Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)]

Our junior doctors work incredibly hard caring for patients around the clock. We introduced exception reporting in 2016 and it has been a major step forward in ensuring safe working. The British Medical Association, NHS Employers and the Department reviewed the effectiveness of exception reporting as part of the junior doctor’s contract agreement, which we announced last week. Revisions will be made to exception reporting subject to the endorsement of the BMA.

[Justin Madders]

Is the Minister aware that research by the Hospital Consultants & Specialists Association shows that, despite thousands of exception reports from junior doctors in unsafe hospital trusts, no changes to shift patterns were made at all. The chief executive of NHS Employers has said that, undoubtedly, there are circumstances where trusts would like to make changes, but because they do not have sufficient staff in place they are unable to do so. What can the Minister do to ensure that, in future, these changes are actually implemented?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right: every exception report has to be addressed. Changing the rota is one possible outcome. He will recognise that there are other possible outcomes as well: the doctor may agree to work extra hours and be given extra time off; timing of the ward rounds in clinics may be adjusted, so that educational opportunities can be taken: and timing of the ward rounds can be adjusted so that support from other senior staff can be there as well. There are many ways around this.

Integrated Care Regulations

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right: it is highly unlikely. More than that, it is stated and restated in the long-term plan that NHS England has the clear expectation that the ICP contracts will be held by public statutory providers. He knows that, and others who have discussed this point have made it clear.

[Justin Madders]

I have a simple question and we would like a simple answer. Yes or no: do the Government intend to repeal section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012?

[Stephen Hammond]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the NHS has proposed in a recent legislative document that it looks at a number of issues. It is important that that round of engagements takes place, and the Government will consider what is said.

The majority of the amendments we propose simply ensure that the regulatory framework that applies to contractual arrangements for the provision of healthcare services continues to apply where services are provided under the new ICP contract and to those organisations that hold a contract. That is an important safeguard that, in simple terms, helps to ensure that care provided under an ICP contract is subject to all the same rules as care provided under existing and other NHS contracts, such as those governing the handling of complaints and the reimbursement of travel expenses.

The shadow Secretary of State has asked me to comment on the substantive change being proposed, underpinning the existing contractual arrangements for the provision of NHS GP services. The regulations will allow GPs who are currently providing services under existing contractual general medical services or personal medical services arrangements to suspend, rather than terminate, those arrangements in order to provide services under an ICP in what is known as a fully integrated arrangement. The British Medical Association has underlined that GPs should not be pressured into joining an ICP arrangement, and we want to make it clear to the House tonight that the participation of any individual GP practice is entirely voluntary. Any role in any ICP will be for them to decide. Allowing the suspension of GP contracts allows GPs to take part in an ICP arrangement but keeps the option available to them of returning to their previous contract.

The hon. Gentleman expressed a number of concerns about the ICPs. He implied that they had been brought in by stealth. In fact, the proposals have been subject to significant scrutiny by Parliament and the public, particularly in the past year. We have already discussed the examination of the evidence by the Health and Social Care Committee, which published a report last summer, which is, I believe, largely supportive of ICPs, recognises potential benefits and sets out helpful recommendations on introducing them in England. I have described the consultation processes previous iterations of the ICP contract and the regulations have gone through.

Moreover, as the Health and Social Care Committee was promised, NHS England has completed a full public consultation on the ICP contract and announced through the long-term plan that the ICP contract will be available for use. NHS England’s full response to the consultation was published on 15 March.

Various people have made points tonight about the privatisation of the NHS and said that ICPs are a route to privatising the NHS. They are clearly not.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend rightly points out that there are several routes into healthcare professions, and I am delighted by what is happening in Cornwall. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be visiting him in the very near future.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

We are in the midst of the worst-ever NHS workforce crisis, with more than 100,000 vacancies. The situation is unsustainable. Well-respected think-tanks say the figure could rise to 350,000 vacancies within a decade. What does the Minister consider a sustainable vacancy level both now and in a decade’s time?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the £20.5 billion in real terms that we are investing in the NHS under the long-term plan will make a significant difference. He will also want to recognise the roll-out of medical places, the fact that more people are applying for nursing places now than they were last year and the detailed implementation plans that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned. These will deliver a sustainable workforce.

Draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Draft European Qualifications (Pharmacists) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2018

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Tuesday 29th January 2019 General Committees

[Stephen Hammond]

I would like to reassure hon. Members that, while it is essential to the public’s protection that we put in place this legislation, I recognise that a number of important and significant issues have been raised. I also recognise the potential impact on patients and citizens of the whole of the United Kingdom of not getting this right. There have been a lot of questions, which I shall try to address in some sort of order, perhaps lumping together some of the points put to me.

Initially there was a lot of talk about the impact on the numbers. From the overall number of EU, EEA and Swiss health and care professionals practising in the United Kingdom, the number working in NHS trusts in England increased by over 3,500 in the 12 months following the referendum. That includes an extra 600 doctors. As of June 2017, over 21,000 EEA doctors were registered with a licence to practise with the GMC. The number of joiners from the EEA has remained steady since 2016; therefore, these regulations would allow that to continue. The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Gedling might like to point out that there has clearly been a decline in registered nurses. That is a significant concern to the Department, and we have looked not only at the number of current vacancies resulting from EU nationals not coming forward but, as importantly, at the need to train, recruit and retain UK nurses, which is why there are a number of routes into nursing.

There are language issues. One reason for the nursing staff shortage in respect of EEA applications is down to the language controls introduced by the NMC, which took full effect in July 2016. Although some people might concentrate on the referendum as the contributory factor, the language testing is also judged to have had an impact. Therefore, since November 2017 the NMC has introduced a number of changes to the language requirements for nurses and midwives trained outside the UK, which has increased the options available to such applicants to demonstrate their language ability. The changes appear to be having a positive effect on international recruitment, with 2,500 more overseas joiners to the register between January and December 2018.

The hon. Member for Gedling asked about a slightly different language issue. I will confirm this in writing, but it is my understanding that we do not intend to change the language tests.

The temporary permissions argument is clearly of concern, and I have tried to address the hon. Gentleman’s questions about that. The numbers currently working under the regime are relatively small; however, that does not mean that they do not have a positive impact. It is right that under a new regulatory system people should seek full registration. However, over the EU exit day period and the period post that, the regime will continue. As temporary and occasional permissions last for up to 18 months, there will be plenty of time for those working under the regime to decide to apply for full registration.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked about the impact on UK professionals wishing to practise in the EU after exit day. I said in my opening remarks that it is the UK that is the main beneficiary of mutual recognitions. After exit day, professional qualifications awarded in the UK will no longer be covered by the directive, and the EU has agreed that holders of UK qualifications who have been registered in EEA countries and Switzerland will continue to be registered. However, in the absence of an agreement with the EU, recognition of UK qualifications after exit day will be determined by the national policy of the individual member state.

