Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 21, and I support the other amendments in this group. Before I reach the meat of my remarks, it seems a long time ago, but two hours ago we were discussing mental health. I did not intervene in that debate, although the issue is very close to my heart. I totally support everything that was said in that debate, but I was gearing myself up for this contribution, not knowing that I would have a two-hour interlude.

This Bill in general is not the answer to the immediate and long-term crisis in the NHS and social care sector, but the particular concern I raise through my amendment is the widespread fear that the new arrangements being proposed will lead to the growth of the private provision of healthcare, with multi-million-pound private sector service contracts leading to the loss of the public service ethos of the NHS. I have no doubt that the Minister is well aware of these concerns. It is no secret; they have been widely discussed in the columns of the national press and professional journals. For example, Jan Shortt, the general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, has said:

“This Bill truly represents a creeping backdoor privatisation of health care services, which despite government claims, will badly impact on the patient care across the UK.”


So I do not think that there is any question that these concerns exist.

The Government have promised that there are no plans to privatise the National Health Service, but that is quite different and distinct from the privatisation of healthcare services, shown specifically, or most starkly, by the increasing number of US-owned private companies which already provide them for the NHS and obviously seek an expanded share of the market. It is worth noting the not sufficiently reported or commented on fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, was unable to attend a meeting with our hard-pressed services sector because he was busy in discussion—according to a report in the Financial Times—with US healthcare providers when he was in California recently. The Government should not insult us by suggesting that there is not an issue here of the growth in the provision of healthcare by commercial interests.

Even with the amendments to limit private companies being represented on integrated care boards, there is absolutely nothing here to stop private companies playing a part in other ways—for instance, clearly at the sub-system level via place-based partnerships and provider collaboratives. There is this whole word salad of different ways of describing these organisations operating at that level below, for or with the integrated care boards in providing services. This is the Trojan horse that will bring private provision within the walls of our publicly provided NHS.

NHS England states clearly in guidance:

“Independent sector providers can be members of a provider collaborative, but the extent of their participation may depend on the specific form and governance arrangements and the nature of a particular decision being taken by the collaborative.”


Dig through these words and they mean that we just do not know what arrangements will actually be established in this new world of provision. Guidance from NHS England also states:

“The Health and Care Bill, if enacted, will enable ICBs to delegate functions to providers including, for example, devolving budgets to provider collaboratives.”


It is this uncertain nature of the exact administrative arrangements that will apply under the new scheme that leads to the level of concern. As place-based partnerships and provider collaboratives are allowed to include private companies, the Government’s rhetoric about protecting the independence of ICBs is hollow. For all the talk from the Minister in the House of Commons of recognising that

“the involvement of the private sector, in all its forms, in ICBs is a matter of significant concern to Members in the House”—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 14/9/21; col. 258.]

the Government have not taken the action needed to stop private companies exerting excessive influence in decision-making in the health service.

The defence against such developments will be in the hands of the ICBs, hence the concerns expressed today about their membership. This is the Minister’s opportunity to assure me, your Lordships and the many bodies outside this House which have expressed concerns that our concerns are misplaced. Simply dismissing them will not work. I note the remarks of my noble friend and maybe my amendment is not the best way of achieving my objective of getting the Government to put boundaries on commercial development within the health service, but I hope that the point of principle will be addressed and will not hide behind the limitations of my amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to intervene on this group, in particular to support Amendment 19. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for tabling it. As the noble Lord said, it gives us an opportunity to probe the arrangements for the commissioning of specialised services in the future. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify that tonight and perhaps add further clarity as we go on.

I want to talk about this because I remember that a decade or more ago, even though the NHS was a single organisation with a single responsibility for specialised commissioning, most of this was in fact delegated to strategic health authorities. My experience was that, with the separate budgetary responsibilities of strategic health authorities and their ability to commission those services themselves, we ended up with considerable disparities and inconsistencies in the commissioning of specialised services. We know this must be the case because, after NHS England took over the responsibility in 2013, one of its most challenging tasks, not least in financial terms, was to secure a common specification and common service standards. The objective was of course not to level down, but level up, in the finest traditions of the present Government, and that levelling up was expensive. As we will all discover as time goes on, levelling up is expensive by nature. It was challenging to NHS England at a point when resources were highly constrained.

That having been achieved, we are all very clear that we do not want to go back to the bad old days but—I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, was very fair about this—there is a counterargument. Many patients, even if they have a less common condition, actually receive much of their healthcare locally, from local providers through local commissioning arrangements. They need to be integrated, and things such as access to chemotherapy for common cancers or diagnostics through the community diagnostic centres, as they are created, may be more appropriately commissioned for those patients by a local integrated care board rather than NHS England directly.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to, there is the principle of setting commissioning at appropriate population levels. As I know from experience, the NHS can consume endless time and energy trying to work out the geography of these things and what population is right for what purpose. If nothing else, even if they multiply the tiers from place-based to ICSs to regional teams to NHS England, the present arrangements at least give specialised services a chance to be commissioned and led at an appropriate population level. For many specialised services, that is not at the level of an integrated care board, as the population may be too small for them.

We know that highly specialised services will be retained by NHS England. If some services that need to be integrated locally, for the benefit of patients, are with the ICSs, there is none the less a question, about which we need to hear more, on the extent to which NHS England will manage the commissioning by using regional teams to try to maintain national specifications and service standards through their own responsibilities.

