Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to his place and look forward to hearing his maiden speech. I also offer my thanks to everyone who has briefed us. We, too, regret that the advisory speaking time is five minutes on a long and complex Bill, with many expert speakers whom I am sure the House will want to hear. We note that this time is advisory.

In principle, we have long argued for true integration of health and social care, and reforms are long overdue. The coalition Government created the better care fund, which has set a standard for integrated care in a number of places such as Torbay, but our social care system has needed reform for decades. The increasing workforce crisis and cuts to publicly funded patients, with private patients having to subsidise them, is scandalous. Covid, including the omicron variant as well as the severe winter crisis already with us, makes it much harder for substantial reforms to be in place for the end of March. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about it being the wrong Bill at the wrong time.

The long-awaited adult social care reform White Paper, People at the Heart of Care, was essential for delivering true integration. Despite the Prime Minister’s promise on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street two and a half years ago, I am afraid that the White Paper is deeply disappointing, not least on how integration will work in practice. Perhaps it is not surprising that Ministers have already announced another social care integration White Paper for next year. We still need to see it before the passage of this Bill. I fear that we will not. We believe that these changes will not work without the reform of workforce planning, and we will seek to strengthen the long-term planning arrangements, especially for social care, where progressive career pathways and proper skilled rates of pay are long overdue.

We too regret the powers being given to the Secretary of State. The reforms under the coalition Government by the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to remove them from operational decisions was the right one. Despite some of Ministers’ words in briefings, we need to be convinced that this is the right move. Ministers tampering with reconfigurations, capital grants or even contracts have already led the Johnson Government into serious difficulties. Worse, giving powers to the Secretary of State to transfer or delegate powers or functions without a clear rubric about how sparsely this must be used, and in what circumstances, is also dangerous. Through some of these provisions, Parliament is once again excluded from scrutinising Ministers’ actions.

We are concerned about the membership of ICBs. With the increased commissioning duties on local authorities, it is important that they have a voice at the table. More than one local authority in an ICB area gives us a problem. The same is true for NGOs, charities and local enterprises that are involved in the delivery of local social care. Much of the reforms, for both ICPs and the levy, are based on older people’s social care. We think it is wrong that disabled younger adults and children who need social care have been squeezed into inappropriate arrangements once again. Unpaid carers are still evidently meant to pick up much of the burden of care, especially with the new emphasis on getting people home from hospital, sometimes before assessment. It is time that the Government truly recognised the commitment and the cost of these unpaid carers and rewarded them.

Part 2 sets out the new information and data requirements for health and social care, especially the latter. We seek assurances that patient and client data will not only be protected and anonymised but cannot be sold on to commercial parties. We are concerned about the power of the Secretary of State to decide what is and is not commercially confidential. We believe that the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is long overdue, but we will seek confirmation that it is to be truly independent from Ministers. In Part 5, we welcome the proposed ban on virginity testing but also seek a ban on hymenoplasty.

International healthcare arrangements in Part 6 must protect the NHS from this Government’s former aims to give countries the right to bid for NHS contracts as part of economic treaties in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill of 2019. We will seek to ensure that nothing like this creeps in again.

A few weeks ago, the Government rushed the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021 through Parliament in just a few days. It was clear to us then that the creation of a new tax mechanism deserved careful scrutiny, but this was denied to Parliament, not least because of the lack of detail in how it would work. The Minister said that the new cap arrangements are fair; they are not. They let down exactly the group of people that this Government claim they want to help: those who live outside the greater south-east, with property worth over £100,000.

There is irony in the Government saying in their document:

“It is important that the new reforms are clear and reduce complexity”


before setting out a complex structure of disregards and benefits and the bombshell that neither local authority contributions nor personal care, nor what are sometimes known as hotel costs will count towards the cap. We will oppose this.

My colleagues will cover the clauses on food and drink and the fluoridation of water supplies. We also regret the limited public health reforms to tackle inequalities.

We have argued for years that we need a comprehensive integrated health and social care system, alongside a modernised and effective NHS, managed by its leaders without ministerial interference. Our broken care system, where staff and providers have battled valiantly against all the odds, desperately needs real reform.

This Bill has some of the right ideas, but it is already clear that there are many worrying elements which will not deliver the reform or funding needed. Health and social care providers, all the wonderful staff across both sectors and the public who use and rely on our NHS and social care systems, need that reform. From these Benches, we will aim to persuade the Government to improve this Bill.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am speaking in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, starting with Amendment 46. After many helpful discussions both today and earlier on in Committee looking at membership, structures and representations of ICBs, these amendments take us back to the first principles and ask your Lordships’ House to look at what should be in scope for the provision of NHS services. This is a really valid question.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to maternity services, but if I were to pick one of the services listed in Amendment 169, it would be dental services. There are millions of people in the country who cannot access an NHS dentist. The result is a worsening of dental health, which is especially worrying for children and young people. I am sorry to say that, over the years, Ministers have ignored the wider needs of the public regarding dental services. I think the point about specifying the provision of services such as this puts a very particular duty on the Secretary of State to force Ministers to make sure that they are also holding other parts of the health service to account.

The amendments turn our focus on to whether we still have an NHS that is a public health system or one that perhaps is paid for mainly by the public but run by a disparate number of bodies, including unaccountable private companies increasingly not based in the UK. They are particularly important in light of the report today in the press that the Secretary of State is planning to create the equivalent of school academies for failing hospitals and says that there will be a White Paper in due course. Just as an aside, do we need yet more reforms? Surely it would have been better to have a full range of Green Papers with an overarching vision of what the NHS in the 21st century should look like and how the structures should work. We are now waiting for two White Papers, while the passage of this Bill is irrevocably changing the structures of our NHS system.

Today’s announcement rings a number of alarm bells because there is an analogy with the education sector that is quite helpful. I remember that, in the 1990s, academies were going to be free from local authority control and that that, on its own, would inevitably make them improve—but that has not been the case. Various reports over the last 20 years have shown that a number of failing schools taken into multi-academy trusts and free schools have remained low performing. Structures on their own do not necessarily resolve this. Indeed, some multi-academy trusts have failed in their entirety, and one of their issues is the lack of public accountability—because Ministers have direct responsibility in the public realm for academies, and I worry that the Secretary of State may be proposing the same. If I was a senior leader in NHS England, I would be very concerned about that.

I am grateful for the earlier comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the need for Ministers to have the ability to appoint and, presumably, remove senior personnel on ICBs. But would the Secretary of State have responsibility for these academy equivalents and give them the right to access separate funding for capital expenditure and special projects? I raise this because part of the problem that we have at the moment is a diversity of funding mechanisms, structures and strands, which often take the eye of a leader—whether a Minister or one in the NHS—away from the provision of services.

The foundation of a public system was essentially removed by the 2012 Act, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, the Constitution Committee suggested that there needed to be an interim remedy. It is important that we have reassurance that this Bill will not weaken it any further at all. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government want to protect the provision of NHS services, as part of a truly public health service.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for moving her amendment and other noble Lords for their contributions, particularly on the specific points about particular services, such as dentistry. All three amendments look back to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the National Health Service Act 2006 on the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the NHS and the services that it provides, restoring certain provisions in the 2006 Act.

Under the Bill, the ICBs and NHS England will have the duties to secure the provision of the services that make up the comprehensive NHS. There are probably noble Lords here today who were Members of your Lordships’ House in 2006. I came in in 2010, just as the equally marathon Health and Social Care Act from the coalition Government got under way, when the whole issue of the Secretary of State’s powers and duties came to the fore. As explained at the time, the aim was to separate the political from the operational responsibility and to better align the language to the reality of the purpose of the NHS, in “securing the provision of services”.

The arguments in 2010 and 2011 were fierce and passionate, centred around the subtle changes in the way that the duties were defined, as compared to the words in Sections 1 and 3 of the 2006 Act. They caused suspicion, confusion and fears that the NHS would be changed forever. These arguments remain a bit of a blur in my memory, but I recall the overwhelming view among leading experts on NHS law that the changes were technical and did not involve any substantial change in practice. We know that, in respect of this role, no change has happened.

I also recall the 2012 consideration of the issue by our Constitution Committee and the compromise recommendation subsequently adopted in the 2012 Bill of what became Section 1(3) of the 2006 Act, as amended:

“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.”


No matter what is in any Act, this is and will always be the political reality.

Currently, the law places the duty on the Secretary of State to

“continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and … in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness”—

very much in the spirit of the NHS’s founding 1946 Act.

Amendments 46 and 168 seek to continue the 2006/2012 debate. It was claimed about the 2012 Act, and now about this Bill, that the change in wording implies that people will be denied access to treatment from the NHS because, for example, a particular ICB decides to exclude a service and because there is no duty on the Secretary of State to prevent this happening. However, there is no evidence that anyone has ever been denied access to an NHS service or that any service has been refused in general simply because of the change in the wording of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Amendment 169 returns to the same point, seeking to place a duty on the Secretary of State to “provide” a list of services, with some general headings such as ambulance services. But the reality is that this is not how the NHS functions or indeed ever has.

I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about today’s announcement of yet another restructuring on the academy front, but, again, that is a debate for another day.

We could go back on the Secretary of State issue to the 2012 arguments and spend a lot of time on it. While we fully understand the concerns and fears that the current wording could engender among those who suspect a deeper reason for the changes in language, continuing to argue over this issue would not be very productive or get us anywhere. We need to get on with scrutinising the sweeping delegated and Henry VIII powers later in the Bill that our current Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers Committees have expressed such deep concern about.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for laying these amendments and pay tribute to her for her tireless work in the palliative care sector and in your Lordships’ House. I also thank Marie Curie, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder, Alzheimer’s Society and Together for Short Lives for their very helpful briefing.

Clause 16 provides integrated care boards with duties to commission hospital and other health services for those for whom they are responsible. While specific services are highlighted in the clause, there is still nothing for specialist palliative care as currently drafted. There should absolutely be a fundamental right to access palliative and end-of-life care and support services for everyone who needs them. It is vital to restate that palliative care and end-of-life care are not always the same thing.

Hospices, homes and special services at home help children and adults for more than just those last few days. However, far too many people already miss out on palliative care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out; estimates suggest that while as many as 90% of people who die may have hospice and palliative care needs, only around 50% will actually receive it. Like many others, I am afraid I know family and friends who were desperate to move to a hospice in their last few days but ended up dying in hospital. In my stepfather’s case it was because of the bureaucracy of the hospital—at the point at which they said it was possible to move him, they said it was too late.

If we can reduce unplanned and potentially avoidable hospital admissions, it would be considerably less distressing for the patient and their families and would also reduce pressure on our hospitals.

With people in the last year of their life in England accounting for some 5.5 million bed days, it is estimated that the total cost of these admissions is over £1 billion for our already pressed acute hospital trusts. I have a friend currently receiving end-of-life care who is also stuck in a hospital. The real problem is the lack of understanding of where and how the specialist services can be provided. That is vital, because otherwise people end up in hospital and cannot get out again.

During debate on a similar amendment in Committee in the Commons, the Minister of State for Health, Edward Argar, indicated that the Government’s view is that everything is covered by aftercare. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, this is not aftercare. If you have ever seen the brilliant work of palliative care specialists, you will understand that it is real care at a vital time in people’s lives.

I mentioned Together for Short Lives in opening. I have a particular interest in children’s palliative and end-of-life care. One of the things that worries me most at the moment is that people often do not understand that respite care for families looking after young children with very serious illnesses and disabilities has been a vital way of ensuring that they can have some sort of break. They often work 18, 19, 20 hours a day, sometimes with help at home but often, during the two years of the pandemic, with no help at all.

Take the example of my local children’s respite centre, Nascot Lawn. The parents took the CCG to the High Court twice and won, but it closed down. It was not the first. Part of the problem we have with our hospices and other forms of provision is that they rely utterly on public fundraising. The last two years have been a particular problem. For children’s respite and palliative care, it is an absolute tragedy—far too many units are closing down around the country.

In addition, despite a version of the language used in Clause 16, on aftercare, having been in place since the 2012 Act, many CCGs do not currently commission sufficient specialist palliative care. Worse, in the case of Nascot Lawn, the entire onus was put on the local authority because, it was said, it was about personal care. One of my concerns is a muddle between personal care and aftercare, when all these children required specialist nursing.

It is vital that the funding element is looked at. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right that the NHS always proudly boasted that it was there for people from the cradle to the grave. Sadly, at the moment this is not true. It is the hidden gem of our public health system and we must find a mechanism to make it not hidden but apparent and something that everyone who wants and needs it can rely on in the future.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 54, 74 and 97, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and Amendment 163, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I too pay tribute to the historic work of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, prior to the setting up of NICE.

While it is not an interest in the formal sense, I declare that I have autoimmune disease and have experience of being on the NICE rheumatoid arthritis care and treatment pathway for 19 years, which has been regularly updated by NICE over that time. Where it has been applied in full and from diagnosis, patients have found it very beneficial and, with new and more effective drugs being approved every few years, many are now in remission. I pay tribute to the consultants trying to do their best for their patients and the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and Versus Arthritis helplines which support RA patients in navigating their way through access to their NICE treatments when these have been blocked.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her introduction to this group and for explaining the problem with the formulary list. She is right that this should be addressed formally. However, I want to focus on some of the commissioning practices on NICE-recommended treatments, including those on the formulary, in the current CCGs, because I believe these explain the need for the amendments in this group.