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed reciprocal international healthcare arrangements on several occasions, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and he will recognise that the Government hope that a widespread and encompassing international healthcare reciprocal agreement will be in place with the whole EU after exit day—that is our ambition. In the event of a deal, during the implementation period the current arrangements will pertain and we can look to put in place such a treaty.

[Justin Madders]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Hammond]

One moment, and then I will. As the hon. Gentleman rightly knows, in the event of a no-deal EU exit—which is a lot of what we are talking about this morning—it is the Government’s ambition first to put memorandums of understanding in place and then hopefully to have a widespread agreement with the whole EU or, if not, individual arrangements with member states.

[Justin Madders]

We all hope that arrangements will be in place, but my question was: have any discussions been entered into yet with individual member states about the arrangements in a no-deal scenario?

[Stephen Hammond]

There are ongoing and widespread discussions with the Commission and with member states. A number of member states are of high priority because the numbers of UK nationals currently living there make reciprocal international healthcare arrangements particularly important. A number of issues are being discussed. Given the nature of the discussions, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that reassurance.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. That is why we discussed in depth the reciprocal healthcare arrangements under the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. Although it is absolutely the Government’s intention, in either a deal or no-deal scenario, to ensure continuity of international arrangements, at the moment that cannot be absolutely guaranteed. I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me say to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that, in the event of a no-deal scenario, memorandums of understanding will be put in place. We have already stated that anyone seeking emergency medical care, from wherever they come, will be treated by the NHS. We hope to ensure the continuity of current arrangements in a deal or a no-deal scenario.

To give Members a bit more flavour and depth, let me say, in response to both the initial inquiry, from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and the inquiry from the hon. Member for Stockton South, that there is understandably a widespread agreement in this area that the current arrangements are to the mutual benefit of the healthcare systems of both the UK and the whole EU and should continue. In that light, very positive discussions are taking place, particularly with the countries where most UK nationals currently reside.

I do not need to write to the hon. Member for Gedling; I can confirm that the regulators will continue to apply the language tests as currently set out.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about the loss of the internal market information system. If the UK exits the EU without a deal, it will no longer have automatic access to the EU systems, including the internal market information system, which regulators across the EU use to exchange information. We hope that the discussion about international healthcare arrangements will continue, but it may well be the case that UK regulators have to seek information from their European counterparts directly, rather than from the Commission. UK regulators are aware of that and are preparing for it, although, as I have said, that may well be part of the discussions about international arrangements and encompassed in a future bilateral or EU-wide international healthcare arrangements agreement. However, the regulations mean that UK regulators will not be required to carry out more assessments of European qualifications than they do now and they will allow bilateral applications for information.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister has been very generous in giving way. We should be clear that, as things stand, the early warning system will not be in operation. It is important to express our concern about that and our sincere wish to put in place an arrangement to avoid it.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that concern, but as I have sought to reassure him, it will be perfectly possible for UK regulators and EU regulators, either in whole or individually, to exchange information. It will be possible under this arrangement for UK regulators to seek that information from their individual European counterparts, should they need to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the capacity of regulators to check qualifications. Although it is not the Government’s intention or desire to have a no-deal outcome, regulators have been preparing for that possible scenario. These regulations will ensure that there will be little additional work for regulators in recognising EEA and Swiss qualifications at exit date. Under the regulations, the regulator can choose to review automatic qualifications that it was previously obliged to accept and to designate those qualifications where there are patient and public safety concerns. An applicant will be obliged to supply the regulator with the relevant documents, and if the regulator is not satisfied, it can reject the application. My point is that there is no extra administrative burden on regulators.

On the potential for an additional financial burden, the UK and the regulators have been preparing for a possible no-deal outcome. As the regulations seek to maintain the current systems as far as possible, for at least two years from their coming into force after the expected exit day until the review, there should be little extra cost or impact. There is, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the potential for regulators to recover those costs through additional fees, and that is true of current regulatory systems, in many cases.

The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk asked whether the regulations reduce the ability to safeguard public and patient safety, making the health service less safe. At the heart of these instruments is the recognition that public protection and patient safety must be the foremost ambition; therefore, public protection is the key purpose of regulating health and care professionals. The instruments provide the regulators with the necessary powers to protect the public by introducing the power to designate EEA and Swiss professionals, who they are currently obliged to accept automatically. In addition, they will still be able to check applicants’ language skills and, as I confirmed to the hon. Member for Gedling a moment ago, the language tests will not change.

I was asked about the review process. It is appropriate that a two-year review of the regulations is put in place, which will potentially be wide-ranging and encompassing. The regulations are intended to be subject to review two years after they come into force. As I said earlier, it would be wrong of me either to limit the scope of the review or to predict the factors that may be in place at the time. I am often asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and others to commit to reviews of regulations and other legislation, and, as we are committing to a review after two years, I hope that he will accept my assurance on that.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, asked me about the impact assessment. There is no significant impact. The impact for the instrument falls below the £5 million threshold of the annual net direct cost to business, as detailed by the business impact target. There is no significant impact on business, and no significant direct impacts have been identified as a result of the changes. Hon. Members have asked about the potential impact regarding allowing recognition so that EEA and Swiss professionals who are valued in the health service can continue to practise in the UK post-EU exit day in a no-deal scenario. That is the impact, and the regulations seek to minimise it. They put in place sensible measures to ensure that that recognition can happen.

Finally, I was asked about whether the regulations support cross-border co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The regulations ensure the continued recognition of Irish professional qualifications in the UK for at least two years after exit day. They allow professionals practising under an existing and temporary or occasional status to continue until the end of that—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right, and we are ensuring more routes into the nursing profession, such as nursing apprenticeships and nursing associates. We are training more GPs, and we are determined to get 5,000 extra GPs into general practice. A record 3,400 doctors have been recruited into GP training and, as part of the long-term plan, newly qualified doctors and nurses entering general practice will be offered a two-year fellowship to support them to stay there.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The long-term plan admits that staffing shortfalls are “unsustainable”, yet incredibly there is no mention anywhere in the document of the damage done by the abolition of the nursing bursary. The plan contains an ambition to double the number of volunteers within three years, and although we should rightly celebrate the fantastic contribution made by volunteers, is it not damning that, with a record 100,000 vacancies in the NHS, the main plank of the Government’s strategy to tackle the workforce crisis is to rely on volunteers?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that volunteers in the NHS provide an invaluable service, but he is completely wrong to suggest that any part of the long-term plan relies on volunteers. There is an expansion in numbers of nursing associates to deal with those vacancies and, as I have said to other hon. Members, we have seen an increase in the number of doctors in GP training. Obviously, he will welcome the £20.5 billion a year that is going into the national health service. That will inevitably mean more doctors and nurses, which is why we are making more training places available.