An opportunity that has not been referred to and is not in the Bill, but may be useful in practice, is to learn from the experience and, I hope, capability of the specialised commissioning team at NHS England and have a specialised commissioning support unit. It could stand behind the regional teams or even the ICSs, if appropriate, to help them have the capability to commission effectively. Amendment 19 asks the right question: this responsibility should not be delegated to individual integrated care boards unless NHS England is clear that the capability subsists at that level. We have to accept at the start that it probably does not.

I referred earlier to outcomes which, for providers in the NHS, are often at their highest in specialist hospitals. We have a dozen or more specialist hospitals, of which the majority of services—up to 80% in one or more cases—are commissioned as specialised services. We want them to have a more coherent structure of commission; we do not want them to have dozens of contracts with integrated care boards, all over the country. I hope that NHS England, in the regime that puts commissioners and providers close to one another, at least looks out for specialist hospitals and says, “We should have a lead commissioner of these services”. It may well be that the lead commissioner is in NHS England and sets up the contract there.

My final point is on the very reasonable question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about budgets. Why were strategic health authorities differentiating in the way they did? Their budgets forced them into different decisions in different places and, over time, that increased the degree of divergence and inconsistency. The same will happen with ICSs, unless some very clear countermeasures are taken. They could be ring-fenced budgets or some other such mechanism, but the budgets might have to be held not locally but centrally, even if some of the functions are delegated more locally. We have to be aware that, when you start to shift and delegate budgets, it is very hard then to maintain national service standards. That should be done only when it is very clear that the safeguards are in place. I hope we can use the debates on the Bill as a mechanism to give those who rely on specialist services and the providers of them greater clarity and assurance about how they will go about that in the future.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

My Lords, before I address my Amendment 28, giving my support to my noble friend Lady Thornton, I wish to endorse the other amendments that are calling for representatives of particular groups—we just heard mention of two. I particularly endorse all those, especially as I am taking rather an oblique approach to this debate, which is not reflected in the other amendments.

Last year, there was a report in America that, increasingly, hospitals there were closing. The report said that hospitals were seen as businesses; a fifth of hospitals in America are run for profit, and globally, private equity investment in healthcare has tripled since 2015. In 2019, some $60 billion were spent on acquisitions. Globally, that includes—indeed, targets—us and the NHS. Where does that affect us? Increasing inroads are being made into the National Health Service by Centene and its subsidiary Operose, which now own 70 surgeries around this country. From Leeds to Luton, from Doncaster to Newport Pagnell, from Nottingham to Southend and many more, Centene now owns and runs for profit surgeries formerly owned and run by NHS doctors. It is now the biggest single provider of GP surgeries in this country. It has further designs on the existing fabric of the NHS, seeking to have its representatives sitting on the boards of CCGs, making decisions about the deployment of NHS funding. This is a direction of travel that needs to be monitored and checked. Safeguards must be written into the Bill against this takeover.

Why does it matter, just as long as patients have good and free treatment at the point of need? What is the reputation of Centene in America? It is not good. Indeed, it is regularly embroiled in lawsuits from either patients or shareholders, and the sums are not small. In June last year, Centene had to pay a fine of $88 million to the state of Ohio for overcharging on its Medicare department. This is one of many. Since 2000, there have been 174 recorded penalties for contract-related offences against Centene and its subsidiaries. That enterprise is now active in this country and targeting our NHS. It is not a fit company to be part of our health service. I therefore ask the Minister for safeguards to be written into the Bill against such people being represented on our boards. When I raised this at Second Reading, the Minister replied that there was no chance of us selling the NHS. We do not need to: they are buying us.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not detain the Committee in speaking to my Amendment 30. In truth, I am speaking in favour of my noble friend Lady Thornton’s Amendment 29. I could claim that my amendment has the virtue of being shorter but perhaps brevity is not always a virtue. Amendment 29 also makes the important point that it is the sub-committees and committees of the ICBs that will be crucial. The substantive point is that the Government have to accept that the amendment agreed in the Commons is totally inadequate. It depends on matters of judgment. We want a clear specification of who is appropriate to be a member of those bodies.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, brought us very persuasively to the point of Clause 14, which I must say I am extremely puzzled about, because it purports to set out the whole set of arrangements that have to be gone through before integrated care boards can be set up as statutory bodies. However, it appears that that has already been done.

I register a very strong protest with the Minister at the actions of NHS England in going ahead and establishing these bodies, issuing extraordinary edicts such as no local authority councillor being able to serve on an ICB. What right does a quango have to say that local authority councillors cannot be represented on ICBs? This is absolute abuse of parliamentary power, because quangos do not have the right to set out what should happen on governance issues at local level in the NHS without parliamentary endorsement.

NHS England has put out a note that says that, subject to parliamentary progress, arrangements for the new statutory bodies are to come in now, on 1 July. How can that be, when we have not even gone through the sections that deal with the composition of integrated care boards? It is quite possible that your Lordships might insist on Report that local authority councillors are members of the ICBs. That is not impossible, so what will happen? Will the Minister say that, despite what Parliament says, the ICBs will go ahead, or does it mean, as I read this legislation, that the Government have to start again?