In May 2014, the High Court ruled that Thanet CCG could not disagree with NICE guidance merely because it disagreed with it, even when there is no statutory duty to provide that treatment. This specific case was about access to fertility treatments for a woman who was about to undergo bone marrow transplantation to put her severe form of Crohn’s disease into remission. NICE’s 2013 clinical guidance recommended that

“oocyte or embryo cryopreservation as appropriate”

should be offered

“to women of reproductive age … who are preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is likely to make them infertile”.

This was not cancer, and the CCG’s own policy was to not grant funding unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, we have two noble Baronesses taking part remotely. I first call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the present Health Minister and his predecessors for a number of years—far too many years, frankly—should not be surprised by these amendments, all of which cover the issue of workforce planning. Often, Ministers’ words and aspirations have been supportive but the reality is that, without proper long-term workforce planning, the NHS and our social care sectors will struggle to be able to plan for the medium term, let alone the short term.

My noble friend Lady Walmsley introduced this group by saying what is needed in workforce planning and why, and I support her brief but critical amendment to ensure patient safety. The other amendments in this group set out the how: whether the workforce planning reports or clinical and healthcare training needs in Amendment 171, the duty on the Secretary of State in Amendment 173, the report on parity of pay in Amendment 174 or the important Amendment 214 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on workforce boards. I am looking forward to hearing the expert contributions to follow on them from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and many other noble Lords, and I hope that the Minister will take note of how the lack of effective workforce planning is hobbling the provision of health and care services in England.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we have just heard a very powerful contribution from my noble friend Lord Sharkey, reminding Ministers and your Lordships’ House of the importance of the problem of Ministers taking delegated powers, stopping Parliament doing its job properly. I support his amendments.

Amendments 133, 139 and 161 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, are on continuing healthcare and I can think of no better person in your Lordships’ House to speak about the importance of that. I look forward to her speech. I am pleased to support her amendments and will speak to them now. The NHS definition says:

“Some people with long-term complex health needs qualify for free social care arranged and funded solely by the NHS. This is known as NHS continuing healthcare.”


The full continuing healthcare assessment and the toolkit for updating assessments are absolutely vital for any multidisciplinary team and, at least in theory, these amendments put them on a formal footing as part of the smooth package of care that individuals need. The amendments establish a duty to fund and assess continuing healthcare, which needs to be visible, not least because of the abuses in the current system.

The principles of continuing healthcare in current legislation are fine, but unfortunately, as money has got tighter, there are problems with how they work in practice. There are many reports of CCG assessors and social workers having disruptive and degrading discussions, sometimes with family members present, about whether a particular issue is a continuing healthcare or a personal care need, which would be funded by the patient or their local authority, or the NHS. I personally witnessed a debate about the percentage split of continuing care versus personal care concerning the incontinence of a family member. It was not about the patient; it was solely about money and who would pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, I have failed in my duty, and not for the first time. I should have stated before calling Amendment 145 that the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely. May I apologise, and invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak?

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is essential, because it protects confidential patient data from being given out by an ICB in contravention of the ethics rules of the General Medical Council and other regulatory bodies.

When the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House in the autumn, it had clauses in it that gave the police, probation and prison services access to a patient’s confidential medical data as part of their role to reduce and prevent serious violence. As originally drafted, that Bill would have required GPs, CCGs and their staff to hand over that data. This was not just about those under suspicion; it could have been anybody involved in serious violence.

I had extreme concerns about this, and I tabled an amendment not dissimilar to Amendment 145. I was grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Ribeiro, the General Medical Council, the BMA and others in Committee on that Bill. We had meetings between Committee and Report with officials from the Department of Health and the Home Office, meaning that by the time we got to Report the Government had laid amendments to ensure that a patient’s personal data could not be demanded by the police, probation and prison services. It is now recognised that the medical regulators—the GMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other bodies—actually have the responsibility and the excellent ethical standards by which their members are expected to judge what they should do if they are asked for personal data.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would address what data an ICB may disclose by adding a subsection to protect the Government in the same way as happened in the police Bill, so that the personal data of patients should not be disclosed. This is a vital amendment. The Government have already accepted in this Parliament that a patient’s personal data must not be accessible by those other than clinical and clerical staff dealing with it, who must abide by the confidentiality rules of their regulatory body or by their employment contract.

This is even more necessary, because the Bill says in new Section 14Z61(1)(g), on permitted disclosures of information, that

“the disclosure is made in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence”.

That is even broader than in the original police Bill. Patient confidentiality is a fundamental ethical duty. It is crucial to upholding the trust that lies at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship. The new section will give the ICB the right to override that.

New paragraph (e) is also more far-reaching than the investigation of any crime. It says that

“the disclosure is made to any person in circumstances where it is necessary or expedient for the person to have the information for the purpose of exercising functions of that person under any enactment”.

So it is not the doctor or the ICB that has the choice about disclosing that information; they must take the word of the person making that request. That is total free access for anyone who says that it is necessary or expedient for them to have that information. Where is the protection of a patient’s individual and confidential data?

It also removes the decision from GPs, despite GPs having very clear and effective guidance from the GMC on when, in exceptional circumstances, they can give out data. I will not quote the whole of the guidance, because we do not have time, but there are two vital points that a GP must consider: the patient must consent, whether implicitly or explicitly; and disclosure must be permitted or must have been approved under a statutory process that sets aside the common-law duty of confidentiality. The doctor also has a duty, even when they have made their decision, to use anonymised information if practicable, and they must be satisfied that the patient has ready access to information explaining how their personal information will be used. It goes on, but I will not quote the rest.

One might hope that Ministers assumed when drafting the clause that confidential patient data would never be included, other than for the treatment of the patient. However, paragraphs (e), (g), (h) and (f), as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, outlined, put paid to that. If the argument is that the clause is needed because the ICB might have to share data with, for example, care providers or social workers carrying out assessments, that needs to be made clear, and it would be permissible. But, as drawn, it is far too brief.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at least protects the personal data of patients. It is very straightforward and provides the protection that every doctor, nurse and patient would expect. So I hope the Minister will say today that he is happy to accept the amendment. If he is not, please will he agree to a meeting with those who have spoken in this debate, and invite the GMC and the BMA? If progress is not made on this, I will lay an amendment on Report and am likely to press it to a Division.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is also taking part remotely and I invite her to speak.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of Clause 26 is to introduce a process by which the Care Quality Commission inspects integrated care systems. The structure of this is the subject of my Amendments 162A and 164A. Those two amendments go together—they are not separate, but entirely linked. The purpose of Amendment 162A is to remove the process by which the Secretary of State sets objectives and priorities for the Care Quality Commission in undertaking such inspections of integrated care systems; Amendment 164A then seeks to insert a process by which the Secretary of State, and indeed others, are consulted by the Care Quality Commission over the quality indicators that it would use to assess the quality and performance of integrated care systems.

A bit of background would be helpful for noble Lords in this respect. Think back to what the Care Quality Commission’s existing statutory arrangements are in relation to reviews and performance assessments of existing bodies in the National Health Service. The structure is very straightforward. The commission is asked to set quality indicators, to consult on those and then to review against them and produce reports. I know from personal experience that the Secretary of State cannot direct the Care Quality Commission to undertake a particular review, but they can certainly make a request, and their role as steward of the whole healthcare system has certainly led Secretaries of State to do that from time to time. But the legislation does not permit the Secretary of State to direct the Care Quality Commission in how it does its job; it is an independent body corporate. There is intrinsic merit in the Care Quality Commission, as an inspectorate, operating independently. The structure of this clause in this Bill is at odds with the way in which the existing legislation is structured in the 2008 NHS Act as amended. The effect of these two amendments would be to restore the independence of the Care Quality Commission in undertaking its activities and in the way in which it goes about its job.

The Government’s drafting of the legislation is wrong anyway. There are references to objectives and priorities. The priorities are referred to in new subsection (3), inserted by Clause 26(2), which says that they

“must include priorities relating to leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of services.”

I have to say that this is teaching grandmothers to suck eggs. There is no way in which the Care Quality Commission is not going to incorporate such indicators of quality. We know that from the generic nature of the quality indicators that it uses generally for existing NHS bodies. The reference to setting objectives is not only novel but completely undefined. The Secretary of State can set whatever objectives they wish to; we do not know what they are and there is no indication of what they might be. Taking out references to objectives and priorities seems to me to be a very good thing.

As it happens—I declare my own role in this—in the 2012 legislation there was previously a process by which the Secretary of State set standards for the Care Quality Commission in determining what the quality indicators should look like. We actually took that out of the 2012 legislation, precisely on these grounds: that the Care Quality Commission is, and should be, as independent as possible.

I think this clause proceeds from the mistaken apprehension that the Care Quality Commission is a part of the management process of the NHS. It is not. If the Secretary of State wishes integrated care systems to proceed in any particular way, the Secretary of State has the means to do so available via the mandate; the Government plan to add specific powers of direction; and NHS England has duties that go in exactly the same direction. The Care Quality Commission is not part of the management process for integrated care systems; it is an inspectorate. If—and this is a risk we must avoid—the Secretary of State were directly intervening to set objectives for integrated care systems to be inspected subsequently by the Care Quality Commission, whereas NHS England is itself setting objectives for integrated care systems through its responsibilities and duties, those two may come into conflict.

For all those reasons, the Government would be well advised to accept these two amendments and put the Care Quality Commission into the independent role in relation to ICSs that it, and people working in the National Health Service, would recognise as being its role. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has set out the tensions underlying the Bill about returning to the Secretary of State powers over independent, arms-length bodies; specifically, in this amendment, the inspections carried out by the Care Quality Commission in its role as a regulatory body. He rightly reminded us of the current arrangements, which give the CQC the ability to set its indicators and which, frankly, work well. I will not repeat his arguments, except to say in a slightly wider context that almost every piece of legislation brought to Parliament by this Government has given Ministers more powers—including, as in Clause 26, the power to intervene and to change remits.

The noble Lord’s amendments maintain the independence that the CQC—and other regulatory bodies—need to be able to inspect and make rulings without fear of favour or influence from politicians, while ensuring that the CQC must consult the Secretary of State when it revises indicators of quality for the purposes of assessment. That seems to me to provide the requirement for the CQC and the Secretary of State to engage in dialogue, but without the political intervention outlined in Clause 26(2) and (5).

Can the Minister explain why the Government feel the need to remove the independence of the CQC—whether this is an issue of management, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said—and how giving the Secretary of State these powers can maintain the independence of a regulatory body?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, it is essential that we get the arrangements for the Care Quality Commission right throughout the Bill, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for trying to do that through these amendments. If the health and social care provided is to be of the highest standards, we must ensure, through the powers of scrutiny and review in your Lordships’ House, that we enable the watchdog to have the proper tools and framework to achieve that, so I support the amendments.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, emphasised, this is about putting the responsibility in the right place to ensure that a key inspectorate can do an independent job and support proper integration and delivery. I hope the Minister will accept the good sense in these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I remind the Committee that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, will be contributing remotely. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have signed two amendments in this very wide-ranging group. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is Amendment 264 on the appointment of surgical consultants. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said in your Lordships’ House recently, 48% of advertised consultant posts last year went unfilled. Given our discussions about the workforce earlier this week, we need as many posts filled as possible and to remove any bureaucratic barriers to so doing.

Part of the problem at the moment is that trusts are having difficulties establishing appointment panels which can make these consultant appointments. Currently, the rules are too tightly drawn in the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and the subsequent 2005 guidance. The members of all the royal colleges across the UK have a wealth of expertise, but the current legislation says that only members of English royal colleges can help trusts fill their appointment duties. In its helpful briefing, the Royal College of Surgeons says that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh are excluded from being eligible to join these panels. This amendment would be a simple remedy and speed up the appointment of much-needed consultants, and I do hope that the Minister can agree to it.

I have also signed Amendment 266 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on the urgent need to ensure that practitioners undertaking non-surgical aesthetic procedures such as lip fillers, injectables, thread lifts, semi-permanent make-up, laser treatments, piercings and tattoos are properly trained and licensed. These treatments are easily available to members of the public, but without the safeguards required when being carried out in the health sector. I am afraid that we see daily in the press and media reports on the many problems when treatments go wrong, which can include infection, disfiguration and burns, among other serious issues. When treatments do go wrong, it is usually the NHS that has to pick up the pieces, so I believe it is very much in the interests of the Department of Health and Social Care to accept this amendment.

The signatories to this amendment have been working with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, alongside a coalition of public health organisations and industry representatives, so that we can make sure that a licensing scheme can be introduced for all non-surgical aesthetic procedures. This will enable the setting of appropriate standards, a level playing field for practitioners and, importantly, protect consumers in this sector.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, aim to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to limit the capital spending of NHS foundation trusts and to ask for the reinstatement of the 2019 agreement. It is important to note that these amendments do not remove the powers as a whole but tighten them to avoid changes by the Secretary of State to funding that would delay capital works which are needed and urgent on health and safety grounds.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, both dealing with end-of-life arrangements, and I support both of them. Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would put on the face of the Bill an extremely important provision—that of giving anyone with an end-of-life diagnosis the right to a conversation about their needs, how and where they want to die, and how they can be given the support they need to achieve that. This is long overdue. Our excellent palliative care and end-of-life healthcare clinicians and professionals carry out an invisible yet vital service to people. But unfortunately, it is not universal.

