Health and Care Bill

Baroness Thornton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 17 from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. There are of course different waiting-list lengths in the different Administrations, but I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about fair funding. She makes a very good point about Wales.

I too have had experiences like those of the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, over my Covid vaccination status, because I live in Wales and the NHS app in Wales did not seem to speak to the other one. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that is something that needs sorting out at a different level.

As I said, I live very near the border in Wales, so I am acutely aware from personal experience that the nature, quality and resources of healthcare in England affect the people of the devolved Administrations. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said: it is not just about people near the border—Anglesey is not at all near the border—but in day-to-day working it affects people near the border very frequently.

These are of course devolved matters, but in their practical, day-to-day operation the borders are what people call “leaky”—in other words, people travel both ways for work, school, shopping, leisure and indeed health services. So, particularly in the border areas, it makes a lot of sense to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said happens all the time: for GPs to be able to refer patients for a particular service to or from the devolved nations. That is why anything that affects the provision and quality of services in England also affects Welsh and Scottish people in particular. I suspect it is slightly less the case for people in Northern Ireland, although waiting lists there are particularly concerning.

So this is particularly important in relation to the location of specialist hubs, because the border areas of both Wales and Scotland are very rural and the distances and transport difficulties to their own hospitals can be long and difficult—even more so if the patients have to cross the border. We need to ensure that anything done in the Bill makes cross-referral able to continue as easily as it does at the moment.

What discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations about the Bill? Are there any aspects of it that are still waiting for the agreement of the Governments of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because she has helped me to clarify my thinking about this group of amendments. Basically, they have good intentions and they make good points about the things that need to happen, but I am not absolutely certain they need to be in the Bill. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her very well-informed contribution about what actually goes on. There are of course problems in relationships between the devolved nations and NHS England, some of which are down to not being very well organised, some of which are down to arrogance on the part of the bigger ones, and some of which are down to the funding not actually being available—and some of them might be politically motivated too.

Amendment 17 opens some new thinking on the subject of integration, and accepts that devolution has given us different systems for care in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but seeks to ensure that what is done in one part of the UK—that is, England—does not adversely impact on other parts. The intention to bring collaboration between the nations is, of course, commendable.

I note that Amendment 205 places some requirements such that

“Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and a Northern Ireland department must make regulations providing that the choices available to patients in England by virtue of regulations under section 6E(1A) or (1B) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 69 of this Act) are available to patients for whom they have responsibility.”


Again, we can understand the need for consistency, but I am unclear about how that will play out against the devolved nature of healthcare—so I think the case will have to be made out for that and, indeed, why that would be included in the legislation.

In a similar fashion, Amendment 301 looks to establish interoperability around the use of data across the whole UK. Again, that is a wholly worthwhile intention, and one that I would hope that the various authorities could collectively work on and agree. Once more, what the role is for primary legislation to address this point is not entirely clear, and I welcome the discussion. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Morgan for raising these important matters both via this Committee and by engaging—as I understand she has recently—with my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health. I am also grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully and knowledgably on these issues.

There is no escaping one overarching reality in this policy area, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has just alluded. As a Government of the whole United Kingdom, Ministers are responsible for all people of the UK; that is a given. However, while the core principles of the NHS are shared across all parts of the United Kingdom, it is the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are responsible for developing their own health policies. Health is largely a devolved matter in the UK, and the commissioning and provision of health services for people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will continue to be a matter for the devolved Governments.

It will not surprise my noble friend to know that the UK Government continue to respect existing devolution settlements, so our aim is close collaboration with the devolved Administrations to deliver the best outcomes for the people across the four nations. This means that, while we are sympathetic to the spirit of these amendments, I am afraid that we cannot accept them.