Lots of issues will be raised in this and the next group, not least the outrageous governance issue, which says that NHS England basically appoints the chair and the chief executive officer is also at its disposal. There is no attempt locally to have a board that elects its own chair or one that is appointed independently; they are essentially place-people put in there by NHS England. These are matters that Parliament should decide. I accept that Parliament may say that it is happy to go ahead on that basis—but I strongly object to this clause. It is dishonest; it purports to go through a process from the start that says that this is how ICBs will be set up—but they have all been set up, the boundaries settled and the chairs nominated, without any proper public accountability process whatever.

I hope that, when we come to agree Clause 14, the Minister will think again and that he will issue instructions to NHS England to withdraw the letter that says that the new arrangements will come into place on 1 July. I do not understand how that can possibly be.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 45. This is a disparate group of amendments, dealing with the issue of integrated care boards. I strongly support the comments already made. My amendment addresses another issue. There are questions about what the boards are; the issue is for whom they provide services, and how they are defined.

I have been made aware of a case that raises real questions about how this is going to develop. The case was reported in September, in the Manchester Evening News, about a woman who suffered burns while on holiday. She returned to her local urgent care centre in Rochdale and was advised that, because of long waiting times, she should go to another A&E in Bury. When she arrived there, she was told that that centre did not treat people from Rochdale, because of rules laid down by the integrated care board predecessor, which had established the rules in that part of Lancashire. She was left literally on the pavement, unable to obtain the care that she required.

That is a specific case under the existing rules, but it points out the lack of clarity in the Bill about how the integrated care boards will operate. The fear is that they will be membership bodies along the lines of health management organisations in the United States, which are responsible for providing services to members. That contrasts with the residential basis on which the NHS was based, at least up to 2012.

Proposed new Section 14Z31(4) gives the Secretary of State astounding power to set out which ICB is responsible for a particular individual’s care. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance, but the problem with membership-based organisations is that, first, there will be cherry picking of patients and, somewhat counterintuitively, at the same time they will be competing for the less expensive patients. Without far more clarity through the Bill from the Minister, people will have reasonable fears over how these new organisations will work and how people will attain the services that they currently expect from a seamless provision of services. My amendment seeks to address the issue of it being a single service. We have these 43 ICBs, or whatever they are, but it is a single service, and patients can access services wherever it is best for them and not best for the service.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

We are living in a parallel universe. We are discussing the legislative framework for this new system while, out in the real world, the foundations and the bricks are being built. People are in place. Dates are being set. People are being told that they cannot be on boards. This Parliament has not decided. Under what legislative framework are these organisations working? They have no legitimate powers or approval from Parliament, yet they are being set up. People are being put in place. Chairs are being appointed. Councillors are being told that they cannot sit on ICBs.

This Parliament has not decided that yet. Letters are going out from NHS England telling the system when it will start, and Parliament has not gone through the legislative process. This is not collaborative working at a local level, because many local authorities feel that they are not even in the car let alone in the driving seat; the car is leaving and they are being asked to join at a later date. This is not a good start for collaborative working. It has to stop. NHS England has to be reined in and told that, until there is a legislative framework, the system must stay still.

In that sense, I support Amendment 23, because, significantly, it would give local authorities powers to determine their own destinies. As a former NHS manager, I am not somebody who says that this is a bunch of bureaucrats who are a waste of time. I understand the importance of NHS leaders and managers, but they cannot start drawing lines on a map and ignore local authorities’ democratic mandate. This system is not just about administrative convenience; there are real questions about the identity of local authorities, which have built regional boundaries.

Some local authorities look two ways. Let me give noble Lords an example, not a health example but something that happened in south Yorkshire and in which I was involved. The people and the authority of Barnsley, on the edge of south Yorkshire, look to west Yorkshire as well as looking to, and being administratively in, south Yorkshire. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will know, because she knows the local area, when we set up the economic framework it caused a lot of distrust and bad blood for four years, simply because the local authority was not allowed to use the democratic mandate that it had been given and people from the centre were pushing how local economic partnerships and mayoral authorities should be set up.

If we are talking about local authorities and the National Health Service working in a collaborative way, the democratic right of local authorities must be taken into consideration. They know the nuances of their local people in a way that NHS managers do not. I say that having been an NHS manager, a councillor and a leader of a council. It is important to establish the democratic mandate in the system right from the beginning. I can tell you now that if you get a system where two local authorities out of four are forced into an area that they do not want to be in, I can tell you now that it will not work. There will be years of fighting and distrust. This is not just a plea; this is really important. The system has to stop. It has to be a collaborative approach in which local authorities’ elected mandate is key, but NHS England must also take its foot off the brake and wait until this Parliament has set the legislative framework before the system gets going. This is a parallel universe and it has to stop.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

I wonder also whether the Minister could tell us something about the thinking of the National Institute for Health Research, going beyond the helpful remarks of the Baroness, Lady Chisholm, in her response to the last debate on Thursday. I appreciate that its budget, albeit very substantial, is under constant pressure from the insatiable demands of clinical research and that many high-quality research bids have to be turned down. I also appreciate the requirement not to compromise academic standards. However, does the NIHR appreciate the need to fund and develop research methodologies that differ from the time-honoured models such as RCTs and support other types of research, including coproduction methodologies, vital to improving our capacity for both prevention and bringing about a health-creating society?