Why, oh why, as a nation, do we hate to talk about dying? I have seen both the best and worst in practice. Indeed, very recently, a friend in hospital who was told that he had a few weeks left wanted to go home to die. No one at the hospital used the phrases “end-of-life care” or “palliative care” or even talked about hospices. They thought he was not close enough to death to get to that stage. Instead, there were discussions about setting up the right domiciliary care, or possibly a care home through the council. This amendment would ensure that when the diagnosis of end of life is made, that conversation will happen for all patients. That is very welcome. It is too late for my friend, who died while he was still in hospital.

Amendment 297 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay a Bill before Parliament to permit terminally ill and mentally competent patients to end their own lives with medical assistance. I offer my deepest sympathies to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the death of his father. I look forward to hearing his speech on this amendment, and I apologise that, due to the remote contribution rules, I have to comment on it before he speaks.

Both the Private Member’s Bill brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and before it the Private Member’s Bill brought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had exceptionally sensitive and thoughtful debates in your Lordships’ House, but neither has progressed any further. We know that public views have changed—like those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—in light of sad family experiences of death where pain and trauma were not controlled and where, for too many people, access to palliative care and end-of-life care was just a lottery.

I have spoken in the debates on both those Private Members’ Bills in favour of assisted dying and remain firmly committed to campaigning for it, but that is not what tonight’s debate is about. If accepted, Amendment 297 would not immediately change the law on assisted dying. It would merely require Ministers to bring forward draft legislation, not even to campaign in its favour.

Government is well placed to draft the legislation, encourage a wider public debate through consultation and bring together voices and views from right across our society in a way that perhaps the polarised debate between individual MPs and Peers on such a complex issue always makes difficult. Government can and should maintain their neutrality on assisted dying, but they can guarantee sufficient time for the consideration of the legislation.

It is worth noting that in those jurisdictions where assisted dying has been made legal, there have not been the disastrous consequences predicted by opponents. Instead, those laws continue to receive huge popular support many years after legalisation. In no jurisdiction has any law been passed on assisted dying and subsequently repealed, demonstrating perhaps that the fears of opponents to assisted dying have not come to pass.

The Crown Prosecution Service has recently opened a consultation on the introduction of a prosecution policy for homicides that can be categorised as mercy killings or suicide pacts. The prosecution guidelines, if approved, would add clarity to the law in the same way as the prosecution policy on assisted suicide adopted over a decade ago. While this is helpful, it does not change the law, and it cannot protect dying people with a legal choice of how to end their life, nor can it protect their families, as decisions would be made by the CPS only after the death of the person. I have seen a family friend have to go through the trauma of a police investigation after her husband took his own life. He deliberately chose a day when she was 100 miles away to protect her. It still took months for the police to make their decision and, frankly, it was cruel.

What we need above all is a commitment to a public consultation and parliamentary time for a wider debate on assisted dying. Amendment 297 provides that. It does not change the law on assisted dying. Tonight is not the right time for that, but I think the country is ready for that debate. Both these amendments are vital in their own way, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is also taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has outlined why there is an urgent need to address the NHS procurement rules in the light of possible genocide and other clear human rights abuses. We have a duty as a nation and as a society to ensure that goods used in our publicly owned NHS are not tainted with modern slavery or linked with behaviours that may lead to genocide.

This is not hypothetical. In November 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Alton—who I look forward to hearing speak shortly—asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, the then Health Minister, about Medwell Medical Products, which has a factory in Fenglin town, in Jiangxi province, noting that Uighur Muslims made up 25% of the workforce, despite being forced to live in separate accommodation from other workers. This was reported at the time by the excellent investigative paper, Byline Times. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, said that the Government had not entered into an agreement directly with Medwell but that the central distribution warehouse in Daventry did have a record of receiving PPE masks produced by Medwell Medical Products. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care said to Byline Times:

“We expect all suppliers to the NHS to follow the highest legal and ethical standards and proper due diligence is carried out for all Government contracts.”


This is an extraordinary response. Any contractor to the Government, even in an emergency such as a pandemic, must follow the commitments that the Government have given internationally to ensure that goods used by the publicly owned NHS are not tainted with human rights abuses. If companies such as Marks & Spencer can do it for their clothes supply chain, we can too.

In July 2020, the New York Times reported that Uighur Muslims—a minority subject to widespread persecution in China, including being put into detention camps where they are forced to undergo communist indoctrination—were being employed in the factories of medical suppliers under a specific Chinese Government labour programme. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives said at the time:

“We must shine a light on the inhumane practice of forced labor, hold the perpetrators accountable and stop this exploitation. And we must send a clear message to Beijing: these abuses must end now.”


As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, just over a year afterwards, in December 2021, the Americans passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act into federal law.

UK Health Ministers’ responses in 2020 were, perhaps typically of this Government, aimed at prevarication and deflecting responsibility. This amendment does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, and what any self-respecting Government should do. It makes it absolutely plain that procurement must be

“consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”,

and that

“procurement is not consistent if a Minister of the Crown has assessed that there is a serious risk of genocide in the sourcing region.”

The amendment also sets out conditions under which the risk should be investigated if the chair of a relevant Select Committee of either House of Parliament requests an assessment.

The amendment is very straightforward and clear. Perhaps the Minister can explain which parts of it he has problems with. It actually helps the Government, especially after the discoveries of the PPE provided by Medwell Medical Products and the supply chain—we suspect there are many other such companies as well. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, can he explain to the House how NHS procurement can be protected from these human rights breaches, including possible genocide, in the future, and what guarantees there are that the department sees the supply chain details? I hope he will also agree to a meeting with the speakers in the debate on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I apologise for not forewarning noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, wish to speak remotely on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 219 in this group is in my name and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Meacher, for also signing it. Just before I speak to that amendment, can I say that I also support the other amendments in this group so helpfully introduced just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler? I find her clarification of the difference between care workers and unpaid carers particularly helpful and vital in this debate because unpaid carers are invisible.

My amendment deals with unpaid carers. I am very grateful for the briefing from Carers UK which estimates —as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler—that there are as many as 13.6 million unpaid carers in the UK and, shockingly, over 1.4 million people providing over 50 hours of unpaid care a week. My brother looked after my mother for eight years, probably for 40 to 50 hours a week for most of that time. It meant that he just could not work at all. He is not alone.

I am sure we all know someone who is an unpaid carer. Even if they want to fulfil this role for their loved ones, society and the Government need to recognise the difficulties this gives the carers. The census in 2011 showed that carers are more than twice as likely to be in poor health than those who do not have a caring role—and they need support too, especially if they are isolated at home with the person they are caring for, whether that is day services or short in-patient respite care. Some 72% of carers have not had any breaks from caring during the pandemic and, as a result, are exhausted and worn out.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed. That makes it 15 all, I think.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too will be extremely brief on this, given the hour and the number of groups we have to go through.

I am very interested to hear the response of the Minister on this; it feels as though there has been a sort of gentle relaxation, and it would be good to understand the boundaries for foundation trusts around how much they can increase their income from private patients at exactly the time when we have a phenomenal NHS waiting list and people are becoming more seriously ill as a result of the pandemic and there are delays in getting their treatment.

I say this particularly in the light of two recent comments—as I will call them—by the Secretary of State for Health. One was about increasing the amount of contracting from the NHS to private hospitals to perform large numbers of investigations as part of the backlog, but this is becoming habit now in this exceptional time—we have bad flu winters as well, but this is an exceptional time. Perhaps slightly more worryingly, the other concerns proposals that were outlined, informally, by the Secretary of State a couple of days ago to change entirely the nature of contracts with GPs. I am concerned that some of the structures, particularly for foundation trusts, are being loosened without Parliament being aware. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

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

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely and I think now would be a convenient moment for her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords, I was involved in the passage of the Bill that started off life as the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, and which, by the time it was passed, had been renamed the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill—a name almost as long as the Bill itself, and after some of the worst Henry VIII powers had been removed, including the power of Ministers to sign international trade agreements that could include preferential access to NHS contracts without the formal scrutiny and decision-making powers in Parliament.

The frustration with the remote arrangements is that I am speaking before my noble friend Lord Sharkey. I know that he will speak about the delegated powers in Clause 136. I wish I could hear his contribution before I speak, but I want to say that it seems the Government have forgotten, in nearly three years, the roasting that they got from your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said:

“The sweeping nature of the powers proposed in the Bill are in many ways offensive to the proper conduct of legislation. I accept that they are needed in the current situation in relation to the EU and Switzerland, but to go wider than that is wrong, I think. We have to insist on legislation being properly prepared, properly debated, properly scrutinised and properly consulted on.”—[Official Report, 12/3/19; col. 926.]


The then Health Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, when conceding on those Henry VIII powers later that day on Report, said:

“I want to be clear that the consequential Henry VIII powers were initially included as a future-proofing mechanism. They were never free-standing and we had envisaged using them in only a limited set of circumstances … we want to alleviate any fears that we are taking powers which are not absolutely necessary in this Bill. As such we are prepared to take the significant step of removing the entire Henry VIII consequential powers in Clauses 5(3) and (4).”—[Official Report, 12/3/19; col. 963.]


One of the reasons that your Lordships’ House is so concerned is that it looks as if the provisions in that Bill are being resurrected in Clause 136 of this Bill. I will give two brief examples: “2 Healthcare agreements and payments” on page 110 of the Bill, among other clauses, gives the Secretary of State the powers to make a healthcare agreement with another country and for Parliament to only comment on it by the negative resolution. For those of us who worked on a previous Bill, that sounds horribly familiar. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions to a person about the exercise of any function, which is familiar not only from that Bill but from other parts of this one.

In “2B, regulations under Section 2A: consent requirements” on page 112, it says at (5) that the consent of the Secretary of State is required for a

“healthcare agreement”

which means

“an agreement or other commitment between the UK and either a country or territory outside the UK or an international organisation, concerning health provided anywhere in the world”.

Any type of “agreement” or “commitment” brings us full circle back to the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill as first drafted. This would include international treaties, as was planned back in 2019, to include that access to providing major parts of healthcare in the NHS, but without the consent or knowledge of Parliament, because the detail of the agreement would not need be seen before it was signed, including by the NHS, its stakeholders and the staff who work in the sector.

Lest we think that this is just words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have both talked extensively in America to healthcare providers in recent months. What is different about this clause is the breadth of definition of a healthcare agreement, the powers that are held only by the Secretary of State, and the total lack or paucity of consultation or scrutiny by Parliament and other stakeholders before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House.

Why has Clause 136 reinstated some of the key elements of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill that were removed because Ministers recognised that the scope was too wide, the Henry VIII powers were egregious, and Parliament, the NHS and other stakeholders were being totally disregarded?

Should my noble friend Lord Sharkey wish to propose on Report that the clause do not stand part, I will support him.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 136 stand part. This clause is yet another example of the Government’s abuse of delegated legislation and the avoidance of any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. It is also a clear and obvious breach of an important constitutional convention.

Clause 136 amends the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019, which started off life as the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, as we just heard. It would enable the Government to implement healthcare agreements with countries outside the European Economic Area and Switzerland. The exercise of the powers in this clause is through regulations subject only to the negative procedure. The department points to the 2019 Act as for seeking these powers, despite what we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

During the passage of the then Bill in 2018-19, the Government justified or tried to justify taking the relevant powers as the need for speed and flexibility in the extraordinary circumstances of the EU withdrawal process. Parliament did not accept the provisions in the original Bill that the powers should be geographically and temporarily unlimited. After interventions by Parliament, the powers ended up being confined to the EEA and Switzerland and being sunsetted.

The department may be correct to state that the Secretary of State currently lacks the necessary powers to implement reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries outside the European Economic Area and Switzerland. However, this does not mean that there is currently no way to implement such agreements. They could and should be implemented by primary legislation. This would be in keeping with a long-standing constitutional convention that, outside the exceptional case of making provision for EU law, international legal agreements that make changes to UK law are given domestic force by an Act of Parliament. This ensures proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Our committees have pointed out breaches of this convention to the Government on several recent occasions. The last occasion was the proceedings of what was originally the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, as I have just mentioned. Before that, the DPRRC commented on the breaches of this convention in the Professional Qualifications Bill in May 2021 and the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill in March 2020. The Constitution Committee commented on the same Bill in its May 2020 report and concluded that:

“It is inappropriate for a whole category of international agreements to be made purely by delegated legislation.”


This is exactly what the Government are proposing in Clause 136.

The department does not address why such international healthcare agreements could not be implemented by primary legislation. We could try to remedy this abuse of delegated powers and breach of convention, as we did with the 2019 Act, by limiting their application and by sunsetting provisions. But, without a clearer understanding—or indeed any understanding—of exactly what agreements the department intends to use these powers for, it is not really possible to limit the power as we did then. The powers could also be sunsetted, as per that Act, but it is clear this would be inappropriate, given there is no longer a pressing time constraint on their use, unlike the then imminent departure from the EU. A better solution would be for the Government to abide by the constitutional convention and bring forward the appropriate primary legislation. That is the only way in which to enable any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of these important reciprocal arrangements.

I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why it is necessary to bypass Parliament and breach the constitutional convention in the manner proposed. I understand why it may be convenient, but cannot see why it is necessary or proper. We will certainly return to this issue as the Bill progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will be speaking remotely. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the large swathe of government amendments, trying to provide small changes to clarify and to remove unintended consequences of the current system. I will speak to Amendments 235, 236A and to Clause 140 standing part of the Bill.

Amendment 235 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is an attempt to replicate and update the Dilnot cap. It is certainly better than the current system, and I think that many noble Lords across all parties in this House have said that it is a shame that the new system does not emulate Dilnot better. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, reduces the rate at which those on low incomes lose benefits if they have assets above the means test threshold.