NHS Reorganisation

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid). I am pleased that he secured this debate, and I agree with him that the NHS is a great credit to our country. I know that the Opposition spokesman will have heard me say yesterday—I will repeat it—that the Government and I, as Minister for Health, greatly value the staff who work in the NHS. It is our absolute intention to ensure that they recognise that and that we continue to show that.

I want to start with a few facts, because having listened to what the hon. Member for Warrington South described, I think there are other things that are worth pointing out. There are 11,000 more nurses in the NHS than there were in 2010. There are 18,200 more doctors than in 2010. Almost nine out of 10 patients are seen within four hours in an emergency department. We are committed to 5,000 training places for doctors in general practice—this year saw 10% more than we aimed to achieve. Of course, this is the highest level of funding that the NHS has had in its 70 years. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other issues, as did the Opposition spokesman, and I will try to respond to those in my speech.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a contribution. I have immense respect for her. Anyone who knows her knows that she always argues her case passionately and stands up for her constituents, and she did that again today. She and I have occasionally shared joint endeavours on St Helier Hospital. I think we both agree that there is a substantial case for keeping the acute services there. I think we would both agree—I say this in a constituency capacity—that the infrastructure needs upgrading, and I think we have had that discussion. She rightly points that we have had another consultation this year. As a Minister, I say that we expect any significant service changes to be subject to exactly the full public consultation she has described, if it is going to happen, and that the proposals must meet the Government’s four reconfiguration tests, which are support from GP commissioners; strengthened engagement with the public; clarity on the clinical evidence; and clarity and consistency with patients’ choice. She says that there have been rounds of consultations, as I certainly saw when I was on the council—I think she was already a Member of Parliament then—under Governments of all colours over the past 20 years.

It is the same with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have had the pleasure of taking interventions from him in several debates. He is always a powerful advocate for his constituents. I listened carefully to his point about out-of-hours care, which may have been slightly out of the scope of the debate. Yesterday, I had the chance to visit the North Middlesex University Hospital. Some of its work on the integration of out-of-hours care and triaging in A&E moves along the lines that he discussed. I have seen that several times.

To address the crux of the debate, between 2016 and 2036, the UK population is expected to increase from 65.6 million to 71.8 million, which is a growth rate of about 10% in 20 years. In the same period, the number of people aged 75 and over is expected to grow by 64% from 5.3 million to 9 million. Those figures are clearly something to celebrate, showing that the NHS is doing exactly what we want it to, but they mean that more will need to be done to make sure that those years are quality years.

For the NHS to continue to deliver high-quality care in the next 20 years, as it has done for the last 70 years, we need to look at new models of care that promote more joined-up care across the NHS and social care. In the past few years, the Government have supported a number of pilots at local and national levels to test new models of care that bring together the NHS, local authorities and wider public services to develop new ways of ensuring that services are delivered in a more joined-up way. Those areas have seen some improvements in access to services, patient experience and moderating demand for acute services.

It is time for the NHS to move beyond those pilots and embrace wholesale transformational changes across the whole system in every part of the country. It is therefore developing a 10-year plan for its future, which is underpinned by a five-year funding offer. To support the NHS in delivering for patients across the country, the Government announced a new five-year budget settlement for the NHS, in which funding will grow on average by 3.4% each year to 2023-24. The hon. Member for Strangford, who has just left the Chamber, welcomed the fact that that means the NHS budget will increase by more than £20 billion compared with today, underpinning the 10-year plan to guarantee the future of the NHS.

The hon. Member for Warrington South remarked on sustainability and transformation partnerships, and commented on his own local STP. The Government are fully committed to NHS England’s vision of STPs transforming how care is delivered and putting the system on a sustainable footing for the future. We will back STPs where they are clinically led and locally supported.

The hon. Gentleman questioned some aspects of local democracy. Each partnership has to set out agreed priorities and say how they are going to be delivered, and have a strategic priority to work with partners in local authorities. The Cheshire and Merseyside STP is making some progress in building those relationships, but he is right to acknowledge—I acknowledge it as well—that it is an extremely large and diverse area.

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) will recognise that there are now nine local footprints, including Warrington Together. The idea is that they will develop some of the integration suggestions and plans, and the consultation with local authorities to which the hon. Member for Warrington South referred. The STP brings local areas together to tackle the challenges, and I think he would acknowledge that it makes sense to do that across a bigger area, so the smaller areas build into the larger area.

Last week, the Government announced that they were supporting the Cheshire and Merseyside STP with £11 million in capital spending for improving emergency department capacity at the St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals and for a 12-bed, tier-4 child and adolescent mental health services unit at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston challenged me on STPs, so I will say that, in their more mature form, they are integrated care systems that promote collaboration between NHS bodies, local government and local communities. The 10-year plan will set out how they will spread the integrated care models that have been developed and tested through the whole vanguard programme.

There was also a challenge about what were formerly known as accountable care organisations and are now called integrated care providers, with several questions about that. At a small number of sites, commissioners are looking at how contractual models can support more integrated care. To support that, NHS England has developed the draft integrated care provider contract which, if introduced, will give the NHS the option of having a single lead provider that is responsible for primary, community and hospital services, with the aim of integrating services across traditional silos.

If NHS England chooses to introduce a contract for the ICPs, Parliament will have a chance to debate the regulations. I recognise that the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, so there is not an automatic debate, but as the hon. Member for Warrington South will have spotted, in those circumstances, if Parliament decides, there will be an opportunity to have that debate. NHS England has recently concluded the public consultation on the draft ICP contract and we expect a response in due course.

I want to touch on the premise that the ICP contract is privatisation. It is completely misleading to suggest that an integrated provider model is a step towards privatising the health service. The NHS will always offer free healthcare at the point of use—that is not just the Government’s view. I am sure that the Library briefing that the hon. Member for Strangford challenged me to read notes the evidence from the Health and Social Care Committee, whose Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), said that the evidence received by the inquiry into integrated care—the report was published in July 2018—was that ICPs

“and other efforts to integrate health…and social care, will not extend the scope of NHS privatisation and may effectively do the opposite.”