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to direct a few remarks to the issue of research, in broad support of the speeches made so far. The amendments in this group, taken individually, are generally to be welcomed, not least because they highlight the issues involved. However, taken as a whole, they suggest that there is a need for a more coherent approach, based on the common principles that apply across the whole range of providers and the whole spectrum of health and social care.

The point of principle is that there is a demonstrable association between the provision of high-quality care and participation in high-quality research. Put simply, patient outcomes in services that actively take part in research are better. This does not mean just future improvements in care, diagnosis and so on; the actual care provided alongside the research benefits from involvement in that research. It is reasonable to assume that the same is true of care services; I direct my remarks at healthcare, but I am sure these principles apply equally to those involved in the provision of social care.

Given the principle that research is so important, it is worth making a few additional points. First, research must be an essential element in a system of healthcare, involving both the bodies that deliver healthcare and service users. Hence ICBs need to have a research strategy and not just promote research but take practical steps to facilitate it. In this context, the importance of national research objectives should be emphasised. The involvement of these bodies in research should be more than just one more administrative hoop they have to jump through. It should be part and parcel of their core function, delivering better mental and physical healthcare. They also need to commit to training clinical staff in how they can participate to best effect in research, or at least in the importance of research to clinical care.

Secondly, there is a need to consider a duty on private providers of NHS services to participate in research. Of course, private providers have a duty to support and contribute to the training as well. It is easy for private providers to ignore the need for research, and this reduces the opportunities for those for whom they care.

Thirdly, on Amendment 96, I suggest that we need to go beyond the idea that clinical trials need to be considered by ICBs and other relevant agencies. We could go further and require ICBs to use their best endeavours to encourage and accept reasonable requests to support clinical trials and offer opportunities for patients to take part.

Fourthly, as we have touched on in previous debates in this Committee, it must be emphasised that, when addressing the issue of research, there is a need to refer explicitly to mental as well as physical health.

Finally, all of us should bear in mind the importance of service users being involved in research and of ICBs and other agencies keeping this in mind throughout the process of providing care. This includes the involvement of service users in developing the priorities of research in its design and in overseeing its carrying out. This is vital for making sure that the outcomes can be easily embedded in clinical and care services. It is worth emphasising this in the context of mental health, where most advances in patient involvement have taken place.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for the thoughtful way in which they introduced the amendments in this group to which I have added my name. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of three interests: I am chair of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, chair of the board of trustees of UK Biobank and chair of King’s Health Partners.

As we have heard in this debate, research is not only fundamental to securing the best outcomes for patients being treated in our hospitals and throughout our healthcare system; it is critically important for the sustainability of the healthcare system itself. Numerous reports and strategies have been published over the last 10 years, to the great credit of Her Majesty’s Government, in terms of putting innovation and research at the heart of repeated NHS strategies. It is therefore only right that your Lordships’ House pays particular attention to how securing the opportunity for that research and promoting the opportunities that will flow from it are reflected in the Bill. There is no question but that Her Majesty’s Government are deeply committed to this area, but, as the Bill is currently drafted, there is some anxiety that the provisions and clauses do not provide sufficient emphasis or obligation for the new NHS organisations, the integrated care systems and the integrated care boards—and, indeed, the continuing obligation for NHS trusts—to be actively involved in research.

Now why is this important? At the very least, we know that we need to continue to innovate, be it therapeutic innovation or innovation through devices—or, indeed, innovation of new working practices, pathways of care and delivery—if we are to continue the important advances in outcomes that we have been able to achieve in recent years and decades. As we have heard, research is at the very heart of our ability to improve the experience and clinical outcomes of our patients. Research is also fundamental in improving our ability to prevent disease. We have an obligation in this Bill to promote healthcare services and well-being and to avail ourselves of the substantial opportunities that exist with regard to a more focused prevention agenda. Much of that agenda must inevitably be driven by prospective research, to be conducted across broad and diverse populations on our fellow citizens.

There is the question of sustainability—the fundamental sustainability of the NHS. Here we recognise that, without research and the adoption of innovation resulting from that research, the demographic changes and increasing demands that attend the delivery of healthcare in our country will make the NHS unsustainable in future. Therefore, there is a very deep obligation, beyond what we can do for patients in terms of clinical outcomes, to put at the heart of NHS thinking and strategy, as well as delivery, the delivery of a substantial research agenda. We know that that that research agenda is secured centrally through the substantial commitment of public funds to the National Institute for Health Research, UKRI and Research Councils, which provide funding for research—and, indeed, for other contributions from government departments, including the third sector contribution and the substantial contribution for research provided by the pharma and biotech industries, and associated research opportunities.

All that needs to be directed towards NHS institutions that are ready to receive that substantial commitment to research and conduct in particular those clinical research opportunities which, regrettably, have been subject to variable performance over many years in the NHS. It is for that reason that this Bill must take the opportunity to address that variability in research participation and performance. If we do not achieve that, we are not going to utilise the full potential of the NHS to be able to deliver the benefits that have been so rightly predicted. Most of all, without ensuring a broad research culture across all NHS institutions and organisations, we are going to lose the direct consequences of such a research culture and infrastructure in terms of the fact that patients in research-active institutions have better clinical outcomes.

