Health and Care Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Bill opens the NHS up to big business, allowing private companies a say in the care that patients receive. The Government’s amendment to the make-up of integrated care boards is weak and it fails to rule out the possibility of people with an interest in private health sitting on them. For that reason I tabled amendment 101, which seeks to ensure that ICBs are made up wholly of representatives from public sector organisations and that private companies, their employees and representatives, and those with financial interests in them, are not represented on them. Surely, that is what the public expect from a body that will be responsible for spending huge amounts of public money?

However, the influence of private companies is not just an issue with ICBs. The Bill allows for private companies to play parts in other ways, for example at sub-system level via place-based partnerships and provider collaboratives—they are not actually stated in the Bill, but that is what it means. Guidance by NHS England states very clearly that the Health and Care Bill will enable ICBs to delegate functions to providers, including, for example, devolving budgets to provider collaboratives. There is nothing to stop such partnerships from being open to big business, so the Government’s rhetoric around protecting the independence of ICBs is, frankly, quite meaningless. For all their talk 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,”

they have not taken the action needed to stop private companies from influencing decision making. That is why I have put forward amendment 58, which is designed to ensure that any organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf is a statutory NHS body.

Although the Government have made some noise about private membership of integrated care boards, they have said with respect to integrated care partnerships that they

“want local areas to be able to appoint members as they think appropriate.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 14 September 2021; c. 258-259.]

That is a matter of great concern. ICPs are required to

“prepare a strategy…setting out how the assessed needs in relation to its area are to be met”.

Integrated care boards must have regard to a strategy drawn up by the ICP, which may well be influenced by private companies that do not have the same objectives as the NHS. I have therefore tabled amendment 100, which would do for ICPs what my amendment 101 would do for ICBs: seek to ensure that they are made up wholly of representatives from public sector organisations, and that private companies are not represented on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill has the sense of being an NHS corporate takeover Bill? We have already seen £5 billion in contracts being awarded to private companies through the VIP lane. The Bill opens the door to private corporations sitting on 42 local health boards. That is wrong.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for putting the case so clearly. She hits the nail absolutely on the head: as a result of the Bill, contracts could be handed out to the private sector without the stringent arrangements that one would expect in the awarding of public money. That is a recipe for the kind of cronyism that has become all too familiar, as she says.

I turn to the cap on care costs. I was proud to stand on a manifesto in 2019 that pledged to

“build a comprehensive National Care Service for England”,

to include

“free personal care, beginning with investments to ensure that older people have their personal care needs met, with the ambition to extend this provision to all working-age adults.”

The Conservative manifesto in 2019 did not go that far, but it at least made the guarantee that

“nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it.”

We now know that that was a sham—another broken promise by this Government.

Last week, Ministers sneaked out changes to social care plans that would mean that poorer pensioners will not after all be able to count means-tested payments by the state for their care towards a total cap of £86,000 for any individual. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), described it as “deeply disappointing” that the new plans were “not as progressive” as those put forward by Andrew Dilnot, the economist who drew up the original plans for a cap on individual contributions. Mr Dilnot has said that the Government’s plan is

“a big change that…finds savings exclusively from the less well-off group.”

A former Conservative Cabinet Minister has urged the Government

“to adopt a different approach”,

while another Conservative MP, a former Under-Secretary of State for Health, has said that

“it will be poorer pensioners who have relatively modest assets that will be most affected by these changes.”

I hope that Members on the Government Benches are listening to those points from Government as well as Opposition Members and will do the right thing. Elderly people deserve better. All Members, including Government Members, have a responsibility to vote these measures down.

When the Prime Minister was discharged from hospital in April 2020, having spent seven nights there, of which three were in intensive care, he said that

“the NHS has saved my life, no question.”

Now he and his Government should save the NHS by withdrawing the Bill. The national health service is this country’s greatest social achievement. It is devastating that this Conservative Government are intent on taking it off us.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I support new clause 49 because I support the action that is needed to make reforms to social care that are long overdue. I have listened carefully to the debate, and it is vital that we understand that the new clause would deliver one part, but not the whole, of the package that was set out by the Government in September. There is no doubt whatever that that package, as a whole, improves the provision of social care, makes the way it is paid for fairer, and removes some injustices that have existed in the system for far too long.

First, the proposal that has been put forward—and I think it is the right proposal—is for a cap on the costs that individuals face in paying for their care. The contributions from the state, even if they are from another part of the state such as local government, are not individuals’ care costs, and it is therefore wrong that they should be contributions towards the cap. The cap has the stated goal of being a cap on the cost of care to an individual, not a cap on the cost that accrues to both the individual and a local authority.