That is quite powerful and I hope that the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Warrington South take note.

[Justin Madders]

I know what the Select Committee said; I am interested in what the Government are saying. Is the Minister ruling out any private provision from ICPs?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am not ruling out private providers from bidding, but it has been made clear, and I say again, that we expect any ICP contract to be won by NHS bodies. As I said, the evidence to the Select Committee inquiry tends to support that that is our view and that is what is likely to happen.

The Government have made it clear that the change is not about reorganising the NHS from the centre or adding more layers to an already complex system. As the Prime Minister reiterated in her speech in June, the Government should learn the lessons of the past and not try to impose change on the NHS. To achieve that, we firmly believe that any changes to the model of care for patients need to be locally led, informed by knowledge of the population and the population need, and supported by clinicians on ground.

That is why we have asked local leaders in STPs and integrated care systems to create five-year plans detailing how they will improve local services for patients and achieve financial sustainability. Of course, this is something that we may want, but it cannot just be wished into being, which is why the Government are supporting the NHS with £20 billion of additional funding.

Local plans will build on the work of the last three years to develop new ways of delivering services and enhance collective efforts to use that additional funding to improve people’s health and wellbeing. It is essential that that process proceeds in a spirit of genuine partnership and that all local partners, including local government, are fully involved from the outset.

For any significant system reconfiguration, we expect all parts of the system to be talking to the public regularly; it is vital that the public shape the future of their local services. That relates directly to the point that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made earlier. To make it absolutely clear, no changes will take place without public consultation and engagement.

After all, the aim of integrating services is not an end in itself; it is to improve the patient experience and quality of care, so it is essential that the views of the public should be at the heart of local plans. Integrated care means a health and care system built around people’s needs, whereby physical, mental and social care needs can be addressed together, and patients should feel as if their care is being provided by one organisation.

Integration also gives us the means to avert ill health, preventing unnecessary hospital visits and supporting patients to have happier, healthier lives into old age, and taking the pressure off NHS staff. For example, in Thanet, the Margate Task Force is an integrated service that brings staff from 16 different agencies together in a single “street-level” team.

In conclusion, integrated care provides the best opportunity to ensure that the NHS continues to deliver the highest level of quality services to people and to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Government have supported the NHS to implement the five-year forward view and to develop new integrated ways of working to meet those demands. It is now time to drive those initiatives and spread them across the whole country. That is why we are committed to those plans and it is why we have committed to increase the NHS budget, to support the national move towards integrating care.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

I am minded not to press the new clause to a vote if the Minister assures us that he will endeavour to keep us updated on the contingency plans, if it looks like we are approaching a cliff-edge scenario. That is really what we are trying to achieve.

[Stephen Hammond]

Let me make the hon. Gentleman the same offer that I made to the hon. Member for Burnley. In that unlikely scenario, I guarantee that I will make my officials available to give a briefing to the hon. Gentleman and any member of the Committee who wishes to understand what our proposals are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

On Second Reading, I spoke about the importance of dispute resolution, and asked the then Minister for Health, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), to set out how he envisaged it operating in both a deal and a no deal scenario. Despite some prompting from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), the Minister was not able to set out how dispute resolutions will be handled under the terms of any new agreement or even if the European Court of Justice will continue to represent a red line for the Government. The latter point is particularly interesting, given the new role of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. It appears that he did not provide detail on that point because, at that stage, the Government were simply not in a position to confirm what was in the draft withdrawal agreement.

The Prime Minister categorically ruled out any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice very early in the process, but I have yet to hear any serious suggestion about how disputes can be resolved, if we manage to reach a full reciprocal healthcare agreement with the EU27 beyond the transition period, without some reference back to the ECJ. The same concerns would apply if bilateral agreements were necessary in a no deal scenario.

Given the importance that the Prime Minister and members of her Cabinet have placed on the ECJ following our exit from the European Union, it is curious to say the least that we do not have a clear statement of intent from the Government while we debate this Bill. If their position continues to be that we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws, as the Prime Minister put it in January 2017, it is vital that we have clarity about the arrangement that will be used in place of the ECJ. If a new arrangement is established, what will the cost be? Who will the judges be? Where will it be based? Will it be an open process?

If, on the other hand, we look to the ECJ for dispute resolution after all, even if only in the limited area of reciprocal healthcare, would that not represent a significant political U-turn? This issue is fundamental to the Government’s approach to Brexit. For example, they decided that we could not continue to host the European Medicines Agency, causing it to go to Amsterdam at the cost of 900 jobs in this country, and potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. The Health Secretary’s sole justification for that was that the Government were not prepared to accept the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction. Our purpose in tabling this new clause is to get clarity from the Minister about whether the European Court of Justice remains a red line for the Government.

[Stephen Hammond]

The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a detailed strategy defining the process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements after we leave the European Union. No one in the room would dispute the spirit behind the new clause. As I have stated throughout our examination of the Bill, it is right that there should be transparency regarding the UK’s future relationship with the EU and other countries after exit. It is right that that transparency should apply to the arrangement of future healthcare agreements, and the processes that underpin them, such as dispute resolution, but, although I agree with the spirit of the new clause, I am not entirely sure that it would achieve its intended aim. I will give a number of reasons why.

The new clause would confer a duty on the Secretary of State to lay a strategy on the process for dispute resolution before Parliament. Both in a deal and a no deal scenario, such a strategy would be unlikely to provide information on the process for settling disputes concerning healthcare agreements that is not already available in the public domain. That is not due to a lack of endeavour; it is an issue of timing and consideration of what is already publicly available. In the expected scenario that the UK agrees a deal with the EU, the proposed process for settling disputes has already been confirmed in the White Paper on the future relationship, the draft withdrawal Bill that governs the implementation period and, most recently, the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU. The processes have already been confirmed. They are outlined in those documents and would apply not only to disputes, but clearly therefore to disputes in any reciprocal healthcare agreement.

The hon. Gentleman asks what the dispute mechanism is. I am sure that the Committee will be pleased that I am not going to quote extensively from the withdrawal agreement, but it is worth putting on the record that the mechanism for resolving disputes will be through consultation at the Joint Committee, with the aim of reaching a mutually agreeable resolution. If the parties are not able to resolve the dispute in the Joint Committee, either party can request the establishment of an independent arbitration panel to resolve it. The panel will be made up of five members, with one person being the chairperson. The UK and the EU will nominate two members to sit on the panel and then mutually agree the fifth member, who will be the chairperson. The panel members will act independently and do not represent the party that nominated them. It is binding that the panel members be independent and impartial and they must possess specialised knowledge or experience of EU law and international law.