To move away from those two broad areas—the important impact on patients and the important opportunity to provide the broader research agenda with the innovation that flows from it—there is a third imperative: our capacity to attract and retain staff. As with any facet of manpower planning, it is vital to provide the opportunity for NHS staff members and healthcare professionals to be research-active. It provides a substantial incentive and encouragement and allows for career development, ensuring that we retain colleagues for longer and are able to develop them to make different contributions—all vitally important. If we take this as a whole, it is appropriate that Her Majesty’s Government give some very careful thought to the purpose of these different amendments and how what is being said in your Lordships’ House today might be included in the Bill in such a way to strengthen these research obligations and ensure that NHS organisations deliver on the health agenda.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, Clause 21 is about representation on the integrated care partnerships, and new Section 116ZA specifies who should be on the committee of the partnership. The Bill currently specifies that one member of the ICP should be appointed by the ICB and one by each of the local authorities. The partnership is also free to appoint others. My Amendment 148 requires that one of these additional members must have responsibility for public health—and in that I include public mental health—and one must demonstrate that he or she can represent local voluntary organisations.

It is tempting in a Bill such as this to assume that all the members of these very influential committees should be from the major health organisations or local authorities in the area. However, there are many small community organisations run by charities or not-for-profit groups that play a very valuable role in providing services to local communities in a very cost-effective manner. Unless they are represented at ICP level, it is quite possible that their survival will be threatened by the new arrangements—and we heard in previous debates that they already do feel threatened. I am sure that the Government do not want that.

Similarly, public health has a major role to play in addressing many of the preventable diseases that contribute to health inequalities—and it looks after the tracing of communicative diseases. We saw the value of that recently when it was a great deal more effective than the national test and trace service at tracing the contacts of Covid-positive patients.

So, the work of both groups is very cost effective. If the ICB and the ICP are to use their resources efficiently and fulfil their duties to level up health inequalities, it is important that both groups are represented on the integrated care partnership. I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: the Bill is quiet on the structure of and representation on the integrated health partnership. Given the duties that it is being asked to perform, it is perfectly reasonable for us to suggest that some of those important duties are properly covered in representation.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking in support of my Amendment 150, the issue is simple. We have much to learn about ICPs; I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hunt.

My proposal is that the rules determining the membership of ICPs should be consistent with the rules for membership of ICBs. As the Committee will be aware, it has been agreed, with the amendment made in the House of Commons, that ICBs will not and cannot be controlled by the private sector, in any way. I believe that the Health Minister, Edward Argar, made the point of principle clear when speaking during the Commons Report stage. He said that

“ICBs will not and cannot be controlled in any way by the private sector, as NHS-accountable bodies guided by the NHS constitution and with NHS values at their heart.”

Let us just remind ourselves that the requirement added by the Government to Schedule 2 is that an ICB’s constitution “must prohibit” a candidate being appointed to it if the person making the appointment considers, in the Government’s words in the amendment,

“that the appointment could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service because of the candidate’s involvement with the private healthcare sector or otherwise.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; cols. 119-61.]

We might not agree with the wording adopted by the Government, as previously discussed, but the principle is accepted on all sides.

So, as with ICBs, we should have a parallel provision for ICPs. In this, I am simply following what the Minister said in relation to ICBs: he wanted

“to put the matter even further beyond doubt.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 116.]

I emphasise “even further”. The debate here is not really about the precise wording of any amendment; it is about the principle of extending to ICPs the same protection that, as has already been agreed, should be extended to ICBs.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It is possible that, given the way in which ICPs are appointed—on the one hand, by ICBs, which are already protected by the Government’s amendment to Schedule 2, and on the other hand, by local authorities—it might be suggested that the issue simply does not arise and that protection is already there. However, if only to put the matter even further beyond doubt, why not accept my amendment?

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I wish to address Amendments 201A, 201B and 201C—my name has been left off Amendment 201A for some reason, but I support all three. Indeed, I support the stand-part debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.

I have attended virtually the whole debate in Committee and have been pretty sparing in my contributions, but on this occasion, I am going to make three speeches in one. I have been asked to pass on the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is unable to be here this evening, particularly given the time—though we are meeting a bit earlier than we perhaps expected. The same is true of my noble friend Lady Blower. Both my noble friends have considerable experience in this area and wanted their thoughts to be added to our debates this evening.

My noble friend Lord Hendy tabled these amendments. I have his remarks here; what he says might be of assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in that he explains that this Bill, among other things, is designed to facilitate the outsourcing to private contractors of NHS services which are currently carried out in-house. That may not be explicitly stated, but it is clearly one of the underlying aims.

That is the Government’s policy, even though it is firmly opposed by most of the citizens of this island. That said, the purpose of these amendments is to protect NHS workers from the consequences of this policy. Usually when public services are outsourced, the contractor makes profit by reducing the number of staff performing the work formerly done in house and by cutting staff wages, terms and conditions. The TUPE regulations mitigate that process, but usually only by delaying it.

These amendments do not prevent staff reductions consequent on outsourcing beyond the protections in TUPE. In any event, the danger of staff reductions is diminished, bearing in mind that at the end of last year the NHS had 93,000 vacancies and an additional 110,000 staff off sick, half with Covid.