However, Clause 140 as a whole is a problem. It was added to the Bill later and was not considered by the Commons Bill Committee. Under Amendment 234, “persons entering the care system at or under the age of 40 will have their care costs capped at £0. This would apply to new applicants as well as existing care users who, while over the age of 40, have been accessing care and support since before the age of 40.” It is a huge form of injustice that we have an NHS that is free at the point of use and yet young people with learning disabilities and life-limiting health conditions are being charged for their essential care. One survey of respondents with disabilities in April last year found that 81% said that they had faced cuts in care packages or increased charges during the pandemic, with over half of them specifically reporting increased charges. The survey found that

“charges had forced people to stop care they needed or make difficult choices for financial reasons, with the results showing an increased reliance on family members and high levels of deteriorating mental health, including suicidal thoughts.”

The National Audit Office reported on local government finance in the pandemic and found that 41% of councils with social care responsibility said that they needed to make “substantial” service savings to balance their budgets, including by increasing charges and further use of their reserves.

Mencap’s response to the national insurance levy was that

“we can’t see how the proposed cap on care costs will benefit people with a learning disability … People who need care are missing out, others are having their support cut and some are being asked to pay towards their care which they simply can't afford.”

Further, BBC research has found:

“Some adults with learning disabilities are paying thousands of pounds extra a year, with six councils doubling the amount of money collected in charges. In half of 83 areas that responded to a BBC request, bills across all users have risen at least 10% over two years.”


One example is Saskia Granville, who was shocked when, earlier this year, her care charges increased more than 400%, from £92 to £515 a month. She has a learning disability and lives in supported accommodation in Worthing, west Sussex, but fears the charges will curtail her independence. Some 94% of people with learning disabilities are not in work so they just cannot find that extra cash.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister how on earth he thinks that the current system is either justifiable or equitable. While there may be change trying to sort out some of the minor anomalies, what remains is a system that is deeply unjust. I hope that the Minister is able to consider both Amendments 235 and 236A. I remain to be convinced by the arrangements that he has outlined and if brought back at Report, I am likely to support Clause 140 not standing part of the Bill.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendments 237, 238 and 239 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which aim to ensure that private providers are regulated, especially those using obfuscatory financial structures, instruments with inter-company loans and large amounts of debt. They should be fully transparent about those arrangements. She was right to highlight the excellent reporting of the Financial Times on this, along with the financial editors and journalists of other papers.

The typical small business social care home owner does not fall into the category I have just described. The problem in the sector is the private equity providers who decided to start buying up care home groups because they felt that the assets could be milked to provide healthy-looking returns for them. This differs from those homes borrowing in order to, perhaps, buy new homes to enlarge their group; what is happening here is purely financial instruments to benefit the directors and investors. Typically, private equity-backed providers spend around 16% of the bed fee on complex buyout debt obligations. The accounts of Care UK show that it paid £4.1 million in rent in 2019 to Silver Sea Holdings—a company registered in low-tax Luxembourg, which is also owned by Care UK’s parent company, Bridgepoint.

These kinds of buyouts are also associated with an 18% increase in risk of bankruptcy for the target company. In the case of Four Seasons Health Care, heavy debt payments contributed to the company’s collapse into administration in 2019. Two of the other largest care home providers in the UK, HC-One and Care UK, have also undergone leveraged buyouts and, as a result, their corporate group structures remain saddled with significant debts. Some of these types of company are also struggling to provide the best possible care with their overall CQC scores—so it is affecting the lives of the most vulnerable patients.

The Office for National Statistics says that 63% of care home residents are paid for by the public purse. Surely the Government must have a duty towards the public purse. It is not acceptable for the public purse to pay for these complex financial arrangements that are intended to provide not care or capital for the growth of a care business but purely a larger return for directors and shareholders. These amendments would provide for transparency and accountability and an assurance that the public purse and the private payer are not being taken for a ride.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank her for putting them forward. The care sector is both complex and very little understood. Back in 2020, there were approximately 15,000 care homes in the UK, run by approximately 8,000 providers. Some were very small; others were providing very large networks of homes—it is a mixed economy. These figures are a couple of years old but, at that time, 84% of homes were run by the private sector, including by private equity firms, both British and offshore.

Funding is a complex mix of private funders, local authorities and the NHS. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for highlighting the work that the Financial Times has done, because I was first alerted to this issue by an investigation that the paper did back in 2019 which revealed how Britain’s four largest privately owned care home operators had racked up debts of £40,000 per bed, meaning that their annual interest charges absorbed eight weeks of average fees paid by local authorities on behalf of residents. Many have argued, and I absolutely agree, that this sort of debt-laden model, which demands an unsustainable level of return while shipping out profits of 12% to 16%, often to tax havens, is entirely inappropriate for social care.

I want to make it clear that I do not have an ideological problem with the private sector being involved in the care sector and providing care homes—provided that they are good quality—but I have a real problem with the financial models used. Most fair-minded people in this country, not least those whose loved ones are in care homes, would, frankly, be horrified if they knew how the money—either theirs, if they are self-funded residents, or indeed the money of hard-pressed local authorities—was being used and where it was being siphoned off to.

I greatly support amendments to increase transparency and reporting. Frankly, I would like to see the regulator being a lot tougher and a lot more proactive in this area, so I very much support the review in the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that my noble friend will agree that those who have suffered so much through no fault of their own from harm that could and should have been avoided deserve the practical help and support that the amendment would deliver.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her Amendment 283, which would include financial and non-pecuniary interests of medical practitioners alongside clinical interests and their recognised and accredited specialisms on a register. I particularly thank her for explaining exactly why this is so important for patients. Currently, the GMC does not require them to hold or publish that data, but it is the obvious place for it to be held—and then linked, as she explained, to local employers, contractors and organisations. Anything that reduces the complex maze for a patient or a member of the public trying to find out whether a doctor is being paid for doing some work or using particular devices, and might therefore have an interest, has to be one of the cornerstones of a truly accessible and accountable register of interests. In today’s data-rich society, patients and the wider community want to understand what interests a doctor may have, but which may not be obvious.

A website called whopaysthisdoctor.org at Sunshine UK—so-called, I presume, because sunlight is always the best disinfectant—was set up by number of doctors, including Ben Goldacre. It is a database where doctors who want to be transparent about their interests can declare and register them, and the public can see whether their doctor is listed. The problem, of course, is that those who do not want to make these declarations voluntarily may be those we most want to see. That is why the amendment would make it compulsory.

I thank the GMC for its helpful brief, in which it recognises that the

“current arrangements to register conflicts of interest fall short of delivering adequate transparency and assurance for patients.”

However, the GMC would prefer this register to be maintained just at a local level and

“published by a doctor’s employer, contractor or organisation”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has already referred to the recommendations in the First Do No Harm review and the Government’s response, in which they said that it was proposed that information would be published locally at an employer level. However, I believe that there is also a golden thread from the obvious place to go, where doctors already have a duty to register other information, and that is the GMC.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I am keen to see action on this. Personally, I believe that the registration body is a good place to hold that data and, as she said, we need to start somewhere. But, frankly, we need to see progress on a register of interests. I hope the Minister can give your Lordships’ House some encouraging news on this.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I was—it is fair to say—flattered when the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked me to co-sign her amendment, because I have admired all the work she has done, and I think her report, First Do No Harm, has had influence way beyond the group of patients she was looking at. Indeed, I was vice-chair of a NICE review, and we referred to it in terms of helping to empower the voice of the patients we had in that review process, which was, first, very important and, secondly, particularly helpful because they were very clear in their thinking, and they worked extremely hard.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for referring to the General Medical Council’s briefing, because the GMC agrees that a solution to this needs to be

“Accurate, up-to-date, accessible and presented in a way that is useful for patients, so that they can have confidence in it”.

It also said that it must be “Enforceable”, and the GMC also wants it to be “Multi-professional”. However, I agree that we have to start somewhere. Your Lordships may think that the advantage of a local register is that it is more accessible, but the disadvantage is that doctors move around in different jobs, particularly trainees—but even consultants’ time in one post is now relatively short; it used to be a lifetime appointment.

It is important that, as a doctor, I am prompted to be completely open so that there can be no subliminal influence on my decision-making. The most dangerous influences are the subliminal ones—not the ones where you are completely open about what is going on. There has been a great clamp-down over recent decades on the pharmaceutical industry because of sponsorship and so on, and that has decreased influences on prescribing. But when it comes to using other products in medicine, the same can apply. I think that a register would help the profession itself in making clinical decisions. I do not see this in any way as inhibiting research; on the contrary, it would display who is research active and who is achieving results through their research.

A register would support the development of innovative healthcare and support novel thinking because it would be declared and open. It would also support the move that people should always publish their results, whatever they are.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment is a companion piece to the previous amendment on declarations of interest that we believe should be made by doctors and other regulated healthcare staff, and ensures that any companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices must publish any payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions or individual clinicians. Whether someone wants to know about a doctor working with a pharma company, or the other way around, we need a system that provides a golden thread of transparency and accountability.

Reporting payments or benefits in kind by the relevant organisations and individuals receiving them ensures that the links between donors, recipients and their respective interests are always visible. Although it is, we hope, rare, this is more than just transparency. As in any walk of life, occasionally there is malpractice and fraud, which needs to be prevented. A register such as this helps to remind all those concerned of the rules.

I echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that “may” is not strong enough: “shall” is important here. The noble Baroness also referred to the USA Sunshine register; and, as I said on the last group of amendments, we definitely need the disinfection of sunlight. Can the Minister say whether any such regulations on industry reporting might be published and brought into force?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, to speak remotely now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will be very brief, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has comprehensively explained why her amendment, Amendment 287, which seeks to create a dispute resolution mechanism in children’s palliative care, is important. There is no doubt of the challenges experienced by parents who are facing the dreadful news of their child’s deteriorating health and likely end of life, and who are trapped in a process that makes them feel as if their requests for new, different or more treatment are being refused by the hospital, not least if they feel that the hospital is acting as prosecutor, jury and judge against their wishes.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has outlined, one must also sympathise with doctors and other healthcare professionals who believe that they are doing the best for the child in these distressing circumstances. For these cases to end up going through the courts is not a good dispute resolution process. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has also outlined the extreme costs to the NHS and to the parents of the child. We now need a system, even if rarely used, which parents can feel is independent but medically expert to help to resolve and mediate the dispute when the relationship between them and the hospital has broken down.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 287, and I thank my noble friend for tabling Charlie’s law. Charlie Gard’s case was painful for all involved, including his parents and the doctors at the hospital where he was receiving treatment. Protracted disagreements can have far-reaching effects, particularly when they are played out in public, as has happened in a small number of cases. For the child, it can mean a delay in a decision about their care and treatment. For the parents and family of the child, there can be enormous distress, feelings of loss of control, and financial strain. Healthcare staff can also experience stress and anxiety, and they might be subjected to intimidation.

The parents of Charlie Gard, Alta Fixler, Alfie Evans, Tafida Raqeeb, and many others, wanted to do what any parent would do to try to improve their child’s condition and alleviate their child’s suffering. However, it is evident that the parents in such cases do not feel adequately heard and listen to when discussing options about their child’s treatment. This results in the devastating conflicts that lead to litigation. With this amendment, parents would be given the chance to discuss their views openly with the clinicians and hear the views of those clinicians, too.

Too often in my career, I have heard distressed parents described as “difficult” and “impossible to work with—nobody can work with them”. These are grieving parents who are looking for someone they can trust to help them. Mediation can sometimes help parents, and professionals to acknowledge that the consequence of conflict has been to shift focus away from the needs and welfare of the child. An independent mediation process can help to facilitate less confrontational conversation while supporting both parties. Thus, it provides support for both. Mediation across England is inconsistent. It needs to be available in every NHS hospital where conflict emerges, and at an early stage, so that the lives of very sick children such as Charlie are less likely to escalate to court.

In the rare event that a child’s case escalates to court, the amendment seeks to provide access to legal aid to ensure that families are not burdened with the financial strain of legal representation. Currently, families in this position are effectively punished, both financially and emotionally, through litigation for simply doing what they strongly believe is in their child’s best interest. Although this amendment makes provision for legal aid, the main purpose is to keep cases such as Charlie’s out of court, rather than arming everyone to be prepared to enter into long-winded and expensive legal disputes. Parents would not automatically win the right for their children to be given novel treatment, but the amendment would rebalance the dialogue towards resolution, rather than towards costly and distressing legal battles that do nothing to help the parents’ grief.

I also strongly support the introduction of the significant harm test. This legal test would focus on whether an alternative credible medical treatment could cause a child “disproportionate risk of significant harm” when deciding whether a parent can seek that treatment for their child. A key point here is that no medical professional would ever be required to give care or treatment that they did not view as in the best interests of the child. The legal test is already widely used under the Children Act 1989 and should be applied to cases such as Charlie’s in the future. I am strongly in support of this amendment and commend it. It is a just and necessary package to support parents and doctors, and I hope the Minister will be in a position to welcome it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others for the amendments in this group, which would help transform some of the long-standing problems in social care, as well as improve the quality of life of patients and their families, especially those who care for them. I will speak to Amendment 297D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which seeks the establishment of a review into institutional abuses in care settings within six months of the passing of this Act.

Amendment 297D talks about the effects of restrictive visiting and eviction notices

“on the emotional, psychological, social and physical health of service users, and on the well-being of service users”

and their families. Obviously, “restrictions on visiting” has taken on a whole new meaning throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. I note that the Rights for Residents campaign group has secured more than 270,000 signatures on a petition for a law that ensures that

“every resident has the legally enforced right to the support of an essential visitor”.