The hon. Gentleman challenges me on the role of the ECJ. He is right that the ECJ has a role here, but its role is very clear and very limited. The role of the ECJ after the implementation period will be restricted to ensuring the correct interpretation of EU law. There is no suggestion that the ECJ will determine the dispute, or that we would ever agree to the ECJ determining the dispute.

That is the likely scenario and the processes that are already formally set out via the documents that I described earlier. In the unlikely scenario that the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, the United Kingdom will arrange reciprocal healthcare agreements, and in those agreements, there will have to be bilateral dispute resolution. That would clearly have to be determined on a case-by-case basis as part of the negotiations to put those bilateral healthcare agreements in place, and, therefore, there is unlikely to be a single dispute resolution process, which is what the new clause suggests, so while I accept the spirit of it, the wording would restrict the ability for future reciprocal healthcare arrangements.

More importantly, the requirement for such a strategy to be laid before the House one month after the Bill receives Royal Assent does not align with the aim of the Bill to provide future reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries both inside and outside the EU. Clearly, those agreements are likely to be negotiated over a period of time and, as I have just mentioned, the dispute resolution mechanisms within them are likely to be different and may vary. It would therefore be arbitrary and unhelpful to produce a general strategy immediately after Royal Assent.

I understand the intention behind the new clause, but it would place an unnecessary burden and duty on the Secretary of State. In a deal scenario, the procedures are already there. In the unlikely no deal scenario, it would be likely to frustrate the ability to put in place future reciprocal healthcare agreements.

I hope that, having heard that, the hon. Gentleman will accept that, although we understand the spirit of his new clause, its wording would be likely to frustrate the purpose of the Bill. I therefore ask him not to press it to a vote.

[Justin Madders]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out in more detail than we were able to elicit on Second Reading. Given that the withdrawal agreement had not been published at the time, I understand why the then Minister was not able to do that. The present Minister has been very helpful in setting out the process for leaving with a deal. He is right that, if we leave without a deal, we are in uncharted territory. I do not think I heard any confirmation that there are red lines, in terms of the European Court of Justice, in that scenario. That is really what the new clause was meant to establish. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Duty to consult with devolved administrations

Before issuing any regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government and have regard for their views on the regulations.—(Justin Madders.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

I hope this is a straightforward and uncontroversial new clause. We have already spoken about the importance of reciprocal healthcare arrangement to citizens in Northern Ireland, and of course there will also be an impact on patients in Wales and Scotland. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have clearly and robustly articulated their support for a continuation of reciprocal healthcare agreements, and why would they not?

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was clear in its recommendation that there should be active participation of the devolved Administrations in setting out the UK’s position in future arrangements, but I am not aware that there have been any discussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what conversations have taken place, because we did not get clarity on that on Second Reading.

The new clause repeats some of the issues that we raised this morning, which you did not have the pleasure of hearing, Mr Streeter. It is about the scope and power of the Bill and the wide range of duties given to the Secretary of State, which will be subject to the negative procedure. We think it is important that, as part of the Bill, when those wide powers are given to the Secretary of State, there must be a clear duty to consult with the devolved Administrations before those regulations are enacted.

The Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill have dealt extensively with the need to involve the devolved Administrations. I think this is the bare minimum that we need. It would represent a consistent and equitable approach across the devolved nations, in terms of our future relationship with the EU.

[Stephen Hammond]

It is a pleasure to respond to this new clause, which addresses the extraordinarily important issue of engaging and working with the devolved Administrations. We completely agree that regulations made under the Bill may relate to devolved matters, by which I mean domestic healthcare. The Government will engage and meaningfully consult with the devolved Administrations in line with our existing arrangements, as found in the 2012 memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and the principles that underlie relations between us. That reinforces the positive work that the UK Government continue to do with the devolved Administrations daily for the benefit of the whole of the UK on this matter.

I am forced to reflect that, though the hon. Gentleman’s new clause is not necessary, the sentiment behind it is shared by everyone in Committee, I suspect. The regulation-making powers in the Bill provide us with a legal mechanism to implement international agreements domestically. The Bill will ensure that we can broadly continue reciprocal healthcare arrangements, where agreed with the EU, to the benefit of the residents of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The powers offer flexibility and can be used to implement comprehensive healthcare agreements with third countries in the future for the benefit of all UK nationals.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. First of all, I join the Minister in thanking those witnesses who came and gave evidence on Tuesday. There were certainly some helpful comments that we will no doubt return to in Committee.

As was made clear on Second Reading, this is a very important piece of legislation. More than 190,000 UK expats live in the EU and of course there are 50 million British visits within the EEA countries each year: all those people want clarity about what the arrangements are in the event that they will need healthcare. So we do not oppose the principle of the Bill. We absolutely agree that it is important that there are arrangements in place after 29 March 2019 and into the future. However, we are concerned about a number of issues, some of which I referred to on Second Reading and some of which we will discuss today.

It is fair to say that there are concerns about the breadth of powers that the Secretary of State is requesting in clause 2; I do not believe they would be countenanced at all under normal circumstances. I appreciate that we are not in normal circumstances and I am grateful to the Minister for setting out how he envisages those powers will be used in practice. We are not here to judge things just on what the situation is at the moment, but on how the powers could be used at some point in the future. With regard to that, the Minister referred to this Bill being used possibly to further foreign policy and trade objectives. When he responds, I would be grateful if he expanded on what he has in mind.

To compound our issues about the scope of the regulations, we are also concerned about our lack of opportunity to scrutinise them; we will return to those concerns when I move amendment 2 to clause 5 later on. Of course, we are not alone in having concerns about the scope of this clause and the lack of clarity about how the powers might be used. In the evidence session, Raj Jethwa, Director of Policy at the British Medical Association, said:

“We would like to see much more emphasis on scrutiny of all the discussions in the arrangements going forward.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 6.]

We will certainly push for that today.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place went further than that, describing the scope of clause 2 as “breath-taking”. As that Committee correctly pointed out, there is no limit to the amount of any payments, to who can be funded or to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer or delegate functions to anyone, anywhere, and primary legislation can be amended for these purposes.

It is also worth noting that although this legislation has been presented as a Bill to enable us, as far as possible, to retain the arrangements that we already have—who would disagree with that?—the powers conferred by the clause, as I think has been conceded by the Minister, can go far beyond the current EU and EEA countries that we are primarily concerned about.