I shall address the detailed issues. On Amendment 17, I agree with my noble friend that there is more we can do to align our healthcare for the good of patients across the United Kingdom. We are already exploring several projects to support the NHS to work more closely across the UK, and this includes refreshing the current memoranda of understanding between all four Governments and working with the Office for National Statistics to establish a number of UK-wide datasets. Steps like that will improve transparency and collaboration for the good of all patients across the UK. We do not believe that these steps require primary legislation, but we will keep that question under review. We will also continue to work with NHS England to ensure that a number of groups that it currently hosts, such as the rare diseases advisory group, and their specialised commissioning processes, also meet the relevant needs of the devolved Administrations.

Turning to Amendment 205, we know that choice of healthcare is an important right for patients across the UK. The NHS Constitution for England, for example, enshrines the patient’s right to informed choice. We will be preserving the important right for patients in England to choose their first elective outpatient appointment, GP and GP practice through regulations made under powers provided by the Bill. NHS England works closely with the devolved Governments, including on commissioning and ensuring access to specialised services. Requests for patients to have treatment in other nations are generally to secure continuity of care, to provide care close to patients’ support mechanisms, or because of specialist expertise.

The health services in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland already have the power to contract with any NHS provider in England. As my noble friend Lord Lansley rightly pointed out, they already have in place arrangements for commissioning specialised services from English providers, including cross-border agreements, referral schemes and service-level agreements. Taking further steps, as suggested in this amendment, would place a significant burden on a smaller number of providers, particularly those along borders, with consequences for the smooth running of those health systems. From a legal perspective, such a change would be a significant impingement on a devolved competence and would require the consent of the devolved legislatures. Of course, patients matter most, but such a change would also be unlikely to greatly benefit them, since they are already served by existing arrangements.

Amendment 301 deals with data interoperability. The UK Government are committed to working with officials across the devolved Administrations to explore the benefits that healthcare data can provide while working collaboratively to respect the devolved nature of this work. As in other areas, we are looking at ways to improve collaboration on data matters and address issues with data sharing. There are commitments within the data strategy for health and social care to work across central government and the devolved Administrations to improve appropriate data linkage, thus supporting people’s health care outcomes. This builds on the work of units such as the Joint Biosecurity Centre, and the newly established UK Health Security Agency.

That work will help us to collaborate to solve public health issues, improve disease surveillance and overcome any behavioural or structural obstacles to appropriate data sharing across our respective health and social care systems. In addition, we are speaking to the Office for National Statistics about collecting data on performance and outcomes across the UK. We are pursuing this with it, working in concert with the devolved Administrations. The ONS has assured us that it does not need additional powers to gather such data.

The problems encountered by the daughter of my noble friend Lady Fraser in proving her vaccination status are being actively addressed on both sides of the border. I must concede that the problems are not fully resolved yet, but understand that a Covid status pass from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland will be recognised in England and vice versa.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Thornton]

18: Clause 7, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“(5) Assistance or support provided under this section to a person or organisation which is not an NHS body or representative of an NHS body, may only be provided after consultation with the relevant integrated care board and integrated care partnership.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides that the relevant ICB and ICP must be consulted before assistance is provided to bodies other than NHS bodies. It aims to ensure a transparent process where private providers are provided with assistance.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the amendments in what is now group 4, commencing with Amendment 18 in my name, which address the various ways in which the board of an ICB should be constituted. I thank the noble Lords who have supported the amendments in my name and will speak also to Amendments 28 and 37.

Amendment 18 covers who should be on the board and, crucially, who should not. These amendments are about the governance of ICBs. They are going to be very powerful bodies—they are already operating in a shadow way, as it were—which will allocate hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds on our behalf. The question is about who should have a seat at the table where the decisions are taken. We should perhaps begin with who should not be on an ICB. There appears to be agreement that private sector interests should not be permitted, so I see no point in repeating the debates that took place in the Commons because that principle has already been settled. However, as ever, the devil is in the detail of how that translates into legislation and the ICB constitutions. It is my belief that what is in the Bill so far is not strong enough.