Amendment 201A seeks to prevent cuts to the wages, terms and conditions of NHS staff who are outsourced, and prevent contractors’ staff on worse terms undercutting in-house staff. It does so by requiring that the pricing rules for paying contractors must preserve, then and for the future, NHS staff rates and terms as negotiated between the NHS unions and NHS employers. Payment of those prices will depend on honouring those terms.

I hope the Minister will accept the legitimacy of the need to protect NHS staff in this way, perhaps—my noble friend adds—by better drafted amendments than mine. I am sure the Minister recognises that NHS staff need protection from wage cuts consequent on outsourcing. We must not have a two-tier workforce.

NHS staff are grossly underpaid and the real value of their wages is falling. After years of pay freeze, last year’s miserable 3% wage increase is destroyed by 6% inflation this year. The inadequacy of their terms and conditions is the prime reason for the extraordinarily high level of vacancies—a vacancy rate that increases as more and more work is done by fewer hands. Only heroic dedication by NHS staff prevents the vacancy level becoming a catastrophe.

Amendment 201A also protects against a different kind of two-tier workforce: contractors using the NHS payment scheme to fund salaries above NHS rates to attract certain categories of staff away from NHS posts. The current starting salary for an NHS nurse is £25,655, whereas the equivalent in the private sector is £37,500. No one could begrudge nurses earning whatever they can for their vital work, but NHS funds should not be used to finance a higher rate outside the NHS than within it.

Amendments 201B and 201C are intended to ensure that unions are among the consultees on the likely impact of payment schemes. Obviously, the workforce should be consulted.

My noble friend Lady Blower added her name to all three amendments, and she draws our attention to the fact that my noble friend Lord Hendy is one of our foremost labour lawyers. Some in your Lordships’ House have long experience of trade unions and trade unionism. I therefore hope that they will recognise this quotation:

“Trade unions have been an essential force for social change, without which a semblance of a decent and humane society is impossible under capitalism.”


That was not Marx, Engels or any of the great leaders of the TUC, or a general secretary of a major trade union. The quotation is actually from Pope Francis. Given that we all want to live in a decent and humane society, we should all promote the important role of trade unions. This is in part what these amendments would do; they are about fairness and justice for workers.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

Clause 80: Hospital patients with care and support needs: repeals etc

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I was going to oppose the question that Clause 80 stand part of the Bill, but I thought the order of speakers was going to be somewhat different. I am sorry—I am looking to my Front Bench for guidance.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My noble friend wrote to the Table Office and said that he did not want Clause 80 to stand part and that he wanted Amendment 217, which I shall be moving, to start this group, as it did originally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

It would help the House not to proceed with the debate on whether Clause 80 stand part of the Bill. Then we can move on to the amendments.

Clause 80 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

I cannot understand how this got through the sifting systems when Minister after Minister has stood at this Dispatch Box and sworn undying fealty to the needs of carers. We are seeing stuff stuffed into this Bill which damages the position of carers by removing the protections that were there for them. Let us not mince our words: what the Bill does in practice is shove the problem of dealing with the discharged person on to an unpaid carer, without any protections as to whether they can cope in the situation in which they find themselves. I regard that as pretty intolerable in this day and age and think we would do well to say to the Minister that we need to support these amendments, particularly Amendments 221 and 225. If the Minister is not willing to go down that path, I hope noble Lords will move them to a vote on Report.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for the confusion at the beginning of this debate. My understanding of the ways of this House is still a work in progress. I gave notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 80 stand part to provide the Government with an opportunity to explain more clearly than they have their intentions for the management of hospital discharge. I hope in so doing they can allay the concerns that surround the proposal to revoke Section 74 of the Care Act 2014. For example, there are the concerns of the National Care Forum, which points to the danger that

“the removal of an assessment prior to discharge will result in less priority to undertake the assessment once someone has left hospital—for someone needing support to remain in their own home, this is concerning.”

The process of hospital discharge is a crucial element within the integrated care system established by this proposed legislation. From the perspective of the service user, this is where it all comes together. It must be done right. The Explanatory Notes tell us that this clause introduces flexibility for local areas to adopt the discharge model that best meets local needs, including an approach known in England as discharge to assess, the argument being that people will be assessed at a point of optimum recovery, allowing a more accurate evaluation of their needs. Who could possibly object?

The first problem is that there is a widespread lack of trust in the Government’s motives and intentions on this, like on other changes in the Bill. It is possible to argue that the change means that people will be assessed where most appropriate. But it is also possible to argue that the change will facilitate premature discharge that is in the interests of the service provider, not the people receiving the service. As well as explaining and stressing the advantages of the proposed change, the Minister needs to tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that it will not lead to the disadvantages that many of those involved in the process fear.

The second issue that the Government need to address is that hospital discharge is still seen predominantly as a medical matter, with concern that insufficient attention is given to the social care aspects. A survey from December 2020 of social workers who were involved in hospital discharges made it clear that the vital contribution of social work in the multidisciplinary team was being marginalised by the medicalisation of people’s journeys out of hospital. Most importantly, social workers were found to feel that the voice of the individual, the person receiving the service, was being lost, indicating that arrangements were being made without consent or against people’s views and wishes.