We consider the powers in the clause to be inappropriately wide, if they are not going to be subject to the correct levels of scrutiny. At this eleventh hour, we understand why a certain level of flexibility is being sought by the Government, but with that request comes a responsibility to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is exercised.

Rather than oppose the clause in its entirety, we believe that the appropriate remedy would be to ensure that any regulations introduced under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will return to that point when we consider amendment 2 to clause 5.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that these powers are flexible. Part of the reason for that is that there may well be a need to anticipate the sort of bilateral arrangements that we put in place in the future—notwithstanding our hopes that we will secure a continuation of the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which is our ambition. When we come to debate not only the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but clause 5—when the discussion on scrutiny of these arrangements should take place—I will seek to reassure him that the procedures in place will allow for the usual and appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the powers being too broad. The Bill has a very focused purpose: to ensure that the reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which benefit UK nationals abroad and also EU and non-EU nationals in the UK, are continued. He also challenged me on the issue of potential future trade or foreign policy objectives. As he will know, we already have arrangements with a number of countries outside the EU, and the Bill must have the flexibility for the continuation and updating of those arrangements. The matter will clearly be of operational importance—potentially, it will be a policy decision after exiting the EU. Were a UK holidaymaker going abroad to a non-EU country, they would clearly expect the Government to have in place—or to have the potential to put in place—the reciprocal healthcare arrangements that would allow them to be treated should that be necessary.

I hope those words will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that the clause needs to stand part of the Bill. We can have the appropriate discussion about scrutiny in somewhat more depth when we debate clause 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Meaning of “healthcare” and “healthcare agreement”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I will try to limit my comments, given that we have already had discussions on the amendment. I am sure that will be welcome on this cold November day in a rather warm room.

Clause 4 provides a clear legal basis for processing personal data under the Bill for the purposes of UK data protection legislation. At present, the EU regulations provide a lawful basis for processing data for the purposes of reciprocal healthcare. Personal data is integral for providing healthcare abroad. It is vital that authorised persons in the UK can process data for that purpose. The clause ensures that, after exit day, there is a clear and transparent basis for processing personal data for the purposes of providing healthcare abroad, as required by UK data protection legislation. Clause 4 will ensure that safeguards are in place for that processing.

Subsection (1) limits processing to that which is necessary for the purposes of the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) ensure that any such processing must remain in compliance with UK data protection legislation and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and any other relevant restrictions. Finally, the persons who can process data under the Bill are limited to those authorised in subsection (6), which we have just discussed.

The safeguards limit the scope of clause 4 to what is necessary and proportionate to provide healthcare abroad. For reciprocal healthcare, personal data is required to process reimbursements to and from other countries, and where reimbursement is made to a person as well. It is also sometimes necessary for healthcare providers to share medical information to facilitate treatment. The clause ensures that the Government can continue to process personal data as necessary, after exit day, in an effective and lawful way. Personal data transferred from outside the UK will remain subject to the need for safeguards to be put in place before it is transferred. Those safeguards will not be able to be contracted out as part of any healthcare agreement with the EU or member states or third countries.

As I said a moment ago, subsection (1) provides for an authorised person to process data related to the provision of healthcare abroad. Personal data is defined in the GDPR as data that relates to a living person who can be directly or indirectly identified from the data. Specific category data is personal data containing health and genetic data. At present, there are different routes for providing healthcare abroad, such as the S1, S2 or EHIC routes, and each route requires different forms of personal data.

Subsection (2) disapplies the duty of confidence and any restriction on the processing that would otherwise apply. The exemption ensures that data can be disclosed where it is necessary for the limited purposes of the Bill. The measure is necessary and appropriate. For example, authorised persons may need to share data if a person is unconscious and therefore not in a state to provide it themselves. Importantly, as expressed in subsection (3), data processing must continue to comply with the UK data protection legislation, which ensures there are further safeguards around data processing. The GDPR also governs data transfers between the UK and other countries. All EU and EEA countries are bound by the GDPR, which means the relevant national data protection safeguards in each country are adequate, allowing the free transfer of data between countries.

Subsection (3)(a) expressly requires that the processing of data does not contravene existing data protection legislation, and subsection (3)(b) requires that the processing of data must comply with parts 1 to 7 or chapter 1 of part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The only purposes for which investigatory powers may be required are to investigate and tackle suspected cases of fraud and error relating to healthcare abroad.

As set out in subsection (1), the processing of data under the Bill is limited to authorised persons who, as we have discussed, are defined in subsection (6). The list reflects those persons and bodies currently involved in processing data, including personal data under existing reciprocal healthcare arrangements.

I mentioned that, for clarity’s sake, subsection (6)(a) lists

“the Secretary of State, the Treasury, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and a Northern Ireland department”.

Healthcare abroad is entirely managed and operated by the Department of Health and Social Care in co-operation with the Executives in the devolved Administrations and their local healthcare systems. Although the Bill is about the provision of healthcare abroad, it is vital that the Executives of the devolved Administrations are considered authorised persons, since healthcare abroad is often facilitated in co-operation with them. Under subsections (6)(b), (c) and (d), healthcare bodies and providers are considered authorised persons as they are directly involved in the provision of healthcare.

Finally, subsection (6)(e) gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of authorised persons, which will ensure that the Government can respond appropriately, whatever the outcome of EU exit. It is also deemed necessary to allow the Secretary of State to respond to the changing demands of systems and operations. In future, duties may change and adding to the list will be difficult, so it is necessary to have the power in place.

Clause 4 is an important component of the Bill. It provides the Government with the necessary power to process and share data that relates to healthcare provided abroad. Therefore, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Regulations and directions

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 5, page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (5) and subsection (6) and insert—

“(5) Any statutory instrument which contains regulations issued under this Act may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

This amendment would make all regulations issued under this Act subject to the affirmative procedure and require approval from Parliament before they become law.

This amendment is probably one of the most important items that we will discuss in Committee. As I made clear when we discussed clause 2, there are widely held concerns about the scope of the regulations, which are exacerbated by the fact that these extraordinarily wide powers, necessary as they may be in the circumstances, are subject only to the negative procedure.

As I referred to earlier, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place clearly set out the potential impact of my amendment not being accepted when it said:

“If, without such amendment, the Secretary of State wished to fund wholly or entirely the cost of all mental health provision in the state of Arizona, or the cost of all hip replacements in Australia, the regulations would only be subject to the negative procedure. Of course, these examples will not be priorities for any Secretary of State in this country.”

