Health and Care Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 14th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

There have been wide-ranging consultations on the Bill, as I mentioned, which have taken place over the past two years. While I cannot say specifically which trade union or which particular organisation has been spoken to, as I was not in the Department at the time, I know that the conversations have been wide ranging.

The Bill is not the limit of our ambitions on the nation’s health. We are also transforming public health; we are bringing the Mental Health Act into the 21st century; and, by the end of this year, we will set out plans putting adult social care on a sustainable footing for the future.

We are also ambitious for our workforce. I have commissioned Health Education England to refresh its strategic framework for health and social care workforce planning. HEE will work in partnership across the sector and gather views from the widest possible range of stakeholders to help us to shape a workforce with the right skills, the right knowledge and the right values for the year ahead.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has set out his plans to introduce a plan for social care by the end of the year, and I know that he is looking for a cross-party solution. In a joint inquiry by two Select Committees—the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee—one of the recommendations was a system with a German-style social care premium. Would that potentially feature in his recommendations, and does he agree that that is a much fairer system than a Dilnot-style system that incentivises people to spend their assets or move them somewhere where they cannot be touched?

[Sajid Javid]

First, my hon. Friend is right to say that it would be great if all or most Members of this House, and certainly the different parties, could agree on a new system. I look forward to speaking to all hon. Members about what a future social care system could look like. In terms of the detail, I am afraid that he is just going to have to wait a moment longer, but I agree that the work by the Select Committees will, of course, inform our decisions.

I turn in a little more detail to the measures and themes that are captured in the Bill. The first is more integration. We know that different parts of the system want to work together to deliver joined-up services, and we know that, when they do that, it works. We have seen that with the non-statutory integrated care systems in the past few years. They have united hospitals and brought together communities, GPs, mental health services, local authority care and public health, and it works. We recognise that there are limits on how far this can go under the current law, so this Bill will build on the progress of integrated care systems by creating integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships as statutory bodies. England’s 42 ICSs will draw on the expertise of people who know their areas best. They will be able to create joint budgets to shape how we care for people and how we promote a healthy lifestyle. With respect to the specific geographies of the ICSs themselves, as I have said elsewhere, I am willing to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Ashworth]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to the financial flows in a few moments. But how on earth can we have a triple aim of trying to improve health outcomes for a population and not even give public health a voice and a seat on the decision-making body that decides health plans for an area?

The Secretary of State talks about integrating health and social care. There is no seat for directors of adult social services on these committees, either. And what about patients? Patients were not mentioned very often by the Secretary of State in his speech. Patients will always come first for the Opposition. They have no mandated institutional representation, either—no guaranteed patient voice—so we have yet another reorganisation of the NHS whereby patients are treated like ghosts in the machine. It is utterly unacceptable. This is fragmentation, not integration, with a continued sidelining of social care.

There is a loss of local accountability as well, because there is no explicit requirement that the boards meet in public or publish their board papers. Although NHS England has stated that that is its preference, it is not required; nor is there any commitment, despite the wide geographical spread of some ICSs, for meetings to be made accessible online. But, of course, the White Paper did indicate that the independent sector could have a seat on an ICS, and the explanatory notes to the Bill state that

“local areas will have the flexibility to determine any further representation.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about solutions to social care. Will he come on to his own solutions to social care? Will they potentially include the recommendations of the Select Committees about that German-style social care premium—recommendations made by members of his own party who were elected by his party to serve on those Committees? Is that something that he is now willing to explore? He has ruled it out time and again on the Floor of the House.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I have. The hon. Gentleman is a dogged advocate for that proposal for social care, and he is quite right: he always raises it with me. I am unpersuaded but I am more than happy to sit down with the Secretary of State and with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West to discuss a solution to social care. We keep being told that there are going to be cross-party talks, but I think I missed the Zoom link, because they have not happened so far.

As I was saying, these committees do permit a seat, if the committees want it, for the independent sector. In Bath, in Somerset, we have seen Virgin Care get a seat on the shadow ICS. The Opposition think that is unacceptable and we shall table amendments to prohibit it.