The objective is that private providers cannot have any part in decisions about how NHS resources are allocated or how contracts are placed. In my other amendments, I have extended the scope of this to ban GPs with APMS contracts, as they are definitely private sector interests. How someone from a social enterprise or the voluntary sector might be regarded is an issue to address sensibly, and I very much welcome that the Minister has said on several occasions that he believes that a margin of flexibility will be needed to make that happen. We all know that there is a single example of someone from Virgin Care being on a non-statutory non-decision-making ICS, one out of the 42 ICBs and one person on a body with 20-odd other members. That is still one too many. It is the principle that matters.

Private providers are bound essentially and legally to be addressing shareholder value, which is absolutely right and as it should be for their particular business interests, but they are not the values that underpin the NHS, which is absolutely not about striving for profit and shareholder value in any way. That is not to say that the NHS at every level should not strive for value for taxpayers’ money and effectiveness, but the best service for patients and communities is surely the underpinning objective of our NHS and it should be that for ICBs. Nor is it saying that the NHS should not be commissioning or working with a variety of providers, but we need to safeguard those values and the social value that underpin the NHS.

In the Commons this has been debated and Ministers are on the record about their intention not to have private providers represented. Sadly, some of us are still sceptical. This is particularly so when one looks at the easing of the 2012 commissioning and procurement regime. I await with interest the Minister’s reply on this matter. In making appointments to ICBs we are clear that there should be some kind of test so that if someone has something in their background which a reasonable person might think makes them unreasonably favourable or disposed to the use of private providers within the NHS, then they have no role on an ICB. I suspect that one might have to see, when the Bill finally takes effect as an Act, that those tests might be brought to bear on some of the ICS/ICB chairs and non-executive directors who may fail it.

The ICBs have similar duties to the CCGs they replace, at least on paper, but the board of an ICB will be very different from the CCG GPs and sometimes, it has to be said, the rather ad hoc arrangements that existed there. ICBs will be much closer to the unitary board model of trusts, FTs and the PCTs of recent memory. We agree with the intention of more effective commissioning of health services in the new era of co-operation and collaboration and with better integration with related services, so there should be a new kind of board made up of fewer NHS insiders and more who may have a wider perspective and fit better into the new model and the aspirations of the Bill.

We have had what feels like a dozen different ways of making commissioning work, and I have been directly involved in some. My observation is that as soon as they look like they are starting to work, they get reorganised. The trouble has always been the split between commissioners and providers, which some may say is essentially bogus. Both bits are still core NHS, and the big trusts have massive influence because they are massive. There is no democratic accountability, and the big providers had all the clout, not the commissioners. The NHS commissioning operation is often in splendid isolation from the rest of the public services, disconnected even from social care, to say nothing of where primary and community care and public health come in. This Bill aspires to be different, so we need to look at how it is served differently by the ICBs.

There has been some pretence that this will all change under the Bill, just as there has been for previous ones on commissioning. ICBs are given flexibilities and can build place-based sublevels, but the reality is that, as they are constructed at the moment, they are the same old NHS cartels. They have all the freedom they are allowed, but they may ultimately be powerless. The public will have as much idea about what ICBs do as they did about CCGs, and we all remember the marches to save our PCTs in the distant past. Just to make this clear, vested interests get a place in the ICB as of right but the public, patients and staff are not given that honour and responsibility. That is what part of these amendments does. Amendment 37, in my name and that of others, sets out our view about which voices are most important, and it breaks the mould of NHS appointing.

I divert briefly to say that elsewhere we will discuss more about how those appointments are made. Our view is that some independent appointments commission ought to make a comeback. I took great encouragement from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Tuesday, which helped in this regard. But there is still far too much control from the top and far too little say from the bottom on all the appointments that will be made under the Bill. Amendment 37 at least offers a way to have some diversity and possibility to challenge the interests that dominate the NHS.