I hope that is the case, but we are here to look at how the powers could be used over, possibly, the next 100 years, and not just how we would expect them to be used in the foreseeable future.

Nobody knows where this process will take us, and when examining legislation there is always merit in considering the unlikely as well as the stated intentions of the Government at the time. The Minister’s comments about wider objectives reaffirms the importance of our scrutinising the regulations as much as possible. We find ourselves in an unprecedented situation in Parliament, and it is therefore important that we consider all eventualities.

If Committee members need further persuasion that the amendment should be carried, that Lords Committee set out a devastating list of reasons why the negative procedure is inappropriate. It said:

“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions…on anyone anywhere. The regulations can delegate functions to anyone anywhere.”

The Committee concluded:

“In our view, the powers in clause 2(1) are inappropriately wide and have not been adequately justified by the Department. It is particularly unsatisfactory that exceedingly wide powers should be subject only to the negative procedure.”

The most significant reason why we do not object to the legislation is that the biggest risk at this stage is that arrangements are made that do not safeguard the ability of our constituents, when they travel abroad, or of UK citizens who currently live overseas to access healthcare, as they do now. However, because of the way the Bill is drafted, we will find that we are unable to debate whether those safeguards are in place as a matter of course. We have heard many references to the 190,000 UK expats living abroad and the 50 million or so nationals who travel to EEA countries every year. These are huge numbers of people, and the impact of the legislation on them is potentially huge. We owe it to all those people to ensure that any future arrangements are properly scrutinised.

We also need to consider the impact of any new arrangements on the NHS. As Alastair Henderson, chief executive of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, set out in evidence on Tuesday:

“Both clinicians and health organisations are concerned that we could end up with a system that is both administration-intensive and time-intensive.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 3, Q4.]

He went on:

“In practical terms, the idea that if you are a GP or a hospital doctor trying to work out whether there are different arrangements for 32 different lots of patients sounds pretty much like a nightmare set-up.”––[Official Report, Healthcare (International Arrangements) Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2018; c. 4, Q9.]

If we do not agree to the amendment, Parliament could end up in that scenario without any voice.

While there is scope for the affirmative procedure to be used in cases where Henry VIII powers are invoked to amend primary legislation, I think it is pretty clear that potentially the most significant changes to reciprocal agreements that could be enacted under the legislation are those that are subject only to the negative procedure. As we know, the negative procedure means that an instrument is laid in draft and cannot be made if that draft is disapproved within 40 days, normally via a prayer against, which is usually by way of an early-day motion. If that does not happen, the legislation is then passed. That is a 40-day process in the best-case scenario.

If I am correct, and if we leave without a deal, the Secretary of State will have to reach agreement with each of the 30-plus countries no later than Friday 15 February, assuming that Parliament does not sit on the following Sunday. At this stage, who knows where we might end up, but we will assume for now that the sitting days are as set out, so Friday 15 February will be the last day that an instrument can be laid that will pass before 29 March, assuming that it is not prayed against. Hopefully the Minister will be able to advise whether my understanding of the timetable is correct.

Will the Minister concede that, on a practical level, it would be better for regulations moved under the Bill to be moved using the affirmative procedure? We could then get them through scrutiny in both Houses much quicker than the 40-day procedure currently allows.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues, including the issue at the heart of the clause—the appropriate, necessary and correct scrutiny arrangements for Parliament. Let me be clear at the start: the Government absolutely recognise the importance of appropriate levels of scrutiny of the Bill and its subsequent secondary legislation. It is clearly the hallmark of any effective parliamentary system that there are processes in place by which we draft, consider and test legislation. After all, that is what we are doing today.

The appropriate parliamentary procedure for the scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill that do not amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation is the negative procedure. If I am not able to reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and he chooses to press the amendment to a Division, I am afraid the Government will resist it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am afraid the Minister has not managed to reassure me, despite his best efforts. When a Bill would confer power on the Executive, we have to be very careful about giving that power away. It cannot be done without good reason, even in these extraordinary times. I have not heard any justification for giving such sweeping powers to the Secretary of State without adequate scrutiny. No matter how well-intentioned the Minister is in his responses—I acknowledge his sincerity —we do not know who will be doing what in 12 months’ time. As we said earlier, we could be handing a future Secretary of State the ability to enter into arrangements for hip replacements in Australia or such like.

As the Minister said, the regulations will enable the Government to enter into detailed and complex arrangements on future healthcare. That is precisely why we need them to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I appreciate the point about the treaties possibly containing more detail, but this is about how Parliament will be able to scrutinise and challenge those arrangements.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard that the treaty arrangements will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way. We are discussing the regulations as to how we enact those treaties. I was hoping that he might be reassured by that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Having failed to reassure the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, I will have another attempt in this stand part debate. Clause 5 supplements the substantive regulation-making powers in clause 2. It provides detail on the parliamentary procedure, as we have already discussed, that will apply to regulations made under the Bill. Subsections (1) and (2) introduce standard provisions, and are consistent with regulation and direction-making powers in many other Acts of Parliament, such as the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the National Health Service Act 2006.

The clause is required to ensure that regulations and directions made under the Bill will be fit for purpose. As I have said, the powers in the Bill provide the Government with the flexibility and capability to ensure and implement detailed and complex arrangements concerning healthcare abroad. For example, the Government may use regulations to confer different functions on different bodies, in order that they may implement and operate effectively what may be provided for in an agreed reciprocal healthcare agreement. We do that now in relation to the EHIC scheme, which, as I said earlier, the NHS Business Services Authority administers on behalf of the Department. That administration includes the registering and issuing of EHICs and the processing of EHIC claims.

Future administrative arrangements to implement reciprocal healthcare agreements may reflect the current situation, or may involve conferring different functions on other bodies, as appropriate. Once the arrangements are negotiated, we will be in the best position to decide what the appropriate bodies to administer those arrangements are. We will be able to provide for the practical processes and implementation arrangements through the regulations. Clause 5 provides the Government with the flexibility to ensure that any healthcare arrangements can be implemented effectively and efficiently.

Subsection (3) provides that regulations made under clause 2

“may amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation…for the purpose of conferring functions”,

or

“to give effect to a healthcare agreement.”

I want to try again to reassure the Committee about that. The Government are conscious that Parliament rightly takes an interest in this area and, of course, we share the view about the importance of scrutiny.