I welcome the removal of the section 75 competition and procurement rules, finally scraping the remnants of the Lansley competition rules off the boots of the NHS. We did warn him and others that this compulsory competitive tendering would lead to billions going to the private sector, would be wasteful and bureaucratic, and would be distracting—and it even led to the NHS getting sued by Virgin Care when it did not win a contract. But this is not the end of contracting with the private sector. Without clauses to make the NHS the default provider, it would be possible for ICBs to award and extend contracts for healthcare services of unlimited value without advertising, including to private companies. Given the past year, when huge multibillion-pound contracts have been handed out for duff personal protective equipment and testing, we naturally have concerns about that and will seek safeguards in Committee. We are worried about further cronyism.

We are particularly concerned about the Bill because of the power grab clauses for the Secretary of State. He is creating 138 new powers, including seven allowing him in effect to rewrite the law through secondary legislation, to transfer functions between arm’s length bodies without any proper scrutiny. He has not explained why he needs these powers or given any guidance on how he expects to use them. These powers also include a requirement that Ministers be informed of every single service change, every single reconfiguration, and the Secretary of State will then decide whether or not to call them in for ministerial decision. Are you sure you want that power, Secretary of State?

The Government have gone from wanting to liberate the NHS under Lansley to now listening out for the clang of every dropped bedpan echoing through Whitehall. This is not a plan for service modernisation; it is a “Back to the Future” plan and it will mean more inertia. Instead of powers to interfere at every level, resetting the mandate for the NHS within years, we instead would want the duties on the Health Secretary, and therefore on the 42 ICSs to which he delegates those responsibilities, to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service, as per the National Health Service Act 2006, to be fully reinstated and made explicit.

Health and Care Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I take the Minister back to new clause 49, very briefly? He is right to point out that some measures that he has brought forward are more generous than previously proposed, but there is no doubt that the way that the cap works means that it is less generous for those with more modest assets. Does he not agree? How can that be fair?

[Edward Argar]

I simply take my hon. Friend back to my previous point: when compared to the current system, this is a significant improvement and step forward, particularly when taken in the round with the overall package of measures that see the floors go from £23,250 up to £100,000 and from £14,250 up to £20,000. We have to look at this issue in the round, considering all those aspects rather than purely one element alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am also grateful to the Opposition, who have indicated that they will not oppose the amendment.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Now that that one is sorted, would my right hon. Friend offer the House his views on new clause 49?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I am happy to do that, because I know my hon. Friend has a great interest in social care issues. I feel conflicted by new clause 49. I think that what we will end up with after this measure will be a whole lot better for people on low incomes than what we had, because the means-test threshold will be raised from £23,000 to £100,000, and that is a very significant improvement. However, I have to be honest and say that it is nothing like as progressive as we had hoped, but it is a step forward. My concern when it comes to social care is that our entire debate is focusing on what does and does not contribute to the cap, when the fundamental problem in social care is the core funding to local authorities; that, though not a matter for this Bill, has a direct impact on the care received by our constituents.

I conclude by thanking the Government for their support for amendment 114. I will move it formally later, but I am not expecting to divide the House on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will try to cover some of the main themes that have emerged from today’s debate. I am grateful for the debate we have had today. The vast majority of what is contained in the Bill is exactly what the NHS said that it wanted and needed, and it is the right legislation being brought forward at the right time, to drive forward those priorities highlighted by the NHS in its 2019 consultation. The Bill drives forward integration not only within the local NHS within a region, but also greater integration with a local authority. It provides the foundations on which we can continue to build, as we move forward with greater integration of health and social care services that are designed to work around the individual, rather than in institutional silos.

Despite misleading claims by campaigners—and, indeed, by some Opposition Members—the Bill does not privatise the NHS. The NHS will always be free at the point of delivery. It has been in the hands of the Conservative party longer than it has been in the hands of any other party, and the Conservative party has put in place record investment in terms of resources in our NHS. What we propose in the Bill continues to build on that. Government Amendment 25 on ICBs is clear: ICBs are NHS bodies. They have always been NHS bodies in our proposals, and we have put in place provisions regarding conflicts of interest. Just to make sure, and given the misleading claims about private involvement, new clause 25 puts beyond doubt that ICBs are NHS bodies and must act in the best interests of the NHS. It is an amendment that is much stronger and much more effectively drafted than the alternatives put forward by the Opposition, because we believe in putting this question beyond doubt.