Surely nobody who looks at what the amendments suggest would argue that these interests do not have a right to some voice. The public, patients, staff, social care, public health, mental health—which of these can be safely ignored and which has no part to play? We know the Minister in the Commons gave a minimalist defence in the interests of the new mantra of flexibility. He rightly said that boards should be of a manageable size and that ICBs should have some flexibility—as much as NHS England would allow—to add others to the board, beyond the minimum. The NHS actually has to do what it is told and, unless a more stringent requirement is put in the legislation, it will do what it has always been allowed to do. If we really want a better care system and some change to make organisational upheaval worthwhile, let us have a go at doing something different, with a wider group of voices to be heard and take decisions.

Our Amendment 37 deals with appointing key non-executive board members to represent interests, but within a unitary board. On Tuesday, colleagues pointed out that all board members share collective responsibility, which is a tried and tested model, but we need a discussion about this. I can see from the amendments in this group that other noble Lords have views—my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for example—but our amendments and others in the group, if we discuss them together, would make for a better balanced board, which does not necessarily have to be a larger board. I hope the Minister will consider these submissions carefully. I beg to move.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate, and I really am grateful to all noble Lords who tabled amendments today.

With your Lordships’ leave, I turn first to Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would mean that the relevant ICB and ICP would need to be consulted before NHS England is able to provide support and assistance to bodies other than NHS bodies. The NHS has, under successive Governments of all political colours—indeed, since its foundation in 1948—commissioned care from various sectors to help it be more responsive to patients’ needs, and particularly to help deliver the commitments set out in the NHS constitution.

The vast majority of NHS care has been—and will rightly continue to be—provided by taxpayer-funded public sector organisations. But experience before and during the pandemic has demonstrated how important it is for NHS England to have the power, as the Trust Development Authority currently does, to provide support and assistance to any providers of services on behalf of the NHS. This will ensure that independent providers can, if necessary, be commissioned to provide important additional capacity where needed.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I really rather hoped the Minister would not go into whether or not I was suggesting that we should or should not be using private services. This is about who commissions services; this is not about who provides services. In my opening remarks, I said that a variety of providers is exactly what we have and will continue to have.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification.

The amendment seeks to exclude individuals whose GP practices hold an alternative provider of medical services, or APMS, contract from being a member of an integrated care board. While APMS contracts may not be appropriate for all GPs, they offer the ICBs, as commissioners, greater flexibility than other general practice contract types. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, acknowledged, the APMS framework allows commissioners to contract specific primary medical care services to meet local needs. APMS contractors include some private and third sector social enterprises and GP partnerships, which provide outreach health services for homeless people, asylum seekers and others. It is quite clear that none of this diminishes the commitment to ensure that care is provided free at the point of use, paid for by taxpayers.

All contract holders providing NHS core primary medical services are subject to the same requirements, regulations and standards, regardless of the type of contract. The Care Quality Commission, as the independent regulator, ensures that all contracts meet these standards.

Some GP partnerships concurrently hold a general medical services contract for core medical provision, as well as an APMS contract. Some individual GPs provide services for a range of practices. The concern is that this amendment would exclude GPs working for one or multiple practices which operate under APMS contracts from being members of the ICB.

NHS England’s draft guidance states that nominated members of an ICB will be full members of the unitary board, bringing knowledge and a perspective from their sectors, but not acting as delegates of those sectors.

This amendment would prevent some individuals being on integrated care boards, based on what type of NHS GP contract their practice holds. This could limit the ability of primary medical service providers to appoint an ICB member who understands the health requirements of the local population. This could reduce the diversity of GPs who could be appointed, based on their contract type. If we think of the unintended consequences, this may inadvertently exclude representatives with much-needed expertise in serving specific local populations and addressing their health needs.

Earlier, we talked about tackling inequalities. I feel very strongly that there are sometimes unintended consequences, where people think that they know better what is best for their communities. It would be unfortunate to exclude APMS contracts, or anyone who had an APMS contract and who had the expertise needed for those communities that are not receiving an adequate service, or for poor, immigrant communities. This could go against the goal that we all want to see of tackling inequalities.