This is a consequential power to make amendments to primary legislation, which is limited to three restricted uses: for the purpose of conferring functions, to give effect to a healthcare agreement and to make modifications to retained EU law. It is not a free-standing power; it is a focused power to ensure that we can implement healthcare arrangements effectively. That may involve conferring functions on healthcare bodies, which could involve amending primary legislation.

Subsection (4) provides that:

“Regulations under this Act may amend, repeal or revoke retained EU law”,

which is the body of existing EU law that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert into domestic law, together with the laws we have already made in the UK to implement our EU obligations. It is vital that the regulation-making powers extend to amending, repealing and revoking retained EU law, because the bulk of the existing provisions that relate to current reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU will be EU retained law.

Subsection (4) will ensure that domestic legislation in that area is clear and accessible. It will allow us to amend EU retained law, where appropriate, to give effect to new reciprocal healthcare arrangements. It would be an oversight if the Bill did not provide for such amendment, given that current reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU are entirely bound up in EU law.

I stress again that, of course, Parliament will be given the opportunity for the appropriate scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation. As such, subsection (6) makes it clear that regulations that contain provisions that make modifications to primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate them. That is the parliamentary scrutiny procedure befitting Henry VIII powers, and one that allows for proper scrutiny.

Regulations made under the Bill that do not contain provisions that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. It is our job—and I think it is only right—to ensure that legislation is afforded the appropriate level of scrutiny. Therefore, regulations that are made under the Bill that do not amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation should be subject to the negative procedure, as is normal.

The remit of our regulating powers is focused. They can be used only to give effect to healthcare agreements or to arrange, provide for or fund healthcare abroad, as is clear in the enabling powers found in clause 2(1). Where the UK negotiates a comprehensive international healthcare agreement, whether multilaterally with the EU or bilaterally with EU members, the most important element that sets out the terms of that agreement would be included in the agreement itself, as hon. Members would expect. Regulations that give effect to such an agreement would likely focus on procedural, administrative and technical details, such as the types of documents or forms that could be used to administer those reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which is a point I made earlier.

In a scenario where a comprehensive healthcare agreement is being implemented through regulations made under clause 2(1)(c), that agreement would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the ratification procedure contained in section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That ratification procedure provides an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the substance of the healthcare agreements being given effect to in the regulations made under the Bill. It is for those reasons that I rejected amendment 2, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston moved a moment ago.

The final provision of the clause, subsection (7), sets out the definition of “primary legislation”. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, and the Committee, the Government absolutely understand and appreciate the necessity for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The level of scrutiny must reflect the substance of the piece of legislation. That is what I believe the clause does, and I therefore recommend that it stand part of the Bill.

[Justin Madders]

The Minister and I will not agree on that, unfortunately. I will not repeat the arguments that we have already gone through, but I will remind hon. Members that the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee described the powers and regulation as “breath-taking”, and said that

“There is no limit to the amount of the payments. There is no limit to who can be funded world-wide. There is no limit to the types of healthcare being funded. The regulations can confer functions…on anyone anywhere.”

The scope of the clause is breath-taking. Although the Minister is trying to reassure us, as parliamentarians, we need the security of the affirmative procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There can be no statement other than complete condemnation of attacks. We have changed the law, and it came into force earlier this month.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. Although he is new, he will know that the A&E waiting target is not a recent initiative. It is a key part of the NHS constitution, but it has not been met for over three years. If he cannot make a commitment today on when the target will be met, will he accept that, at least for this winter under this Government, the NHS will once again be underfunded?

[Stephen Hammond]

As I said in my earlier answer, we recognise that this winter will be challenging. We recognise that the A&E performance standard is not currently being met, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are investing an extra £20 billion in the NHS to ensure that the standards are met. The NHS will use that investment to treat 250,000 more patients and to improve A&E performance across the country.

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Justin Madders and Stephen Hammond

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

Q I have one more question to both of you—I am not sure if either of you will know the answer. Some of the reciprocal arrangements we have at the moment are based on the actual cost expended and some are based on an average—Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Malta and Norway. I am not clear why that is the case. Is there some sort of historical issue? If either of you can shed any light on that, that would be extremely helpful. One of you is shaking your head.

Raj Jethwa: I do not know that, but again we are happy to look into that and to come back to you if we find out that somebody back home does know the answer. I am not sure that I know.

Mr Henderson: It is probably lost in the mists of various previous agreements.

[Stephen Hammond]

Q Can I come back on the data point that you both commented on? Clause 4 deals directly with that and provides the usual protections in terms of data. I heard Mr Henderson’s point, and it is important that there needs to be a flow of data, although that needs to be secure. Are you happy that the protections in the Bill at the moment are the normal and adequate protections?

Raj Jethwa: One of the concerns we have is the reference to the authorised person and who could fit into that category. Without seeing more detail about what the arrangements will look like in the future, we do have some concerns and we are seeking that level of understanding. Without seeing that and knowing exactly what process will be used to, for example, recoup the money or make payments, it is hard to know exactly what those arrangements would look like and on what basis information would be shared. We do have concerns about the authorised person aspect of the Bill, and we need to ensure that we have greater understanding about exactly who would be an authorised person, beyond that list of specific bodies and individuals who are named in the Bill at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

So, the sooner the Bill gets Royal Assent, the happier you will be.

[Justin Madders]

Q On the cost point, I think some evidence was given to the House of Lords Committee that in a no deal you expected premiums to increase by between 5% and 10%. Does that sound like a familiar figure?

Alisa Dolgova: My colleague Hugh Savill gave evidence to the House of Lords, where he stated that there is likely to be an increase of between 10% and 20%. To be honest, we do not really know, because it very much depends on the particular insurer, who it insures and where that specific group of people travels to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

Q Finally, without putting reciprocal arrangements in place, as this Bill intends to give the Government the powers to do, presumably it would make it more or less impossible for your sufferers to travel.

Fiona Loud: Yes, it is our conclusion that it would be very hard. It is worth mentioning that at the moment it is generally easier to obtain dialysis at a unit away from your home in Europe than it is in the UK, because we have a heavily pressed NHS. Trying to get capacity in other units is possible with a lot of planning, but if you want to travel for a funeral or for something at short notice, it becomes very difficult to go away for more than one or two days in between dialysis sessions. NHS staff will help and do their very best, but it is easier to go away for two weeks in Europe and take a break in that way than it is to get two weeks in a UK unit, unfortunately.

[Justin Madders]

Q It is alarming to hear about some of your members seeing the expiry date on their EHIC card and assuming that carries—

Fiona Loud: I have heard it as a comment.