On the ICBs and ICPs, we have sought to be permissive rather than prescriptive, giving those local systems, within a national framework, the flexibility to deliver what they need to deliver for their local areas, which they know best.

I have been happy to accept amendments 102 and 114. I will continue to reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker); in the nicest possible way, I suspect that—rightly—he will not go away. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), set out very clearly the case for his amendment 114, which I was happy to accept, and the importance it places on patient safety.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) has done a huge amount of work in this space—I pay tribute to her—and she is right: we will look very carefully in the statutory guidance at how we can emphasise that. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) was not in her seat when I paid tribute to the work that she had done previously, but I put that on the record too.

On new clause 49, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), a distinguished former Care Minister, made the point extremely well that this is a significant improvement and step forward on where we currently are in respect of tackling the social care challenge.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

Health and Care Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

I believe that everyone should have high-quality, personalised palliative care, and that is why I am speaking in favour of Lords amendment 12 on palliative care. I wholeheartedly welcome the benefits that this Bill can bring to those in need of that care. I must mention the tireless campaigning of Baroness Finlay, as referenced by the Minister in his opening statement, and Hospice UK, which acts as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care, of which I am a co-chair along with Baroness Finlay. Without their campaigning, we would not have been able to welcome this step forward. I should also declare my interest as a trustee of a hospice, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

On the day of the publication of the Ockenden report and our discussion of good births, it is time that we started to talk about good deaths, too. There is far more that we need to do to ensure that hospices and palliative care providers have the tools they need to achieve this, and Lords amendment 12 certainly moves us forward. We need to ensure that the impact of the measures in this Bill are maximised. The Bill specifies appropriate palliative care, but we should expand on this to ensure that a fair minimum standard of care is provided. We should be providing statutory guidance to integrated care boards on the commissioning of palliative care, ensuring that the new requirements are clear. That point was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey).

Funding certainty for hospices is essential. Certainty can enable them to better plan, support the needs of their local community and give commissioning boards confidence in relying on them as an integral part of local services. Certainty of funding will allow hospices to invest, innovate and integrate with the NHS and care system. Before the pandemic, adult hospices on average received 34% of their funding from Government, with some receiving little or none. Hospice funding came primarily from charitable donations, with the sector needing to raise £3.1 million every day. The pandemic saw donations, retail sales and fundraising activities fall dramatically, at the same time as an increase in service delivery. I want to put on record my thanks to the Government for the support that was given to all our hospices during the pandemic—and, in particular, to St Teresa’s in Darlington—but we need to see some certainty of funding for our hospices to deliver on this promise.

I am pleased that the Government accept Lords amendment 12. It is an important step forward for hospices and palliative care, and I welcome it.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). He made some very strong points in his speech with which I absolutely concur. I want to speak to Lords amendment 80, and his constituency—I know it pretty well, having been there and spent a bit of time there prior to the last election—is the kind that will be affected by it. The Government’s decision is to resist that Lords amendment, which I cannot support. In my view, this is a classic policy for levelling down, not levelling up.

The Minister is absolutely right—both Ministers involved in this Bill are good friends of mine, and I do not want to make their lives more difficult in any shape or form—when he says that the policy across the board is a significant improvement on anything we have had before. That is absolutely right. He said that in his speech, and I agree with it, but I do not agree with him when he says that it is fair. I do not believe it is fair, and that must be the basic criterion on which we judge any proposals, not least these.

I think everybody, including the Minister, accepts that it is quite clear that a £900 million transfer is happening here, which was introduced just as the Bill went on to Report stage. That is a direct transfer of £900 million from household wealth to somewhere else. That is what it is: a transfer of assets—household wealth—to healthcare, the Treasury or wherever else it is going, because that is the way that council contributions are used when it comes to the speed at which somebody reaches the cap.

