Health and Social Care Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister points out, the autonomy clauses are to form part of the Government’s discussions with other noble Lords about the Secretary of State’s duties. These clauses are of considerable significance. In my judgment, Clause 4, relating to the Secretary of State’s duty, and the new Section 13F, relating to the Commissioning Board, threaten the Secretary of State’s primary duty to secure provision of services, however that is ultimately worded after discussions are concluded.

In principle, promoting autonomy is to be welcomed; so is avoiding micromanagement within the NHS, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege so eloquently pointed out in her speech. One of the best features of this Bill is that it establishes a well-defined decentralised structure in which decisions about arranging and commissioning services are made at a local level in accordance with local needs and conditions. However, as the Government have recognised, it is also essential that final responsibility, both for the quality of the health service and for the very large sums of taxpayers' money spent in providing it, should rest with the Secretary of State, and that he or she should be accountable not only to Parliament for the exercise of that responsibility but answerable in the courts for failure to exercise it in accordance with the law.

I will say a few words now about how the difficulty arises in drafting provisions that strike the right balance between decentralisation and the Secretary of State’s ultimate responsibility. As we all know, under Section 1(2) of the National Health Act 2006, the Secretary of State had a primary duty to,

“provide or secure the provision of services”.

That was underpinned by a direct duty under Section 3 to provide a list of specific services such as hospital accommodation. That duty was in turn supplemented and buttressed by powers under Sections 7 and 8 to delegate and give directions to other NHS bodies. So there was under the 2006 legislation a simple linear structure down from the Secretary of State. Under the Bill, the position is more complex, because under Clause 10 the Section 3 duty to provide the specific services is devolved to the clinical commissioning groups, and the general powers to delegate and give directions are removed. That is why it is challenging to provide for an overarching duty on the Secretary of State to secure the provision of services under Clause 1, and to provide for the exercise of all his other functions to that end. It is that challenge that is principally to be the subject of discussions.

If the Secretary of State is bound by a duty to promote autonomy, as proposed in Clause 4, the force of his duty to secure provision of services is weakened, because his failure to intervene in any given case would be very difficult to challenge on judicial review, except in an extreme case. Generally, the Secretary of State could respond to any challenge regarding a failure to act on his part by claiming in his defence that he was declining to act pursuant to his duty to promote autonomy. It does not help that the Secretary of State would only be bound to promote autonomy,

“so far as is consistent with the interests of the health service”,

in the context of any such challenge. That is because the arbiter of what those interests were would be the Secretary of State himself. A court would not substitute its own view of the interests of the health service for his unless it was satisfied that his view was irrational; and that is too high a bar. It follows, in my view, that there is an inconsistency between the proposed duties to promote autonomy and fulfilment of the Secretary of State's overall responsibility, however it is to be expressed.

The problem with proposed new Section 13F is that it is proposed that the board, with regard to its autonomy provision, be similarly bound to promote the autonomy of the commissioning bodies and others. So the board can argue that it should decline to intervene with the commissioning bodies in accordance with its duty to promote autonomy. That could be relevant if the board were challenged by judicial review on its failure to exercise its intervention powers or, alternatively, relevant if the Secretary of State wished to exercise his powers in respect of the board on the board's failure to intervene where the Secretary of State thought that the board ought to intervene. Thus, while it is desirable— and I entirely agree that it is—for the chain of responsibility to allow plenty of slack as a general rule, when the chain needs to be tightened in the event of failure or threatened failure, the danger is that the chain will be found to be weak in two important links.

I look forward to the discussions to be held with my noble friend the Minister and pay tribute to his and his department’s willingness to hold those discussions on a cross-party basis. I hope that we will see some way as to how this conundrum may be resolved, to retain a strong legal chain of responsibility without encouraging or permitting micromanagement of the bodies in the NHS, to which powers are rightly to be devolved. If we find a solution, that in itself will do a great deal to assist in the confidence that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege rightly points out is lacking among the public and the NHS in the political process.

