Health and Care Bill

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Health and Care Bill allows for

“a profession currently regulated to be removed from statutory regulation when the profession no longer requires regulation for the purpose of the protection of the public.”

Labour voted against the relevant clause in Committee, but we were defeated by the Government. I therefore tabled amendment 57, which would remove clause 127 from the Bill and ensure that a profession currently regulated cannot be removed from statutory regulation, and that statutory regulatory bodies cannot be abolished. I am grateful that the amendment received cross-party support.

The removal of a profession from regulation is deeply concerning because, once a profession is deregulated, we can expect the level of expertise in that field to decline over time, and along with that the status and pay of those carrying out those important roles. It also brings with it serious long-term implications for the health and safety of patients. In the White Paper that preceded the Bill, the Government stated:

“This is not about deregulation—we expect the vast majority of professionals such as doctors, nurses, dentists and paramedics will always be subject to statutory regulation. But this recognises that over time and with changing technology the risk profile of a given profession may change and while regulation may be necessary now to protect the public, this may not be the case in the future.”

It is notable that the Government only “expect” that the vast majority of professionals will be subject to statutory regulation, but they give no guarantee. The fact is, if the Bill passes, Ministers will be able change their mind at any point and make changes through secondary legislation.

The Government appear to be arguing that technological advances may change roles to such a degree that the high level of professional expertise that currently serves the NHS will no longer be needed. I will make two points about that. First, if the work of an NHS profession has changed to such a degree that regulation is no longer needed, I would argue that it is a different profession and needs a new job title. Secondly, when deploying new technology, there is always a need for professional staff with a high level of expertise and understanding of not only the functionality of that new technology, but its shortcomings. Technology has the power to improve productivity, but it should not be used as an excuse to deregulate professions.

It is important to consider where the impetus for that proposal may be coming from. The recent lobbying scandal certainly gives us a clue when we consider the number of MPs on the Government Benches with private interests in medical technology—I do not want to elaborate on that today, but to make the point. Certainly, big business is keen on deregulation, because it allows them to pay lower salaries to staff.

During a seminar on wellbeing, development, retention, and delivering the NHS people plan and a workforce fit for the future, a representative of Virgin Care said:

“We should have flexible working for all. We should consider what that means. We should embrace what that means. Both of those things really push what has been quite a traditional work model across the NHS. We need to be more modern. We need to have a think about how we rip up the old rule book. But change in an area that is very risk averse because the nature of the work we do is really tricky, so we need our leaders and our workforce to embrace trying things”.

That was an alarming statement for her to make. I think we would all agree that healthcare professionals’ understanding of risk and the importance of mitigating risk is incredibly important. It is always a matter of concern when business says that it wants to “rip up” the rule book on employment rights and pay.

Yesterday, in the Minister’s summing up, he said that

“the Bill does not privatise the NHS.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 151.]

I have to say, however, that I disagree. ICBs—integrated care boards—will be able to delegate functions, including commissioning functions, down to provider collaboratives, and provider collaboratives can be made up of private companies. I do not understand what it is that the Minister does not understand about that.

Add to that the fact that the abolition of the national tariff will open up the opportunity for big business to undercut the NHS, this is a potent situation indeed, and one that will be exploited by big business if the Bill goes through. The late Kailash Chand, former honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association said:

“The core thrust of the new reforms is to deprofessionalise and down skill the practice of medicine in this country, so as to make staff more interchangeable, easier to fire, and services more biddable, and, above all, cheaper”.

The removal of professions from regulation is a part of that scenario he described.

I turn now to workforce planning. There is a workforce crisis in the NHS. In fact, that is probably an understatement. Earlier this year, I met members of the Royal College of Nursing in the north-west, who told me of the sheer exhaustion that they are experiencing because of staff shortages. I was struck by how, even at this point when they were describing how they are on their knees with exhaustion, their primary concern was patient safety. We owe it to them to address the matter. The British Medical Association highlighted:

“Burnout has led to significant numbers of medical professionals considering leaving the profession or reducing their working commitments”.

According to the latest figures, there are well over 90,000 full-time equivalent vacancies in England’s NHS providers. The best the Government can come up with is in this Bill is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report, at least once every five years, describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England. That is woefully inadequate. The Royal College of Physicians says that this duty on the Secretary of State

“falls short of what is needed given the scale of the challenge facing the health and care system”.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is among those who have called for this duty to be strengthened in the Bill. I ask the Government to listen to the expertise of those bodies.

The Government’s plans to remove NHS professions from regulations is wholly unacceptable and it is particularly alarming at a time when there are such acute shortages of staff, right across NHS professions. We all value the NHS highly and respect the high level of professionalism in the service. Instead of looking to deregulate professions, the Government should be investing in the training of the next generation of professionals.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my interests, which are set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that my wife is an NHS GP and has been for the past 30 years.

I rise to support amendment 10, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), as it seems to be absolutely right. I cannot understand why the Minister, an extremely good Minister, is not obliging the Government to accept it in full. It is clear from what is being said across the House that my right hon. Friend has achieved an unexpected unity. Even brilliant junior hospital doctors who in the past have marched against some of his policies are four-square behind what he is saying today and the work his Committee is carrying out so brilliantly.

I wish to make three points about why the House and indeed the Government would be wise to support my right hon. Friend’s amendment today. The first is that, for reasons he has set out eloquently, as has the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who speaks on these matters for the Scottish National party, burnout in the NHS is an incredibly serious issue. The need for us to project how many people we are going to need in all the different disciplines in the health service has never been greater, and the workforce requirements have never been more uncertain. As has been so eloquently set out, the cost of that uncertainty is paid in locums, with all the difficulties and downsides that have been mentioned.

I wish to quote a note I have had from Dr Rahul Dubb, the lead doctor in Royal Sutton Coldfield. He successfully led the roll-out of the vaccinations in our town hall and he is extremely experienced. He says, “A greater understanding is needed as to why doctors are leaving the profession. It is clearly multi-factorial across the generations. One of the reasons includes pension rules. These penalise staff wanting to work more hours due to capped taxation rules, deterring senior staff from staying, and may lead to a significant exodus from the profession. In these circumstances, it is essential that far more effort is put into projecting future workforce numbers and how many are required to meet future need.” In my judgment, Dr Rahul Dubb is absolutely right in what he is saying.

The second reason is that the Government should listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said. During his time as Health Secretary—no one in the House has been so long at the crease and has as much experience as him—he significantly increased the number of doctors who will be trained. We were particularly pleased in Birmingham to see the additional work that Aston University has been able to do to bring those who might have felt themselves excluded from the medical profession into contention, so that they could go to university and achieve their ambition of qualifying as medics. Having that sort of analysis—the analysis that is behind his amendment—is right in securing value for money. I have been dismayed that when we had the measures to increase national insurance earlier this year—this was greatly to the credit of the Government for grasping a nettle that so many have not grasped before—those on the Treasury Bench were extraordinarily disinterested in checking that value for money for this additional taxpayer spend was achieved. When I suggested that we should account to our constituents through the Treasury, making certain that we understood where this £1.2 billion was going, the answer from those on the Treasury Bench was extremely lacklustre. Ensuring value for money and that we get these judgments right will save money and, for the reasons that have been set out, will make medicine and the treatment of our constituents that much safer. As my right hon. Friend set out, the whole sector is united behind this amendment, and the Government should hear that loud and clear.