I could live with that, if we were trying to make the system more affordable, as the Minister says—if the burden was going to fall equally on everyone’s shoulders in different parts of the country. It also true to say that most people will not be affected, because only people on very long care journeys tend to be affected badly, but there are quite a few of them: according to the Department’s own figures, about 6,000 a year—10 people per constituency—would be affected in this way, and most of them have dementia. We know that there are 900,000 people with dementia in the UK today; according to the Alzheimer’s Society, there will be 1.6 million by 2040; and 70% of care home residents are dementia sufferers, and they are the sort of people who will suffer because of the changes. They have very long care journeys, and they move out of their house so it becomes one of the assets that we take into account when assessing how much people contribute to the care cap.

The Minister says we are making these changes to make the system sustainable. Well, okay, make it sustainable, but make it fair too. I do not believe that this is fair. I know I am comparing this with a system that never existed—my hon. Friend is right to say that—but one was proposed in which the council contributions would count in calculations of people’s contribution to the care cap. That is the change we have made—the specific measure to make the system more sustainable is that change, and that affects people with limited assets and wealth. We are balancing this on the shoulders of people with fewer assets and less wealth, and on certain areas as well, as people in some of the regions in the north that we represent tend to have fewer assets and less wealth.

Particularly affected are people who have wealth or assets worth between £75,000 and £150,000. The research provided by the Alzheimer’s Society is clear: under the Dilnot proposals, about 50% of people living with dementia benefited fully from the care cap—they reached the care cap. That was true across all the wealth quintiles—it was very fair. This is not. Only 13% of people in the least wealthy quintile will reach the cap, whereas 28% of the most wealthy will. Such huge disparity cannot be right, yet that is the change that we have made. That £900 million has been found from people with less wealth. That cannot be right, nor is it consistent with levelling up. Look at how different regions are affected: only 13% of people in the north-east reach the cap whereas 29% of people in the south-east do so. Previously, in almost every part of the country, about 50% of people did so. The cap was not as generous, but it was very fair across different wealth quintiles and different regions of the country. I cannot see how this is fair.

Instead of each of us having 10 people in our constituency affected, some will have more and those representing wealthy constituencies will have fewer. I and other Members representing the north-east will have more constituents affected by this change and less generously treated because of it. For that reason, and because in my view it levels down, I cannot support the Government and will vote against them this evening on Lords amendment 80.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to all colleagues who have spoken this evening. A number of the arguments were made on Report, and rightly, right hon. and hon. Members have reiterated some of those points where they felt it was appropriate. I will address a number of the points raised relatively briefly.

What we are legislating for in this Bill represents an evolution of our health and care system, and improved integration. My hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and for Winchester (Steve Brine) both spoke about carers. Young carers are included, which I hope reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. In respect of the statutory guidance, I hope that it will provide reassurance if I can set out that we will develop that guidance in partnership with Carers UK to ensure its input and so that it captures exactly the things that hon. Members have alluded to. Again, in statutory guidance, we will look at how to ensure that the duty to give people the information that they need is properly and effectively discharged.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead—she is now in the Chamber—for the work that they have done on the Bill to ensure that parity of esteem for mental and physical health is not forgotten and is explicit.

On a point made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I will clarify what I said earlier on the triple aim, which may give her a little reassurance, even if not necessarily sufficient reassurance. We have not created a quadruple aim or a fourth limb, but we have included a reference to health inequalities under the existing triple aim in the other place. It is not forgotten. I hope that gives her a degree of reassurance on that specific point.

Lords amendment 80 was the crux of much of the debate. I fear that many are comparing our proposals with something that was never done. We are significantly improving provision around the sustainability and affordability of social care. The Prime Minister was clear that he would grapple with the issue and resolve it. When the Opposition were in power, they had two Green Papers, one royal commission and one spending review priority on the issue and they utterly failed to address it. We are a Government who have made huge strides in creating a better system.

I listened, as always, with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I am sorry that he will not be joining me in the Lobby tonight. While I respectfully disagree with him, I know that he has thought long and hard about this matter and has strong and sincerely held views. With that in mind, I regret that we will have to ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment on care metering.

Lords amendment 11 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 11.

Lords amendment 51 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 51.

Clause 140

Cap on care costs for charging purposes

Motion made, and Question put, that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 80.—(Edward Argar.)