I add only this. In my view, these two clauses could simply be deleted without doing any violence to the purposes of the Bill. That is because the principles of decentralisation and autonomy and the avoidance of micromanagement are defined and limited by the Secretary of State’s powers woven into the very structure of the Bill and into the way in which the bodies relate to each other under the provisions of the Bill. I suggest that these clauses merely serve to muddy the waters.

[Lord Mawhinney]

I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, pointed to me when he talked about making a theological point about a besetting sin. Because I was going to compliment him and say how pleased I was that he did so, I will happily share that endorsement with the right reverend Prelate.

The noble Lord also made an extremely important point, and around that point I want to speak for a few minutes, with the House’s indulgence. His second point was right; the problem with the health service is bureaucracy—it is not anti-liberation or shackles, but systems and procedures and a pressure coming from all sides that nobody should rock the boat. I listened to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and I shall come back in more detail in a moment on what she said, but I suspect that I cannot be the only one in this House to think that, for every case where outsiders did not like some political intervention, outsiders, including patients, did not like the lack of intervention from inside the health service.

On the whole, my experience of over 30 years at both ends of this Corridor has not been that patients come to me and say that the problem with the health service is the politicians. They more frequently say that the problem with the health service is the management or, as we discussed the other day, the doctors who will not admit when they have got something wrong, or the nurses who simply do not provide even the most basic care for the elderly in today’s health service. So the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, did us a favour when he pointed out that bureaucratic point.

I remain extremely grateful to the Minister for the willingness that he expressed the other day to take away Clauses 1 and 4. Those in the House for that debate will know that it was a widely held view across all the Chamber—and the Minister not only agreed to do it but did it with a tone and spirit that was widely admired. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her contribution in support of that. I would not want anything that I or others say to make my noble friend feel as though the House was reneging on the request made to him to take Clauses 1 and 4 away, which he showed a willingness to do. My contribution to this particular debate is to suggest a few of the things that he might like to think about when he does so which may need to be clarified, resolved or excised, so that when we get back to this on Report he will have a much smoother run—one which I and I suspect other noble Lords hope that he will be able to enjoy.

When the noble Lord, Lord Warner, made his comments, I intervened to say that he is not the only one in the House who thought what he thought. I was referring to a very pertinent phrase which he used. He said that he was not clear whether the purpose of Clause 4 was for the Secretary of State to be engaging or disengaging. I think that is part of the problem of the drafting of this clause. Those of us with some knowledge of the health service are still unclear whether this is meant to help the Secretary of State engage or disengage.

That takes me to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. She and I served happily together in the department. We conspired for the common good on many an occasion, both in public and over a cup of coffee in our offices. She knows it to be true that there are few people in the health service who I hold in higher regard for a lifetime of work. But I am going to add a “but”. On this occasion, while I admired the tenacious adherence to what she read as the spirit of this clause, most of the rest of what she said left me wondering exactly where she was trying to go. Nobody is claiming that democracy is a clean and simple process. It can be messy. Part of my noble friend’s argument was that Ministers were not to be trusted and that it would be much better to hand it over to the professionals. I respect my noble friend for that view but I do not think it carries a lot of weight. I, too, read the NHS Confederation’s paper. In fact, I have it with me. Every time I read what it said on Clause 4, I thought to myself, “There is just the chance, Brian, that you are giving these people more credit than they deserve”. Perhaps this is a politically incorrect thing to say, but I was reminded just a smidgen of Mandy Rice–Davies in the sense of, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”.

The problem with this debate is that you have the masses of the health service with their procedures and bureaucracy intermingled with outstanding professionals who, I know from my experience, feel as frustrated with their colleagues as sometimes Ministers feel with the bureaucrats. On the other hand, you have this messy democratic process that occasionally shifts Ministers. Listening to my noble friend, you would be amazed by the claim that the NHS is the envy of the world. I think it is only the envy of the world in certain aspects and that there are other aspects where the world thinks it can do a better job than the NHS. The health service is right up there competitively but given the history of the past 40 years, in which Ministers have played a leading role, it is hard to envisage the outcome that my noble friend talked about. Therefore, I have to say to her that I had a real problem with what she was trying to convey to the Committee. If you do not have democracy, you do not have any public accountability.