I now turn to Amendments 29 and 30. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for bringing this issue before the Committee. I understand the interest in the role of independent providers in the integrated care boards. I also understand the concern across the Committee to ensure that independent providers, including companies seeking to produce health and care products, should not be appointed to the board of ICBs. We agree. Integrated care boards will be NHS bodies whose board membership consists of a minimum of individuals nominated by NHS providers, GP services and local authorities whose areas coincide with that of the ICB.

Although, as has been acknowledged, service provision by the independent and voluntary sectors has been an important and valuable feature of the system under successive Governments, it has never been the intention for independent providers as corporate entities to sit on integrated care boards, nor for an individual appointed to be there as a representative of an individual provider, in any capacity. People must therefore be assured that the work of ICBs will be driven by health outcomes, not profit. However, we recognise that this is a matter of concern to many noble Lords, as well as to the other place. We have been keen to put this beyond doubt, which is why we brought forward the amendment on this very point at Report stage in the other place. This amendment makes clear that no one may be appointed to an ICB who would undermine the independence of the NHS as a result of their interests in the private healthcare sector, social enterprise or elsewhere, including the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that suggestion and for trying to narrow the gap that there clearly is. If an amendment were put forward, we would look at it very carefully and consider the unintended consequences from the way it is drafted. We will consider it but, as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, I can make no promises at this stage.

I turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral about how provider input in the work of an ICB will be reconciled with assessing both the suitability and performance of providers. As my noble friend correctly noted, each ICB must make arrangements on managing the conflict 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. They are not delegates of their organisations, but are there to contribute their experience and expertise for the effective running of the ICB—a point made most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, my noble friend Lady Harding and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. It is important that this is about expertise, not the trust or organisation that they are taken from, or their skills and knowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said.

We are also keen to allow ICBs to develop their own governance arrangements, which best take their local circumstances into account. We want to give them the flexibility to learn and develop as their best practice evolves, so that other ICBs could learn from that best practice where there are concerns.

To support ICBs, NHS England is working with them to issue guidance and to develop and make clear our expectations of ICB leaders—expectations that have been reflected in the discussions and fantastic contributions from many noble Lords. For these reasons, I regret that the Government cannot accept these amendments at this stage. However, I hope I have given noble Lords such reassurance that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Turning to the membership of integrated care boards, I will begin with Amendments 27, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments today. I understand the interest from all sides in this membership. Schedule 2 sets out the minimum membership of the integrated care board; it will need to include members nominated by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, by persons who provide primary medical services and by local authorities of areas that coincide with or include the whole or any part of the ICB’s area.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, about mental health. I am sure he recalls the debate on Tuesday, when noble Lords felt very strongly about this. I have offered to meet many noble Lords from across the Committee who indicated that they want to see this parity with mental health, which they do not believe is implicit at the moment, even if we believe that “health” refers to physical and mental health. Indeed, it refers to spiritual health in many ways. But we understand that we have to close that gap and I will make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, is invited to those meetings.

It is important for us that we are not overprescriptive, which is especially true of any membership requirement. Any extension beyond the proposed statutory minimum will risk undermining local flexibility to design a board, as my noble friends Lord Mawson and Lady Harding and others have said, in the most suitable way for each area’s unique needs, drawing on the best expertise, but not where they are from. It may also make the boards less nimble and less able to make important decisions rapidly if we overprescribe.

It is important to remind the Committee—I apologise if noble Lords do not appreciate the repetition—that we set a floor and not a ceiling. The ICB can appoint board members if it wishes. Local areas can, by agreement, go beyond the legislative minimum requirements. They will want to ensure they appoint individuals with the experience and expertise to address the needs and fulfil the functions. Areas are already doing this. For example, in south-east London the ICB is proposing to include three provider members—acute, community and mental health—and six place members, one for each borough. This approach is exactly how we want ICBs to use the flexibility available to them.