Currently, homes are meant to support an essential caregiver for all residents—but this is advisory and some homes are still imposing blanket bans on visits. That may be because they have some Covid infections inside the home, but that is not universally true.

There is still no clear picture of how visits are going on in care settings. These could be difficult for residents with dementia, for example, if there is only a very small window for visiting—and perhaps it is just not the right time or the right day for them.

Unlock Care Homes is also doing work on this, including highlighting good practice. It is important to remember that most care homes are not just doing their best, they are doing really well with looking after their residents, despite the constraints of the pandemic, staff shortages and burnout.

Time and again, investigative journalists are uncovering practices going on in care settings that are inhuman, breach vulnerable residents’ human rights and damage patients’ mental, physical and psychological well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to a long list, and that list is indeed shameful.

A series of scandals led to a CQC report into restraint, seclusion and segregation for autistic people and people with a learning disability being commissioned in 2018. It was published in October 2020. The report said:

“We found too many examples of undignified and inhumane care in hospital and care settings where people were seen not as individuals but as a condition or a collection of negative behaviours … We also found that a lack of training and support for staff meant that they are not always able to care for people in a way that meets those individuals’ specific needs. This increases the risk of people being restrained, secluded or segregated.”


However, the Government have not yet commissioned a review of the entire sector, to understand and learn from the causes and poor practices that have resulted in those institutions failing their residents. Commissioning such a review would demonstrate that the Government really want to bring a halt to these practices.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 297A is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Cumberlege, but I am also supportive of the other amendments in this group.

With people living ever longer, looking after older people so that they can stay healthier for longer is critical, as is ensuring that they receive the care they need and have a dignified and secure old age. Amendment 297A seeks to introduce a new clause that will not only lower, from 75 to 65, the age at which every patient is assigned a named GP but sets out to ensure that named GPs will actually have to meet and have some knowledge of each patient they are responsible for, and will communicate directly with them and the family.

We need to encourage everyone to take responsibility for their health. Having good and regular health checks is an essential part of the prevention of ill health, as well as leading to earlier identification of conditions and earlier interventions. I am sure that other noble Lords who are doctors will put me right, but I was once told that 65 is an age where things can start to go wrong. Therefore, it is important to start monitoring people’s health and being able to identify changes from this age. This will deliver better outcomes and may also enable people to stay at home and lead a fuller life for longer. The role of the GP in all this is absolutely critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am a former trustee of UNICEF UK and, before that, Christian Blind Mission, a global disability charity. I have seen first hand the two-tier system of access to global vaccines and medications. It is a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, set out how, through her Amendment 292, the UK can fulfil its global public health responsibilities for investment in research into vaccines and other health technologies and how, in an emergency, companies developing these goods would also be required to help. She has introduced it in her usual effective and persuasive way. I suspect I am not alone in valuing her contributions to your Lordships’ House.

Throughout this pandemic, the Government have rightly congratulated themselves on their investment in research on the range of vaccines developed in rapid time and also the extensive, rapid clinical trials assuring their safety prior to approval. However, less satisfactory has been the UK Government’s view about their international moral responsibilities as a member of the OECD and one of the high-income countries with access to much-respected vaccination and pharmaceutical research. The World Health Organization has said right from the start of the pandemic that no country is safe until all are safe, but low and middle-income countries have not just not had the advantage we have; we have reneged on our promises to them over the last two years.

The UK Government repeatedly tell us that they have donated cash to Gavi and COVAX, but the reality is that we need to help those countries now to become able to manufacture their own medicines and vaccines in the light of emergencies such as future pandemics. The old adage of “Give a child a fish, feed them for a day. Teach a child to fish, feed him for ever” is so true. Here, the fishing rod is the skills to manufacture and sell medications in a future pandemic.

The TRIPS waiver, or intellectual property waiver, is supported by the World Health Organization and many large charities and countries, including the USA and others. However, as we have heard, the EU, the UK and Switzerland are not in that bracket. Its intention is to increase vaccine production in developing countries by sharing intellectual property for vaccines publicly for the period of that pandemic. It is needed because the data for November 2021, nearly a year from the first vaccine being delivered, showed that just 4.2% of people in low-income countries had received their first Covid vaccine. Across Africa, 6.3% are now fully vaccinated. COVAX has shipped just one-third of what it had expected would be available by the end of October—those expectations were based on promises from high-income countries. Export bans, manufacturing delays and bets on vaccines that have not received regulatory approval have also held up deliveries. Worse, we know that in this country we have thrown away vaccines rather than redirect them if we chose not to use them at a particular time.

It is time that the UK took a leading role in fulfilling the World Health Organization’s call. Now is the time to make all countries safe, not just for Covid but in preparation for whatever future pandemics may occur, and make sure every country is safe in the future.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I want to speak narrowly to subsection (5) of Amendment 292, where it refers to the waiving of intellectual property rights and the protection of undisclosed information, and also where it refers to the waiving of agreements, all in an effort to assist global manufacturing. It provides a peg for me on which to hang the holy question of inadequate vaccine supply arrangements for third-world countries and, in particular, the need for greater manufacturing capacity, which would be assisted under a system of global waivers.

Two weeks ago, there was an interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, where, in reply to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, he said,

“there is no evidence that waiving intellectual property protections would advance these objectives,”

those objectives being

“help with vaccine production and distribution.”—[Official Report, 24/1/22; col. 8.]

I simply do not understand the Minister’s logic. As I see it, it is perfectly possible to manage such manufacturing requirements under directly monitored, subcontracted, licensee production arrangements.

In the same exchange, my noble friend and I went on to call for the 100 potential manufacturers in Africa—indeed, my noble friend has done it again today—identified by a number of charitable organisations to be encouraged to produce a Covid vaccine in approved plants under the subcontracting arrangements I have referred to. The Minister in reply, quite rightly, appeared preoccupied by ensuring companies were able to continue with “innovation.” I totally agree on that. That is a laudable objective that we all support. However, what evidence is there to suggest that in an entrepreneurial world, production under the carefully constructed management arrangements I have suggested deters innovation?

My suggestion in my original contribution was that it is perfectly possible to produce a vaccine and its subsequent product variants in dedicated production areas in approved plants and specialist facilities under the quality control of personnel seconded from advanced-nation producers. That is what I am asking for in the questions I have been asking repeatedly. What is the problem? How can that possibly destroy innovation as Ministers are suggesting? On the contrary, it raises greater challenges. It is a spur to increased innovation and, additionally, profit-taking, which I recognise is an important factor in funding research and development.

With less than 10% of the population in the world’s poorest countries being vaccinated under current vaccination production arrangements, we are prolonging the pandemic by leaving the door open to new variants. New variants will inevitably appear in under-vaccinated populations or, more specifically, in under-vaccinated ethnic groups which, often through a lack of available, detailed knowledge and under peer pressure, remain unconvinced of the need for vaccination.

I simply cannot understand the commercial, political or moral logic behind a failure to sponsor vaccination production under the arrangements I have outlined. We in the UK could be leading the world through this crisis if my suggestion was followed. We have spent billions on support schemes, much of it, sadly, wasted and lost in fraud. We could have spent much of that on vaccine initiatives. I think we are missing a trick, but it is not too late, as these pandemics are here to stay in one form or another. I appeal to the Minister to free up the market and pursue the strategy that I, and others far more significant than I, have been suggesting in this debate.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

The amendments in this group seek to express in different ways the fact that we are still unhappy with the way the ICBs are representing themselves. In Committee, the Minister said to us on several occasions, “This is what the NHS wants”. I think one noble Lord—I do not think it was me—said it was not really the point that NHS England wants this. We are talking about what is best for the locality, the patients and the people in it, and how we best invest and use our NHS money. So what we see in this group is that we are not quite there yet. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, of her Amendment 9, which I signed. It is the first of a group on the structure and membership of integrated care boards—including the Commons amendments to which she referred. We agree with the noble Baroness and have concerns about the possible loophole of sub-committees. Before I go into that, I will add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lady Walmsley on her excellent proposals for a skills audit and thank Ministers for agreeing to them. I hope that the Minister will reflect on some of the other amendments in this group that seek to ensure core representation from certain key groups within the NHS.

In Committee we had a lengthy debate on the roles and responsibilities of those who may have current or past connections with private sector providers. A key element of that debate revolved around the duties of board members and sub-committee members of the ICB to have its duties at the heart of all they do as they commission using public money. In his response to that debate, the Minister said that

“each ICB must make arrangements on managing the conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest, such that they do not and do not appear to affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes. Furthermore, each appointee to the ICB is expected to act in the interests of the ICB.”—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1308.]

Amendment 9 seeks to clarify exactly what is meant by “each ICB” by looking at the structures for those that make decisions—which includes sub-committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, described the difficulties in the example of Virgin Care that demonstrate the loophole she spoke of.

I want to go back a step to the principles behind conflicts of interest. In 1995, the then Conservative Government adopted the seven Nolan principles of public life, which are applied to all who hold public office. Members will know very well that these key principles of personal and corporate behaviour are a golden thread running through the public service that any officeholder delivers, and health bodies are specifically included in the rubric of Nolan. All seven principles are absolutely intrinsic to how an ICB and its members will operate, whether at board or sub-committee level. To pick just two, they must have integrity, including not to

“act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits”,

and they must

“act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner”.

Amendment 9 expresses exactly the type of arrangement that a public-facing body, even a sub-committee that commissions public services, should have in place. I ask the Minister: would any Government not want conflicts of interest in respect of sub-committees of ICBs to be clear, unambiguous and strong? Is he really arguing that each board should not have that wall of protection in ensuring the integrity of its decision-making processes, as set out in proposed new subsection (4)(a)? Does he think that it is appropriate not to have an appointment process that avoids the appointment of anyone who would be perceived to have a conflict of interest, as in proposed new subsection (4)(b)? Does he also not agree that anyone who has a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest should not have information that

“might be perceived to favour the interest or the potential interest”,

as set out in proposed new subsection (4)(c)? If the Minister cannot answer those questions, I fear that some noble Lords might be concerned that the Government have abandoned the Nolan principles for some people on sub-committees who will make decisions on commissioning many millions of pounds of public funds. I look forward to his response.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that noble Lords will find it helpful for me to speak early in this debate, since we believe that government Amendment 31 addresses some of the concerns raised by noble Lords. I shall, of course, listen carefully to the rest of the debate and respond in full at the end.

In speaking to Amendment 31, I thank noble Lords from across the House for the wide-ranging discussions in the Chamber on membership of ICBs. We are grateful for the discussions. Many noble Lords have offered their gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for the suggestion on the skills mix. We accept the spirit of these amendments and agree that it is important that ICBs are populated by members with the appropriate range of skills and expertise. I know that noble Lords have heard this many times, but it is also important that we do not over-prescribe, as ICBs should have the flexibility to design their boards to meet their needs, while also ensuring they have the skills and experience necessary to properly discharge their functions.

We have listened, and I hope that the amendments we have brought forward, which require ICBs to consider these skills, knowledge and experience, address those concerns while also ensuring balanced, workable boards. When the amendments refer to the necessary skills, knowledge and experience, that is in relation to the discharge of all the ICBs’ functions, including those related to mental health, children’s health, public health, public and patient involvement, engagement with the voluntary, charity and social enterprise sector, and digital innovation and integration. Therefore, these amendments would help to ensure confidence that ICBs have the necessary skills and expertise to discharge these functions, while allowing them to retain discretion in how they deliver this. This approach has been welcomed by stakeholders, including the Allied Health Professionals Federation, which represents 12 professional bodies representing allied health professionals.

The second, connected amendment would ensure that an ICB reports on how it has discharged this new duty in its publicly available annual report. This will allow public scrutiny of ICBs and create confidence that they are drawing on an appropriate range of skills, expertise and knowledge. This is in addition to governance of ICBs being clearly set out in their constitutions, which will also be published and signed off by NHS England. As I have said, I shall listen carefully to the rest of the debate, but at this stage, for these reasons, I commend these amendments to the House.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, are taking part remotely; I invite the noble Baroness to speak first.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 17, to which I have added my name, but first I thank the Ministers for listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others, and for tabling Amendment 16. I also thank Together for Short Lives for its helpful briefing.

Your Lordships’ House had a moving debate in Committee that captured the practical and economic need for the wider range of provision of palliative care, and how ICBs can properly fund and plan for it. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said that

“ICBs will be required to have regard to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in their provision of services, as CCGs currently are … NHS England will continue to support commissioners of palliative and end-of-life care services through their palliative and end-of-life care strategic clinical networks. These networks support the delivery of outstanding clinical care by ensuring palliative and end-of-life care is personalised for all.”—[Official Report, 18/1/22; col. 1637.]

The noble Lord’s Amendment 16 provides the specialist services we sought, but it says only

“as the board considers … appropriate as part of the health service”.

Although I join other noble Lords in thanking the Ministers for the amendment, please can the noble Earl confirm that, although the wording of the amendment requires ICBs to commission palliative care “where appropriate”, it is his intention that all ICBs should deem it appropriate, and therefore all of them should commission palliative care services, including for seriously ill children and their families? We know that the provision of palliative care services is very patchy. Will he provide statutory guidance to supplement the amendment and support ICBs to interpret their responsibilities, including for children? When will this be available? What action will Ministers take to ensure that ICBs have the financial resources needed to fulfil the new duty? Finally, what action will the Minister take to ensure that there are enough professionals with the skills and experience needed to provide the palliative care for children that ICBs will have a duty to commission?