It is also important to understand the context within which this change is proposed. On the one hand, there is the current crisis in social care. Even without the impact of the Covid pandemic, demand is outstripping supply, there are waiting lists for assessments of need and support, and local authorities are operating with significantly reduced budgets following a decade of austerity. On the other hand, there is the widely understood pressure on the hospital sector, with increased demand and mounting waiting lists. Both these factors are the result of the long-term underfunding of our system of health and social care. This will have to be addressed—just let it not be at the cost of the service user.

We must ensure that community health teams and social care teams have the resources they need to provide a needs assessment as soon as an individual is discharged. Too often, the issue of hospital discharge is discussed in terms of the needs of the service and not of the individual person.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments, but I want to focus particularly on Amendment 219. There are around 6.5 million unpaid carers in the UK, a number which increased to 13.6 million, or about one-fifth of the population, during the height of the pandemic. Some 1.4 million people provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care per week. Unpaid carers are often relied on to provide this care, yet receive minimal or no formal support themselves. Instead, many report feeling isolated, undervalued and pressured by the challenges of stress and responsibility. Being a carer is emotional and physical labour.

A lot has been said about the Carers UK survey, which identified that 56% of unpaid carers were not involved in decisions about patients’ discharge, with seven out of 10 respondents not being asked whether they were able to cope with having the patient back home and six out of 10 receiving insufficient support to protect their own or the patient’s health and well-being. This lack of support reflects the absence of a unified and systematic approach to identifying and supporting unpaid carers. It demands urgent remediation, especially as we know that unpaid carers are twice as likely as non-carers to have ill health, and the majority have reported worsening mental and physical health during the pandemic.

I endorse Amendment 219 because it talks about carers who work with people who come into contact not just with hospital services but with NHS services. In my work as a community mental health nurse, in many instances I saw that people were not admitted to hospital for years—which was actually a very good outcome—but their carers’ needs were just as great in supporting them with long-term problems in their own homes. This amendment would create a duty in respect of any person receiving NHS care, whether that is in the community or in hospital. The NHS must identify unpaid carers, particularly young carers, and ensure that their health and well-being are properly considered. This is a vital public health duty.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, having attached my name to Amendment 233 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and Amendment 235, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I shall rise briefly. I am not quite sure why I did not attach my name to Amendment 234 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I certainly meant to, so I apologise for not doing so. I did that because I was approached to show broad cross-party support. Indeed, my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the same amendment definitely demonstrates that.

As someone concerned about poverty and inequality, I could not but do that. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Greengross, have set out the cases very clearly. I am not going to run through again the levels of poverty and inequality and the sheer struggle that so many people currently face and will face in future. As we have been around the houses for quite a long while on whether Clause 140 stand part, I shall just refer to one sentence in the Age UK report because it sums up where we are very clearly. It says:

“It is clear that these changes have the potential to save the Government hundreds of millions of pounds, but at the expense of those on low incomes, with modest assets and living in parts of the country where houses values are lower.”


It is the very opposite of levelling up.

However, in the context of this debate and particularly after the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I want to set out an alternative vision—a vision that is much more radical than anything noble Lords have heard from anyone else tonight. It is the vision that was passed at the Green Party conference in October after a long and very hard-working campaign, particularly by our group of disabled members. It calls for free social care for all adults. Members of your Lordships’ House will have often heard me talking about a universal basic income, and I see the other side of that as universal basic services. I regard social care as a basic service. If you need help to eat, wash and lead a full life under your own control, that should be provided free at the point of need in the same way as the NHS is provided. This is a basic philosophical difference from others who have said that we need it all means-tested and that we need to be able to look at where a person is. I say that if someone needs this help it should be provided and then, whether or not people who have the means to contribute to that, whether they have been unfortunate enough to suffer a disability or a limiting illness, they should all be in that position.

I am aware of the time, so I will make just one final point on postcode lotteries. We often express a great deal of concern about postcode lotteries, but there is another lottery that occurs to people in this situation. Some people who suffer very serious disabilities or very serious illnesses that affect their living conditions are able, through the courts, to receive payments. Perhaps their parents are able to show that they suffered some disability at birth as a result of inadequate care, and they receive a very large payment that is set at a level to provide them with a decent level of care for life. Perhaps they are a young adult who is knocked off their bicycle and it is possible to hold a driver responsible. They get a very large court payout absolutely rightly. I am not challenging that under the current system at all, but they get that payment. Someone with exactly the same condition who cannot go to court and the people caring for them, their parents or relatives, have to struggle and fight at every level and at every moment to get the care that they need. That is just not right.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to contribute to this debate. I fully support the remarks of my noble friend Lady Thornton. I was particularly struck by her dissection of this Government’s totally preposterous claim to have a plan for social care. They do not have a plan. All they have is a regressive tax and a broken promise.

I am tempted by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lipsey to enter into a broader debate on these issues. Clearly, this issue is not going to go away. This is not the end and the issues that were raised will come back again and again until we move towards something fairer and more comprehensive. I cannot resist saying that I am unconvinced that deferred annuities will have any part in any sort of mass market provision of care. As a product, they are fatally flawed, in my view.

