lose £1 a week in benefits. That will hit the people who have between £20,000 and £100,000 in assets. They are not rich; they are the kind of people I want to help, but they are being struck by this taper.

Of course, addressing this will cost money, and I am reluctant about that. For every £50 you put on the £250 for the taper, it would be about £200 million a year; it is not nothing, but it is less than the £1 billion or so that would be lost if Clause 140 does not stand part of the Bill. If the Government want to show that they are interested in redistribution, as well as pleasing their richer supporters, I ask them to look at the taper as an alternative. I saw the vote in the Commons: Clause 140 is down the pan. It is not going to win. If he takes it back to the other place, he will be voted down, so it is not going to happen. Therefore, we all, particularly in your Lordships’ House, need to use our imagination to find alternatives to the proposal that the Government have put forward. That proposal will not pass this Parliament in its present form and in its entirety. Working with the Minister, we need to find a better proposal that meets the various considerations I have put forward and, in particular, uses the private sector and does not protect the assets of just the rich.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, a little belatedly, noble Lords might like to hear from one-third of the Dilnot Commission; I declare my interest as that third. I have to say that our ideas have been presented in a whole variety of ways over the last 10 years. This evening, they have been presented fairly accurately, which is refreshing.

--- Later in debate ---

I shall briefly touch on some of the other amendments. Amendments 233 and 234 work in conjunction to require the Secretary of State to specify in regulations that people entering care under 40 will not face personal care costs in their lifetime. There have been previous iterations of the policy, including different caps for different ages, but we did not feature them because they were considered unfair. For example, someone entering care the day before their 40th birthday would benefit from a personal care cost cap of zero and free personal care for their lifetime, but a person entering care after their 40th birthday would not benefit from the same free personal care by a two-day margin. We considered that a cliff edge of that magnitude would be unfair. I have also heard—

[Lord Warner (CB)]

The proposition in relation to the age of 40 was in the report; it has been around for 10 years. It is a bit late in the day to be coming forward with the suggestion that it was an inadequate proposition from the Dilnot commission. Ten years is a long time to discover truth.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Perhaps I may move on to Amendment 235, on setting the cap based on the recommendations of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support and moving the implementation date by a year. For local authorities to make a change of this magnitude this year is undeliverable. They have told us that the original plan to implement for October 2023 is already an ambitious target.

Setting the level of the cap has been a fine balance. The Government have had to consider the longer-term cost of reform and what proportion of the future levy revenues to earmark for this purpose and other purposes. Retrospectively to impose a cap on care costs for everyone in the care system and to include their care costs during their lifetimes in the cap calculation is unfeasible.

I would like to have some further conversations with the noble Lord on Amendment 236A, if that is possible. I thank him for some of his suggestions to date. There is a real debate about how feasible a private solution is. I remember in an earlier debate the noble Lord rightly chastising me and saying that it was rather embarrassing for a Labour Peer to propose to a Conservative Peer a private sector solution. That hurt—but I completely understand. If it is possible, I personally would have been open to it, but the Government maintain that it is not feasible. We will probably need some more discussions.

This clause clearly needs a lot more discussion between now and Report. I could go into more arguments but, given that there was a lack of debate in the other place, I think that it needs more debate and more consideration overall. I am very happy to have more round tables with the Bill team, the charging team and noble Lords to explain the case, and for noble Lords to decide whether it is an acceptable case or still to disagree with it. With that in mind, I hope that noble Lords feel sufficiently reassured not to press their amendments at this stage and to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 289. It is worth remembering that the NHS used to have convalescent beds—I went to one as a boy, recovering from peritonitis. These have disappeared over time. When in the 1980s and 1990s nursing homes were set up in increasing numbers across this country, we found that they ended up on the means-tested side of the boundary between health and adult social care. In a way, the NHS lost out because these resources were on another side of the boundary, which was defended with jesuitical force to make sure that people did not drift into the NHS who might get care that was not means tested but free. We have ended up shooting ourselves quite badly in the foot by allowing these services to drift out of the NHS and into the adult social care system.

Shortly after the 2010 election, I facilitated a proposal from a few large nursing home groups to take recovering patients from hospital to free up acute hospital beds. This was rejected by the Treasury which thought it would lead to large numbers of people who were being means-tested getting free NHS care. In fact, they were two separate groups and the NHS was punishing itself by keeping people in beds in the NHS at high cost. We know that about 25% of the people who are in acute hospital beds should not be there—they need not be there clinically—but they are holding on to those beds because there is nowhere else for them to go within the NHS system. We have ended up unnecessarily blocking beds and spending a lot more money because we cannot put in place a service that the NHS badly needs. I suggest to the Minister that we revisit this issue in the interests of the NHS and its patients.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the debate this evening and for the amendments put forward, which have focused on what I would call a complete continuum of care and support where people need it most; my thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for leading the debate. What we hear tonight is the need to drive up standards and availability in what can be accessed for reablement and rehabilitation.

As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reminds me, I fear that, over time, we have perhaps lost a broader range of provision, and the word “convalescence” has somewhat left our vocabulary. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to ensure that accommodation is available to people who are in rehabilitation—people who no longer need to be in a hospital ward but cannot return to their own home—is creative and practical. I hope that the Minister will look at exploring that idea.