We covered all this in very moving stories in Committee. Can the noble Earl confirm that all I have outlined will be covered in regulations and statutory guidance?

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am embarrassed to be called to speak ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I understand that the Deputy Speaker does not have discretion to make their own judgment about the sequence of speakers, but I hope this rule can be looked at. As it is, I add my thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 16. He and the noble Earl have graciously paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone by saying: so should we all. Her vision and persistence have beaten a path towards the progress we can now make.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, observed in his letter to us that it has always been a duty of the NHS to commission appropriate palliative and end-of-life care services, and that commissioning palliative care is a core function of integrated care boards, these obligations have hitherto been honoured perhaps as much in the breach as in reality. Provision has been patchy, shall we say? I think the noble Earl said that there had been “variations”; indeed there have.

I also acknowledge that the NHS does sometimes provide exemplary palliative and end-of-life care. Many noble Lords will know that my partner Patricia, Lady Hollis, died of cancer in 2018. I express my deep appreciation of the quality of palliative and end-of-life care she received at the hands of the NHS. I particularly express my profound gratitude to her NHS consultant at the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, Nicola Holtom, and her team, and to others providing community services, because it eased Patricia’s path and made a huge difference to all of us who cared for her.

Sadly, for all too many, including cancer patients, this quality of service has not been available. Indeed, for some there has been no relevant palliative care and end-of-life service. This could therefore be a historic moment, but it is far from certain that it will be. I of course accept that Ministers are acting in good faith, but the indeterminate drafting of Amendment 16 leaves rather a lot of wriggle room. For an NHS which is always short of the resources that it needs and that is struggling to cope with its existing workload, it remains a danger that the provision of palliative care will be sparse. The language of Amendment 16,

“such other services or facilities for palliative care as the board considers are appropriate”,

does not make it clear that it will be an inescapable duty of ICBs to ensure that palliative and end-of-life care is a universal service and that there will be a duty on ICBs to provide high-quality palliative care.

The Minister indicated that he does not expect to agree to write into the legislation Amendment 17, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which specifies in very useful detail what the nature of an exemplary service would be. He said that it would be better to do this by way of guidance. I am encouraged at least to know that it is the department’s intention to provide guidance and to set out models of how ICBs should set about fulfilling this duty. But what measures will be in place to ensure that this happens? What monitoring does he envisage? What reporting requirements will there be?

I have another question which I think is very important: how will the system enable patients and families to know what palliative care is available for them and how to access it? As things are, so often patients and their families are bewildered. They just do not know where to turn amid the complexities of the system, and they often feel discouraged by the responses they receive. They seem to observe the buck being passed between the NHS and social services and between different entities within those services.

I know that Ministers want to do the right thing, but it is important that we do not miss this opportunity to bring about the real thing. If we can be assured that the quality of provision will be as high as that envisaged in the noble Baroness’s Amendment 17, and that the department and NHS England will have systems to ensure that that is so, this could indeed be a transformative moment—a moment after which there will be the prospect that, instead of experiencing a bleak death, as so many people do, they will have a good death, and that will be an enormous consolation to their families, for whom, in their bereavement, the passing of a loved one is the greatest suffering.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

60: Clause 20, page 27, line 43, at end insert—
“(3) This section however does not authorise—(a) the disclosure of patient information, or(b) the disclosure of personal information obtained from a specified authority which is a health or social care body.(4) For the purposes of this section a “health or social care body” means a public body which exercises functions in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent ICBs from disclosing patient information or certain personal information.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)[V]]

My Lords, I thank Ministers, officials and other Peers, including my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the discussions that we have had since Committee. I am particularly grateful for the letter from the Minister late yesterday and the meeting this morning.

I have laid Amendment 60, and I support Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which try to protect only the lawful disclosure of personal patient data. For the purposes of the debate on this group, can we accept that this is shorthand for the confidential personal and medical data currently mainly held by GPs and hospital doctors in England? Amendment 60 would provide that protection in legislation and was laid only because we have not yet had a clear response from Ministers on what is permitted and what the existing rules will be relation to ICBs taking over responsibilities from CCGs because ICBs are new bodies. This is in the light of new Section 14Z61. At Second Reading and in Committee, noble Lords expressed concerns that this new section, which outlines ICBs’ permitted disclosures of information, looks very wide ranging and could, for example, enable a police officer, or another person from a public body, to demand the disclosure of a patient’s personal data.

The new section uses the phrase that ICBs can disclose data where

“disclosure is necessary or expedient”

for the person making the request, but nowhere does it explain how the decision is made by the ICB or what the decision-making process is to release the data and, importantly, where the protection of that personal data sits in the hierarchy of the request of necessary and expedient demands. I have asked repeatedly how this process would work, and in responses at the Despatch Box, in meetings and in letters I have not really had a response that has laid out simply and clearly how this process would work. I shall therefore ask the Minister the following questions in an attempt to clarify how a patient’s confidential personal data will be protected and what the process would be for it to be released to a person making a request. What rules and guidance are available for staff, including those in ICBs, to manage a request from a non-NHS person requesting information other than through a court order? How would it be processed and reviewed? ICBs would not normally be the holder of such data, and new Section 14Z61 does not set out the balance between the rights of the patient and those of the requestor who believes they have a necessary or expedient reason for being sent this data.

We wish to be confident that the structures are in place for when shared care records come into force. Let me be clear: from these Benches, we welcome the principle of shared care records, but the processes need to be in place to ensure that personal data is protected when every part of NHS England would have access to that data. I raise this particularly because just this week Health Service Journal stated that the Secretary of State is speeding up the shared care records project to be complete and implemented by December 2023.

Can the Minister therefore commit that the powers in Section 14Z61(1) will be constrained such that for requests of disclosure that come from outside the health and care system, the ICB will only ever disclose the direct care providers the requester could ask instead? Can he confirm that if an ICB is to become data controller for shared care records, he will return to this clause with primary legislation on such implementation?

I am very grateful for the discussion with Ministers and officials and hope that the Minister will be able to provide your Lordships’ House with a response that demonstrates that patient, personal and confidential data remains secure. I look forward to his response, and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the brevity of her remarks, which is a model for Report stage. I think she put this across very well indeed and I very much support her.

My Amendment 116 relates to the containment in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 of the concept of a safe haven for patient data across health and social care, which is required for national statistics for commissioning, regulatory research purposes and patient care. My Amendment 116 simply seeks to keep those statutory protections in place and ensure that NHS England does not take on this responsibility as a result of the merging of NHS Digital and NHSX within the structure of NHS England, which was a recommendation of the review led by Laura Wade-Gery. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is going to speak in some detail—but with brevity as well, I hasten to add.

Kingsley Manning, the former distinguished chair of NHS Digital, has spelled out the implications of doing this. He believes the action of NHS England in taking over NHS Digital

“is a significant retrograde step in defending the rights of citizens with respect to the collection and use of their health data.”

In a letter to me, which I received yesterday, the Minister asked me why NHS England would be regarded as less independent, transparent or objective in the exercise of these functions, given its already significant responsibility for some data and the fact that it is a very similar organisation to NHS Digital, as a statutory arm’s-length body. In answer to him, NHS England has many different responsibilities and priorities, so, first, it will clearly not be able to give the same focus to the issue of protecting the safe haven and, secondly, it has many interests which could be deemed to at least be in tension with the concept of the safe haven. That is why I and other noble Lords believe it is important to have the statutory protection already contained in the current legislative arrangements.

I conclude by saying that I am at one with Ministers in wanting to speed up digital transformation in the NHS; after all, we have been dabbling with this over many years. But it has to be done right, and the way to do it right is to be very transparent and rigorous about the protection of patient information.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely, to reply to the debate.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular for their brevity given the long day we have ahead of us. In particular I thank the Minister for his helpful response.

My Amendment 60 is very specific and I asked for a specific response. The Minister has confirmed what I wanted to hear: that health data is special category data, and that it requires additional protections due to its sensitivity, which would be applied by any ICB when it has had that request. The other key phrase that stuck out was that nothing in the clause overrides the range of requirements in law to provide those key protections and safeguards regarding individual personal data. I am therefore satisfied on that basis.

Briefly on Amendment 116, which is much broader in scope and very important for the future of data use with the proposals that are coming down stream, I agree with all the comments that were made by noble Lords. One particular thing that stood out for me was the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the publication of the Goldacre review is vital before any final version of Data Saves Lives is made public.

We will not get to a vote on Amendment 116 today. However, could the Minister assist the House and confirm that guidance will be issued, rather than a looser “may be” issued? With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In moving Amendment 80, I look forward to the debate in your Lordships’ House and to my noble friend the Minister’s reply. I hope he will recognise the strength of feeling in the House and in this country as a whole. If the amendment is not acceptable, I am afraid that I will be forced to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak shortly to Amendment 168, but want briefly to refer to Amendment 80, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and so eloquently introduced by her, and supported across the House. Workforce planning is critical. Frankly, it is surprising that Ministers resisted amendments in Committee which called for formal long-term workforce planning for the NHS, social care and public health to be embedded in legislation.

The noble Baroness said that that current arrangements can be a bit like sticking plasters, and she is right, but it is not just about the use of bank and agency staff but about planning healthcare professional education. We all know how long it takes to train a doctor, but most of the other professionals also cannot just be turned on and off at election time. There have been too many times when this Government have said at elections that they would suddenly magic thousands of extra doctors and nurses. We need to build timescales into that workforce planning. The noble Baroness also talked about population demand, but I want to make another point: this is not just about population numbers; it is also about demographics. We will need more GPs and hospital professionals managing our rapidly ageing population. If we do not encourage people to go into those specialisms, we will not be able to look after our population in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.

I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that if government resistance is because of the funding implications with delivering such a plan, that is very short sighted. Not planning will be even more catastrophic. Amendment 80 is more modest in nature but is a critical minimum to achieve a commitment to plan effectively for the NHS, social care and public health.

I turn now to Amendment 168. Given that there are a number of speakers on this important group, I will be very brief here too. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, echoes the one he laid in Committee, and I am pleased to have signed both. We heard in Committee about this frustrating loophole that meant that it was not possible for certain members of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to be added to the list of colleges which could be involved in the appointment of NHS consultants. This is now slowing down the appointment of NHS consultants. I am very pleased to support the amendment and hope the Minister will be able to give good news to the House on this amendment too.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

Now I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is also speaking remotely, to speak.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is contributing remotely.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start by commending Amendment 100 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and I look forward to hearing him speak on it. It is an excellent idea to ask people how much choice they have actually had when offered treatment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for explaining his two amendments, and I would like to say to him that he is not sad for carrying out his role in your Lordships’ House with interest and care. His expertise in matters that may leave others cold should be celebrated. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, ask that trade unions should be part of consultations on private providers, and that seems sensible.

I wish to focus, albeit briefly, on Amendment 106A, which proposes that Clause 70 be left out, and which will be spoken to later by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton; I apologise to her that under the remote rules I have to speak first. I will confine my remarks to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 15th report, in which paragraphs 17 and 18 make plain its views about these proposed procurement arrangements and regulations. The first point that it notes is that the memorandum, at paragraph 481, says that

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

Why on earth do the Government wish to bring into force legislation that they admit they have not had time to analyse, let alone produce a more developed proposal for? We from our Benches, along with other noble Lords, have repeatedly said that the Cabinet Office procurement Bill is likely to overtake the needs for NHS-specific procurement regulations.

Paragraph 17 of the DPRRC Report gets straight to the heart of the issue and provides a response to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has tabled, starting with Amendment 101 in this group. It says:

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


It is therefore more than a little surprising to see a slew of government amendments on this issue that, in the group under discussion, strengthen the powers under regulation.

Paragraph 18 of the Delegated Powers Committee report states that:

“Ministers would not ordinarily propose clauses in one Bill possibly requiring imminent amendment in a subsequent Bill without expecting to face questions. The House may wish to seek further and better particulars from the Minister concerning the possible effect of any Cabinet Office procurement Bill on the Health and Care Bill, and … to press the Minister on why it was necessary to include provision, based on inadequately developed policy, in the Health and Care Bill when the Government intend to introduce a procurement Bill.”


Not only have we tried this at an earlier stage, but there have been meetings between Committee and Report, and it appears that the Government are determined to press on. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has concerns about the Government’s intentions on the clause and its amendment; if she chooses to call a Division on stand part, we from these Benches will support her.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 98A, 98B and 98C. Among other things, the Bill is designed to facilitate the outsourcing to private contractors of NHS services currently carried out in-house. That is the Government’s policy for the NHS, although it is firmly opposed by most of the citizens of this island.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is unwell, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his excellent introduction to Amendment 108, to which I have added my name. I also support the other two amendments in this group, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who I commend for his consistent campaign on these issues over the years. His Amendment 162 would ensure that there must be informed consent, with no coercion or financial gain, when organs are donated or when UK citizens go abroad for transplants. Amendment 173 would ensure that cadavers would no longer be used for public display unless it is the body of a person which is at least 100 years old, because, as with Amendments 108 and 162, there is real concern that people have been forced to have organs removed, or their bodies have been used after their death—sometimes murder, sometimes execution—but without their consent.

Returning to Amendment 108, it has two clear objectives: the first is to prevent the Government procuring health service goods produced in regions where there is a serious risk of genocide. While the Government say there is no evidence, a New York Times investigation found that PPE made through the Xinjiang labour transfer programme was present in US and international healthcare systems. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there is increasing evidence that the NHS has procured such items already.