My noble friend’s remarks also made me think of the extent to which this debate is taking place while ignoring the key factor in these issues, which is housing or, rather, property management. That is really what we are talking about, but we do not mention it in the context of these debates, which is unfortunate. I am glad my noble friend raised these issues. However, I think the substantive point this evening is the imperative of sending this clause back to the Commons where they can reassess it with greater time than they were allowed initially.

Finally, I just want to highlight the revealing and outrageous statement by the Minister in the Commons, Mr Argar. He said the Government

“have always intended for the cap to apply to what people personally contribute, rather than on the combination of their personal contribution and that of the state.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 110.]

I do not believe that means-tested benefits are any more money being given by the state than my pension that I get from the national insurance scheme. It is outrageous to cast people as, in a sense, recipients of charity. It is their rights as citizens to have this money, and it is their money; it is not the state’s money. It reveals the Poor Law mindset of this Government.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the concerns about the lack of debate in the other place on this issue. The Government are putting in place a package of reforms to be implemented in 2023. The introduction of the £86,000 cap on costs is part of a package through which we hope that no one will lose out when compared to the current system. I will get the source that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me for. I think that is a reasonable question.

The Government believe that having the cap in place allows people to balance their personal responsibility of planning for later years and puts in place a system where we hope that no one faces unpredictable care costs. Without Clause 140, two people with the same level of wealth, contributing the same amount towards the cost of their care, could reach the cap at very different times, driven not by how much they are spending on their care but how much the local authority is. We wanted to address that perceived unfairness.

Instead, the Government made the decision to offer the same cap for everyone. However, the cost for people with more modest means will be reduced in two important ways: first, through means-tested support, including for those living in their home. This kicks in as soon as someone’s assets fall below £100,000, potentially right from the start of their care journey. We chose to offer the same threshold for means-tested support, no matter where somebody draws on care, because we want to support and encourage people to be able to stay in their own homes whenever they can. That was an ambition set out in our White Paper, People at the Heart of Care.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome all the amendments in this group. The importance of parity between mental and physical health is key, and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that that is the intention behind the Government’s amendments. The explanatory component of the amendment is important, but a question remains over what precisely constitutes mental health spending. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify this. For example, will the report on the expected change and expenditure by NHS England and the ICBs, and the comparison with the previous year, include other aspects of mental health investment not covered by the mental health investment standard, including dementia and learning disabilities? Will the Minister consider identifying in the report whether each ICB has increased the proportion of spending on children and young persons’ mental health, with details of any failure to increase spend?

Turning to Amendment 184, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to which I also added my name, Dr Adrian James, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:

“These new standards will help patients get the treatment they need when they need it by setting more rigorous standards and generating vital data, helping to put mental health on a more equal footing with physical health. The standards will only have this impact if matched with similarly ambitious investment and action on the workforce crisis to ensure that no-one has to wait too long for the treatment they need. It’s vital the government provides further clarity on how it will support the implementation of these standards as part of the broader recovery from COVID-19.”


I would add that the range of treatments available in all localities needs to be thought about very carefully by ICBs, just as in surgical teams the right specialist expertise is required for each condition, with reasonable adjustments being made for people who have difficulties in accessing specialist services. I include here, of course, people with learning disabilities. It would be unfortunate if waiting times simply led to an increase in medication clinics, rather than the development of a gold standard treatment in mental health, which would include appropriate skills and psychotherapeutic help alongside appropriate social prescribing.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I want to reiterate a couple of points on this issue that I made at earlier stages of the Bill. I welcome all these amendments, and I am glad about the movement from the Government and that they have recognised the issues raised. Obviously, the key issue here is funding, and a move to better funding for mental health services within the health service is clearly important. It is also important that mental health is referred to in the legislation, and good that the standards have some statutory backing.

I have to express one concern: waiting times and access are important in and of themselves, but they are not a direct reflection of the standard of care. We need to do more work to understand how we can measure the standard of care being delivered by our mental health services. I have mentioned the issue of the differential mortality. I am sure that there are other issues, but mortality is something that I know a little bit about; those other issues could be brought in so that we directly assess the output as well as the input.

These amendments are important and will address the way in which mental health services suffer because of a lack of esteem. However, they are only treating the symptoms of this lack of esteem. We need to understand a lot more about why mental health, in all sorts of subjective ways, has not achieved a parity of esteem within medical culture as a whole. It is a deep-seated problem which needs to be addressed. The money and standards are important, but we need to understand a lot more about this differential level of esteem and how it can be addressed at its heart—not just by addressing the symptoms.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and all that has been said already.

I will put a slight tone of reality on the size of the mountain which has to be climbed to get to the point we want to reach. I do not know how many people last night watched the Channel 4 documentary, “Emergency”, about four trauma centres. It is well worth watching if noble Lords want to see what the NHS is like now under pressure. I happen to know that, on one day last week in one of those major trauma centres, there were seven mental health acute patients in the emergency department but only one mental health nurse was present for all of them. One-to-one care should have been provided. There was nowhere for these patients to go; a further 20 acute patients also needed admission and there were no beds available in the hospital.

This illustrates that the intention behind all this is excellent and laudable—we are finally getting there. However, we have not got to the end of the road; we are just at the beginning. I hope that no one in the public, or in the service, has unrealistic expectations, because it will take a lot of work on everyone’s part to reach the goals we want to reach.