If, in time, some of the concerns expressed today by noble Lords become clear—such as issues being skated over, ignored or elbowed out by others with louder voices—we may need to add further requirements that relate to ICB membership, and there are regulation-making powers in place in Schedule 2 to allow the Secretary of State to do so. Furthermore, NHS England has the power to issue statutory guidance to ICBs. It could, for example, use this to recommend that each ICB should consider appointing a learning disability and autism senior responsible officer, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has asked for and has spoken about most eloquently many times, most recently in a debate a few weeks ago.

Taken together, our approach reflects our view and, I reiterate, the view of the NHS that we should not attempt to overlegislate for the composition of ICBs and instead let them evolve as effective local entities to reflect local need. Let us get the right balance between the top-down and bottom-up approach, and make sure that they are relevant to their local areas. I am afraid that these amendments are seen to take a different approach, by adding more people to the minimum requirements for the ICB, making them larger but not necessarily better. They also add additional complexity by introducing a significant number of members who are responsible for activity outside the NHS. We think these would be better represented on the integrated care partnerships, which have a broader remit. I come back to the point that it is about expertise, not which trust.

I will consider the comments made by noble Lords very carefully if some of the concerns have not been met, and will have future conversations, between this stage and the next, if they feel that we have not addressed their concerns completely. I regret that the Government cannot accept these amendments. I hope that I have given your Lordships some, if not complete, reassurance and that noble Lords will feel able at this stage to withdraw and not press their amendments.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I was disappointed with the first remarks he made because he resorted to the mantra that the Government tend to go to when the question of private sector interests in delivering healthcare is raised by this side of the House. That is a shame, because the questions that we have raised are legitimate. In fact, his friends in the Commons accepted the conflicts of interest that could arise from private sector interests being represented on ICBs. We were seeking to make sure that that is watertight and there is no way of it changing. That is a legitimate question to ask.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Meacher, for supporting Amendment 37, which is the key amendment in this group as to who may or may not be members of the board.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made a powerful case for the interests of people with learning disabilities and autism being represented. We know that where health systems make the health of people with learning disabilities a central priority, the whole health system benefits from it. That has happened in some places—for example, in Manchester—and it demonstrates how we improve the whole system. It is an important point.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell made the point about Centene and Operose, and that is partly why I put forward my amendment on APMS. The Minister may recall that we raised this matter in Questions a few weeks ago, when I asked him to write to me about what system had been used to give that contract to Centene, or Operose, in Camden, the area where I live. Having served on the CCG in Camden, I was aware of the importance of who runs primary care and of who the GPs in our surgeries are. Having right and proper people and organisations running our primary care was one of the criteria that you would use as a commissioner when you were looking at who was running, and who might wish to run, primary care and GP surgeries. I was involved in that process. As I learn about the history and background of this organisation now running primary care and GP surgeries in the UK, I do not think they are right and proper people to be doing that.

If this amendment does not serve the purpose of stopping that happening, I ask the Minister and the Bill team to reflect on what we might need to do to ensure that those from the private sector, social enterprises and charities whom we commission to run parts of our health service are right and proper people to do so. The remarks made in that regard by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were very interesting and useful, as they often are.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made the point about public health. That is the theme running through this Bill: the need for public health to be represented. She was also absolutely correct to bring us back to the idea that clinical leadership is very important. Of course it is. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked some pertinent questions.

My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley raised the issue of social enterprises, which is close to my heart. I am the honorary secretary of the All-Party Group for Social Enterprise, which I helped to found 20-odd years ago. The APPG has just completed an inquiry, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the impact of Covid on social enterprises, which absolutely illustrates the points made by my noble friend and which I will share with the Minister when it is available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made relevant points about Allied Healthcare. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I agree that the problem with APMS is that there is a lack of clarity and it is a bit of a loophole, and we need to look at it again. This may not be the Bill to do it in, but it might be.

With those remarks, and hopeful that the issue of who the members of the ICBs will be will run through our discussions for the next few weeks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.