The second objective is to create a process through which the UK Government can be required to assess regions for serious risk of genocide and publish their assessment. This is necessary because the UK Government have given out PPE contracts worth almost £150 million to Chinese firms with links to forced labour abuses in the Uyghur region.

The Government have said that genocide amendments are not appropriate in the Bill and that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 offers protection, but the reality is that the UK is not leading the world here. The US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act creates a “rebuttable presumption” banning all goods sourced in whole or in part from the Xinjiang region of China, unless clear and persuasive evidence can be provided to the contrary; and the European Union is now considering bringing forward new legislation to ban products made with forced labour from entering the European market. The UK’s Modern Slavery Act does not go nearly as far as either of these proposals, merely requiring that companies publish—but not that they act upon—modern slavery statements. People’s lives and human rights are at stake here. Frankly, it is time the UK followed suit with stronger legislation. This amendment would be a strong and careful start that means government and Parliament cannot look away. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I shall speak very briefly, because I am conscious of the time and that we have a lot of business to do. This amendment seeks nothing more than to create another human rights threshold for health procurement, adding to those that are already in place, which seek to address slavery but have major shortcomings, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just described. I keep hearing it being said that a health Bill is not the proper place for an amendment concerning genocide. Well, I am afraid that I do not agree. This is an appropriate place.

We are not asking the Government or the Department of Health to decide whether there is a genocide taking place; we are asking the Minister to take on the duty to assess whether the source of instruments, test kits, protective equipment or whatever may be from forced labour and a situation of slavery. Xinjiang province is the obvious place for us to be concerned about, but there are other places—for example, in India—that we should be concerned about too, and I think that placing that duty on the shoulders of the Minister is a way of concentrating minds. That is why I really press this amendment and I pay tribute to the way the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has so assiduously pursued this. That is all I wanted to say, but I will support this amendment and I urge the House to support it too.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I will speak very briefly from the Liberal Democrat Benches to offer our support for both the amendments in this group.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, Amendment 113, says that unpaid carers, including those under 18, must be properly consulted by the NHS to ensure that they are able to provide the care needed to keep patients safe. In Committee—and, more recently, at the excellent and moving round table with family carers organised by Carers UK, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, just spoke—we heard evidence of hospitals discharging patients before assessments had been completed and before carers had even been told. The burden that this places on carers is totally unacceptable and unsafe. Worse still—and unsurprisingly—the home arrangements too often break down when family and unpaid carers are not a full part of the consultation process. We support the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in this vital amendment.

The second amendment, Amendment 144, to which I have added my name, was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. The amendment ensures that there are always proper social care needs assessments to ensure that both the family and unpaid carers are consulted, along with the relevant local authority; and that ICBs must have an agreement in place with the relevant parties to ensure that vulnerable people are not discharged without the right support. Some carers are themselves vulnerable people, and we need to make sure that all protections are in place for them too.

Equally importantly, it ensures reporting by the relevant authorities back to the ICB so that it can monitor discharge effectiveness. It says—as a bit of stick to go with the other carrot parts—that the ICB must pay for any

“additional costs borne by a local authority in caring for a patient whilst carrying out social care needs assessments”,

in the event that the patient has been discharged before this was completed.

There are 1.4 million unpaid carers who save the state just under £3 billion a year—and they need more than guidance. Both of these amendments will ensure that the patient and their unpaid carer are assessed and supported properly, and that the key stakeholders—the NHS, the relevant local authority and the ICB—must work together to make this happen.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 113. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, both on this amendment and on the years and years of commitment she has given to the support of carers.

It is extraordinary what this Government are prepared to do in this Bill. In revoking the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, they are abolishing the “safe to discharge” test, which requires processes to have been followed to ensure that appropriate and adequate care is, or will be, in place for a patient’s discharge from hospital. The Government are proposing that carers’ rights in primary legislation should be put in statutory guidance instead.

As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I am very conscious that, under this Government, secondary or delegated legislation is used more and more to concentrate power in the hands of Ministers rather than in Parliament. The only possible reason for the Government to remove carers’ rights from the Bill, and to put them into secondary legislation, is to weaken those rights. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that point? It is a very important question.

A number of us recently met with a group of so-called adult carers—teenagers and adults—and also with a group of young carers. Both of those experiences were humbling from my point of view. I will mention a couple of points that came up. One teenager rather casually mentioned that she had begun being a carer at the age of three. This is unbelievable, is it not? I forgot to ask her what she actually had to do at the age of three; it is difficult to imagine. But, whatever she had to do, the idea that she somehow had a sense of responsibility at that age is truly alarming.

The other memorable moment was when a teenager was asked, “What is the most difficult thing for you, or the biggest problem that you have as a carer?” I thought she would say that she did not have any time to play with her friends or that she had to do all sorts of boring and horrible jobs that her friends do not. But no, she did not say any of that; what she actually said was, “The biggest problem I have is that the hospital staff won’t tell me how much medication my mum needs. They say they’ve got to talk to my mum, but that’s impossible.” The selflessness implied in that is just completely extraordinary—and of course there were lots of other incredible points.

If these young carers are not consulted before their dependent relative is discharged from hospital, they may be at school or in the middle of a hockey match—it is just unimaginable that this requirement should be in any way weakened. I ask the Minister to take extreme care on this issue when going back and considering the Bill; only then can we be sure that patients are not just medically fit to be discharged from hospital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, but are safe to be discharged—that is, carers or others are there to look after them.

BASW rightly points out that revoking a local authority’s Care Act duty to integrate care and support provision with health provision at the time of the key decision about where a person should be discharged to from hospital undermines the model of integration between social and health care staff—surely the absolute opposite of the whole objective of the Bill. I understand that discharge to assess is probably reasonable for medium and long-term care planning. However, an assess to discharge approach is even more important and should be done in hospital, from the date of admission to hospital. Where is that commitment in the Bill? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Sharkey to the Ministers and their officials for the very helpful discussions that we have had with them on reciprocal healthcare agreements. I also thank my noble friend for his persistence in leading on those discussions between Committee and Report on the two points of difference between us—the definition of reciprocal healthcare, with our concerns about the ability to create a privatisation of parts of healthcare, and that an SI under a negative resolution is not strong enough for Parliament to scrutinise properly. My noble friend’s amendments are, as he said, very specifically aimed at removing these concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I also particularly thank Ministers for understanding that the House was deeply unhappy with the original proposals for regulations via a negative resolution. I hope to hear that Ministers will now agree to the affirmative resolution proposed in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. Scrutiny by Parliament needs to be timely, and Parliament needs to be allowed to effectively challenge proposals about which it has concerns.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak about reciprocal healthcare, which is not how I felt several years when we dealt with this exact issue in your Lordships’ House, as many noble Lords might remember. It was with some trepidation that I and these Benches looked at this part of the Bill, because we were so concerned and had to do so much work to protect our NHS in the passage of the 2019 Act.

I am very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for engaging with us so thoroughly to take on the board our concerns, which needed to be built into this part of the Bill. I say particularly how impressed I am by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and how grateful I am to him for his understanding and persistence—and his ability to read long, complex documents, understand them and then translate them so that other people can understand them too. That is a great talent.

From these Benches, with the idea that the affirmative resolution will be agreed, we are very happy indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for introducing so comprehensively this group of amendments on care costs. Given the lateness of hour in Committee, the House needed to hear the detail of this.

Her Amendments 127 and 141, which I have signed and which we will support if she calls a Division, would remove the cap on care costs which was announced and introduced by the Government in the Commons. It was not widely consulted on, and is a deeply unfair element of the Government’s proposals for the new social care payments arrangements. Far from fixing the ongoing crisis in social care “once and for all”, which the Prime Minister said from the steps of No. 10 Downing Street in 2019 he would do, these divisive plans will not stop people needing to sell their homes to pay for care and are a breach of the Government’s promise in that election. It is very important that the Commons have the time to discuss the consequences of the detail of removing that cap now that the announcement has been better understood, especially by the professionals, including the think tanks, who are very concerned about it.

We also support the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who will speak to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which would ensure a zero amount for personal care charges for those under 40. It is absolutely against the spirit of Dilnot and a deep injustice to those under 40 with personal care needs that they are treated the same as those whose working years are behind them. It is a huge injustice that we have an NHS that is free at the point of use and yet younger people with learning disabilities and life-limiting health conditions are charged for essential care. There are also a number of deep, practical contradictions in this arrangement that make it particularly shocking, including a survey that found that charges made by cash-strapped local authorities—made because they could charge them—had forced people to stop the care they needed or made them face difficult choices for financial reasons, with the results showing an increased reliance on family members and high levels of deteriorating mental health, including suicidal thoughts.

Amendment 144A from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, supports the principles behind both Amendments 127 and 141, which would remove Clause 155. It proposes that all provisions on the care cap are brought into force by 1 April 2023 by regulation under the Care Act, resulting in no delay to its implementation. We support that too.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely; I invite her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced his Amendment 144B on complaints about care services very well. He is absolutely right: this is a muddle. Are people to go to the CQC or to a particular home when they wish to make a complaint? Any complaints system where the person making the complaint feels in a less strong position than the organisation to which they are complaining, or indeed—sometimes they might even put this strongly—which is wielding power over them is a complaints system that will not work. I hope that the Minister will understand this, and will respond and ensure, first, that there is a clear and understood system, and, secondly, that if some funding needs to be restored to the CQC to take us back to where we were, that will happen.

I want to speak particularly to two of the issues covered in this wide-ranging group of amendments: the licensing of cosmetic procedures and medical practitioners’ financial and non-pecuniary interests. I also have sympathy for the other two, on registration of social workers and hospital rehabilitation accommodation.

The amendments laid by the Minister, beginning with 153A, on the licensing of cosmetic procedures by local authorities and, indeed, Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on cosmetic procedures, which I have signed, set out models for registration for those who work using devices that breach the skin and who are not covered by medical registration or, currently, by any effective regulation. I know that considerable discussions have taken place between Committee and Report, and it is welcome that the Government have felt that they can now lay their own amendments, signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I look forward to hearing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on those amendments.

Amendment 184ZBB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, which I have signed, brings us back to the debate on medical practitioners’ financial and non-pecuniary interests. Our debate in Committee highlighted the problem that the financial and non-pecuniary interests arrangements do not match those that many others in the public sector have to make, where the registration body holds the information. The GMC has said once again that it does not particularly like the style of this amendment and would prefer the records to be held directly by the employer. However, I believe the argument that the registration body, which also has the power to take action, should be the place where these are kept.

I hope that, regardless of whether a vote is called, the Minister will take this away and look at it in more detail. We need an open, transparent and clear system of registration of financial and non-pecuniary interests.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely; I invite her to speak.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is also taking part remotely. I invite her to speak next.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments, slightly amended from Committee, and in particular for responding to the Minister’s concerns that the first amendment had perhaps been too broad and would catch the day-to-day business of companies. That cannot be said about Amendment 145.

I also want to pick up a point that the noble Earl made in Committee. He said:

“A company’s working capital, by its nature, is money that is used to fund day-to-day operations in general, and one cannot associate a particular pound with a particular business activity.”—[Official Report, 4/2/22; col. 1161.]


Yet the Charity Commission does have the ability to intervene in the event that a charity, or series of charities stretches—shall we say?—those rules. Its Internal Financial Controls for Charities, CC8, provides very specific guidance. Indeed, in recent years, one charity, the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, was investigated for a circular set of donations. Each donation to each different body was paid tax relief out of the public purse, coming back to serve the schools that the adults at the community church sent their children to. The way that was structured was similar to a financial instrument employed by the few companies that abused the funding they received from the public purse for social care.

The noble Earl also referred to the Treasury guidance Managing Public Money and Accounting Officer Assessments. I have been through that, too. It is very interesting and clear. Under the heading

“expenditure which may rely on a Supply and Appropriation Act”,

Managing Public Money lists

“routine administration costs: employment costs, rent, cleaning etc … lease agreements, eg for photocopiers, lifts”.

It does not say: “Re-charging sister/parent/daughter companies for large amounts of borrowing and the interest thereto”, which is what has been happening.

It is important that we start to debate how public funding is spent by these companies, particularly those overseas, when we cannot see how that money is spent. I also support the other amendments in the group, which ask for a review of financial regulation. It is interesting that the Treasury guidance refers constantly to the Nolan principles, which are absolutely vital in talking about transparency and responsibility when spending public money. These amendments might not be quite right to deliver that, but it would be good if there were a review under way.

The other thing we must have when these companies spend large amounts of public money is publication of their full accounts. They should not be able to hide behind very short, superficial accounts from overseas.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as I did in Committee. In essence, they are about financial practices in the social care sector that I find completely unacceptable.

The social care provider market, as we all know, is complex, fragmented and too often inherently unstable. One of the causes of instability is financially risky behaviour by a small number of large, equity-backed, highly debt-laden companies in the residential care sector. This has resulted in some high-profile sudden exits from the market, such as Southern Cross and Four Seasons. The key point is that, in the event of the closure of a care home, the provider bears no responsibility for continuity of care. That falls on the local authority, with the direct impact felt by care home residents and their families. That just cannot be right.

It is also concerning that, in its 2021 social care market report, the NAO was unable to analyse the accounts of five of the large equity-backed providers because of difficulty in accessing their accounts. Of course, the issue of the lack of transparency over accounts, profits and shareholders is exacerbated when company ownership is offshore.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, explained, Amendment 147 seeks to require local authorities and other public bodies to commission care from non-UK domiciled companies only if they publish full accounts and offer transparency over their ownership. There is an interesting international precedent for the latter part of this. Indeed, in February 2022, the Biden Administration announced a set of measures around improving quality and transparency by requiring private equity firms to disclose ownership stakes in nursing homes.

I will finish by making a couple of broad points. For a measure like this to be implemented effectively, it will clearly be essential that local authorities are equipped with sufficient complex accounting knowledge to scrutinise the ownership and financial practices of a provider. Although this amendment would help ensure transparency and enable better scrutiny of offshore entities, I am conscious that complex ownership structures are not limited to companies owned abroad. I hope the time will come when this sort of financial transparency is extended across all providers, wherever they are based.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard _ Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I speak from these Benches to support both amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced his Amendment 164 on vaccine damage payments, explaining that the current law as set out in the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 is now over 40 years old. The amendment asks for a judge-led review on what parts of the Act need to be updated, especially the maximum payable as a result of vaccine damage.

The amendment proposes a small and focused review that will assist those who have been damaged by vaccines and will help the NHS, Government and Parliament ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose in the 21st century, especially for the families of those damaged by the Covid vaccine and of the very few who died. They may be an infinitesimally small percentage of those who have been vaccinated but their lives have been turned upside down because of doing the right thing.

Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is an important pillar of delivering the recommendations from her First Do No Harm review, which outlined routes to assist those who had been harmed by an avoidable harm as a result of using certain HPTs, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. The victims of this avoidable harm are not to blame for it either, but are living out the consequences, including needing additional care for the rest of their lives. I know that the Government have been very supportive of the First Do No Harm review. I hope that they can be persuaded that now is the time to introduce schemes that will help these people. While I fear that there may not be movement on these two amendments today, I hope that the Minister can outline when there is likely to be progress on these two financially modest but essential areas that could right some long-term wrongs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has introduced his amendment very clearly, so I will be brief and say that I will also support him if he chooses to call a Division.

The majority of the British public support the legalisation of assisted dying. In a Populus poll of more than 5,000 people in 2019, 84% of respondents said they supported giving dying people the right to an assisted death. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has managed to praise the Scottish Parliament system that has enabled my colleague Liam McArthur to have time for his Bill in its Parliament.

As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, it is important to note that the amendment would not actually change the law on assisted dying. What it would do is to ensure that some proper parliamentary time is made available, as in Scotland, within 12 months of the Bill passing into law, to ensure that there can be a planned and proper debate with the wider public and with MPs and Peers that is just not possible in the Private Members’ Bill process that we have in our Parliament.

It is important to note that the amendment does not require government to support the legislation through Parliament, merely to ask for the time, and that this procedure has happened before with Section 16 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I hope that the Minister will change the Government’s mind on this so that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, does not have to call a Division.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 172. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for tabling this improved amendment, with important changes since Committee, as she has very helpfully explained to your Lordships’ House. I believe that this helps to find a way to balance the views of the child’s parents and the child’s doctors, and it is reassuring that many of the stakeholders from different perspectives have come to agreement on this.

The amendment also makes it clear that nothing affects the principle of the best interests of the child. This means that no medical professional could ever be forced to provide a medical treatment that they do not believe is in the best interests of the child, and that any other provider of such medical treatment would have to provide evidence during the mediation that this would benefit the child.

Another key reason for the need for this amendment is that at the moment mediation provision across England is inconsistent. While there is certainly excellence, there are also some problem areas. Having in legislation an independent mediation process made available at the earliest stage possible can help facilitate less confrontational conversations while supporting both sides in the argument.

The issue of parent-doctor conflicts will continue to persist frequently unless the Government can consider this amendment, and I strongly urge them to do so. If the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, were to call a Division, we would support her on this, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some positive news.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have signed Amendment 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I thank her for introducing it and for making it clear that this aims for global pandemic preparedness. The World Health Organization set a target to vaccinate 40% of the world by the end of 2021. However, 92 countries missed this target due to a lack of access. Despite the funding from high-income countries to the WHO-run COVAX and Gavi schemes, low-income countries have remained at the back of the queue as high-income countries have been able to jump in ahead, using their money to get second and third doses for their own population.

Frankly, we need a better system for future pandemics. We need to understand that openly licensing newly developed Covid-19 technologies, waiving intellectual property rights and sharing the manufacturing know-how would allow more companies to begin producing life-saving vaccines, drugs and tests across the world. However, pharma companies have widely refused to share their technology openly. We also need to source other key critical control products, such as testing equipment, PPE and masks. Relying on too few suppliers in too few countries caused immense problems for the first six months of the pandemic, and again as subsequent waves hit those countries. In addition, the UK, the EU and Switzerland continue to block South Africa’s and India’s proposal to temporarily waive certain provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—TRIPS—on Covid-19 tools.

Despite regular pandemic exercises in this country, and despite previous experience with vaccines for other diseases not being shared with low-income countries, we have not learned the lessons. This amendment sets out what a Secretary of State should do within three months of the WHO declaring a public health emergency. I really hope that Ministers are prepared to help make progress on this issue. If not, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, calls for a Division, we will support her from these Benches.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I now invite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is taking part remotely, to speak.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

I remind the House that we have three noble Baronesses beaming in. The first is the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and vice-chair of the APPG on Adult Social Care.

I thank the Government for their Motion E relating to carers and safe discharge, which goes a considerable way to providing the reassurance that patients and their unpaid carers will be included in discharge planning. I am pleased to hear that Carers UK is working closely with the department on the guidance, and it is good to see that the guidance will be further updated when the Bill is passed and will include more mentions of carers and young carers—that is also welcome.

The guidance links to a number of background documents, such as action cards and the Home First documents, which are short, summary versions to help discharge from hospital but seem to be slightly out of step with the new provisions. So, while I am grateful for the Government’s amendment, will the Minister clarify whether these will also be updated?

I turn to Motions G, G1 and G2 on the social care cap. The Government’s changes to the care cap announced, late in the passage of the Bill in the Commons, that the amounts accrued towards the £86,000 cap are now based solely on the individual’s out-of-pocket expenses. Although individuals will still qualify for means-tested financial support if their assets fall below £100,000, in practice this will no longer act to protect people with more modest means and will simply see them contributing over a longer period. This is much more regressive and would leave poorer, older people and working-age adults with less protection from the catastrophic care costs than others who are wealthier.

I have been happy to sign previous amendments to remove the social care cap, and these Benches support Motion G1. The measures in Motion G1, especially in Amendment 80P, ensure that the original principles of the Dilnot commission recommendations are fully implemented. It is also important that the results of the trailblazer pilot schemes can be fully evaluated with an impact assessment and that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate that review. The changes proposed by the Government just before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House are very different from those that Parliament understood right at the start of the Bill’s passage.

This is not just a problem for older people. Mencap has reminded us that the Government’s impact assessment shows that their proposals will benefit only around 10% of working-age care users and that there will be a limited impact on improving the funding spent on working-age disabled adults. It is still a disgrace that the arrangements for older people, which assume decades of working and earning, are also used for younger adults with disabilities, who we know are much more likely to be assets and savings poor and to need care and support for much longer, and who will therefore accrue much higher levels of cost than older people. These proposals from the Government are just not fit for purpose and need to be reviewed for this group of younger adults. That is why we support Motions G1 and G2.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, although my noble friend Lady Walmsley will be speaking from our Benches on the workforce amendments, I just want to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the eloquent speech she made on the need for proper and effective workforce planning. I support everything she said.

I will now speak to Motions D and D1 on genocide and modern slavery, having added my name to amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. I thank the Government for their Amendment 48A in Motion D. Frankly, a review of the NHS supply chains should undoubtedly happen, regardless of the Bill, but the amendment does not go nearly far enough to stop the practice of suppliers to the NHS purchasing goods where there has been a risk of slavery and human trafficking. The amendment talks only about the Secretary of State having to “mitigate the risk”. In the linguistic range of a Minister making commitments, mitigation does not hit even the halfway bar.

We need to be blunt. A very large quantity of NHS medical equipment is sourced, in whole or in part, from the People’s Republic of China. Despite the Government denying that any equipment is sourced from the Uighur region, reports have found that the UK Government have bought more than £150 million-worth of PPE from Chinese firms directly linked to abuses of Uighur rights abuses. As recently as this month, supply chain specialists revealed that the NHS continues to be supplied PPE from a company known to use Uighur forced labour programmes. Without legislation mandating transparency and due diligence, it seems very unlikely that the Government will be able to ensure that they are not sourcing goods from companies practising modern slavery.

Amendment 48B in Motion D1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, goes beyond the Government’s proposals for a review by seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State must by regulation make provision to ensure that all procurement of goods and services for the health service in England avoids slavery. The UK Government have to face up to their obligations to prevent through the law any forced labour and people trafficking in UK health supply chains. From these Benches we will support Amendment 48B in Motion D1.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Motion B1 on workforce planning and Motion C1 on the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfiguration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just reminded us, there is a huge groundswell of support for the need to do proper workforce planning in the NHS, but the fact is that today we do not need to relitigate the fundamental arguments, because your Lordships have already decided, by a margin of 171 to 119 votes on 3 March, that that is indeed what is required.

Of course, if the facts change, we should change our minds. Have the facts changed since 3 March? Have we seen the long-awaited detailed workforce plan for the health and social care sector that has been promised yet suppressed for the last six years? Regrettably, we have not. Have we even had concrete commitments to the detailed, costed and quantified five, 10 and 15-year outlooks that will supposedly be forthcoming in the spring? No, we have not had commitments that those numbers will be able to be produced without fear or favour, or Treasury veto.

However, we have before us two new data points. One is the survey of 650,000 NHS front-line staff, half of whom—52%—are now telling us that they cannot do their jobs properly because of a shortage of staff in their local service. The second data point is the results of the British Social Attitudes survey, telling us that nearly half of our fellow citizens have noticed that fact; they too believe that one of the fundamental problems standing in the way of performance by the health service is the shortage of staff.

If the Government are not inclined to listen to the hundred or so organisations that have supported this amendment or, indeed, to the results of surveys of front-line staff or the public, perhaps they will listen to a commentator from the Spectator:

“The lack of workforce planning by the Government—and its continual refusal to commit to it—means satisfaction from patients and staff is likely to plummet still further.”


I do not believe the Government want that. Nobody wants that, which is why we should take this opportunity to listen to the clear message that we have been sent by patients, staff and the public.

I turn briefly to Motion C1 on the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfigurations. There is an obvious read-across between the discussion on workforce and the discussion on reconfigurations. In the real world, it is often staff shortages which give rise to concerns about the safe provision of services, hence the request for reconfigurations. In these circumstances, and coming just a few days after the Ockenden review of maternity safety, it is all the more dangerous that the new powers in Clause 40 and Schedule 6 would allow the Secretary of State to suppress changes needed to keep patients safe and to pre-empt and override the concerns of local clinicians, local patient groups, local authorities and even the Care Quality Commission.

There could be safeguards but, unfortunately, to date at least—perhaps, depending on what we do today, this will resurface after Easter—we are being asked to support the original text of the Bill, which has taken no account of any of the concerns that have been raised in both Houses during its passage. Instead, on the reconfiguration powers, today the Government are essentially praying in aid an argument not on the substance but on the merits of democratic oversight by the Secretary of State. This is despite the fact that previous Health Secretaries have managed democratically to supervise the National Health Service without requiring these new powers, despite the fact that former Health Ministers—Conservative Health Ministers, Labour Health Ministers and Liberal Democrat Health Ministers—all oppose these measures and have spoken out, including in your Lordships’ House, and despite the fact that democratically elected Health Ministers in just about every other European country have never sought and do not possess these types of powers.

If the Government want to argue Motion C on the crucible of democratic oversight, it seems that by that logic they should indeed support Motion C1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which further enhances the democratic oversight of the use of these proposed new powers, giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise these types of interventions. Therefore, for those reasons, frustratingly, perhaps, I find that we are in a position where Motions B1 and C1 are still necessary.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I start by thanking the Minister for the large number of meetings during the passage of this Bill in the Lords—with some exceptions, but I will return to those shortly. It has been, for the most part, a very constructive engagement that has taken a considerable amount of the Minister’s and his officials’ time. I believe that the constructive nature of the discussions means that this Bill will leave your Lordships’ House in a better state, and more workable in practice, than when it arrived.

I will speak on Motions C, D and D1 and will leave Motions A, A1 and B to my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I pay particular tribute to her for her dedicated work on the Front Bench, which I have been unable to fulfil because of the strict rules relating to remote contributions.

On Motion C on modern slavery, I particularly thank Ministers for listening to the concerns across all parties in both Houses. Motion C addresses many of the concerns that there were about the willingness of the Government to carry out a review in order to better understand the risk of slavery, human trafficking and modern slavery in the NHS supply chain. It is, of course, only a first step. Eradication of slavery and human trafficking in health service supply chains must remain the key objective, but this will give the Government the tools they need. The publication arrangements will be transparent, and Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise it. For these reasons, these Benches will not oppose Motion C.

I turn now to Motions D and D1 on the social care cap. I start by thanking the Minister for his letter—received this afternoon—addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and copied to myself and others who have attended meetings with him on the social care cap, which provided more detail on the trailblazer programme. By the way, in any other environment they would be called “pilots”, but there we go. I am struggling to see what is new about the trailblazer programme in that letter, other than one extraordinary sentence which says:

“I would be happy to arrange a further meeting with you and the policy team if you would like to discuss this in more depth”.