Let us look at what would happen if the new clause were not passed. The provision of care by local authorities is different in different areas, largely according to how well off those local authorities are. A richer council that pays more costs than the statutory minimum as set out in the Care Act 2014 would help local residents to meet the cap sooner than a poorer council that pays only the statutory minimum of care costs, and therefore people who live in poorer areas would take longer to reach the cap, so we would end up, in effect, with a postcode lottery cap meaning that people from poorer areas would tend to have to contribute more. That is wrong, and I am very glad that it is put right by the proposals that are before us today.

Secondly, for those with lower asset values, the rise in the floor in the means test is more important. It is the rise in that floor that makes this system fair. When the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), read out a long list of places with low asset values on average—places where house prices tend to be lower—he listed exactly the areas that will benefit most from the rise in the floor. [Interruption.] We can see what Labour Members are doing. [Interruption.] They are taking a narrow area, and they are taking a specific detail, and they are ignoring all the parts of the package that benefit the people who will benefit from this package as a whole. [Interruption.]

Health and Care Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I will speak mainly to new clause 1, but I cannot start without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his work to ban virginity testing. It is an abhorrent practice and high time it was made illegal.

I speak to new clause 1 in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), among others. The existing situation, absurdly, is that someone may walk into a clinic and easily and legally get a treatment that could blind them, and there is absolutely no regulation whatever. For some time, we have talked about fixing the issue, and my private Member’s Bill—now the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021—which was passed with the support of many Members of the House, has been able to bring some regulation to this space. Under-18s are now able to get only non-cosmetic interventions, and that by legal practitioners alone.

For those over the age of 18, however, there is no protection. Save Face, a campaigning organisation, last year received 2,000 complaints from people. Those are complaints not about the clinics people were in being dirty, but practitioners being uninsured or unable to fix the problems created when patients were given injections or fillers. People had necrotic or rotting tissue, which individuals would have to pay for themselves to get fixed. It is unacceptable that we are in a situation where that can take place with no regulation by Government.

I am afraid that is a pattern over time, across many Governments, of issues that primarily affect women not having the attention that they deserve. I am hopeful that we make some progress today. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North on tabling her amendment.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Health and Care Bill allows for

“a profession currently regulated to be removed from statutory regulation when the profession no longer requires regulation for the purpose of the protection of the public.”

Labour voted against the relevant clause in Committee, but we were defeated by the Government. I therefore tabled amendment 57, which would remove clause 127 from the Bill and ensure that a profession currently regulated cannot be removed from statutory regulation, and that statutory regulatory bodies cannot be abolished. I am grateful that the amendment received cross-party support.

The removal of a profession from regulation is deeply concerning because, once a profession is deregulated, we can expect the level of expertise in that field to decline over time, and along with that the status and pay of those carrying out those important roles. It also brings with it serious long-term implications for the health and safety of patients. In the White Paper that preceded the Bill, the Government stated:

“This is not about deregulation—we expect the vast majority of professionals such as doctors, nurses, dentists and paramedics will always be subject to statutory regulation. But this recognises that over time and with changing technology the risk profile of a given profession may change and while regulation may be necessary now to protect the public, this may not be the case in the future.”

It is notable that the Government only “expect” that the vast majority of professionals will be subject to statutory regulation, but they give no guarantee. The fact is, if the Bill passes, Ministers will be able change their mind at any point and make changes through secondary legislation.

The Government appear to be arguing that technological advances may change roles to such a degree that the high level of professional expertise that currently serves the NHS will no longer be needed. I will make two points about that. First, if the work of an NHS profession has changed to such a degree that regulation is no longer needed, I would argue that it is a different profession and needs a new job title. Secondly, when deploying new technology, there is always a need for professional staff with a high level of expertise and understanding of not only the functionality of that new technology, but its shortcomings. Technology has the power to improve productivity, but it should not be used as an excuse to deregulate professions.

It is important to consider where the impetus for that proposal may be coming from. The recent lobbying scandal certainly gives us a clue when we consider the number of MPs on the Government Benches with private interests in medical technology—I do not want to elaborate on that today, but to make the point. Certainly, big business is keen on deregulation, because it allows them to pay lower salaries to staff.

During a seminar on wellbeing, development, retention, and delivering the NHS people plan and a workforce fit for the future, a representative of Virgin Care said:

“We should have flexible working for all. We should consider what that means. We should embrace what that means. Both of those things really push what has been quite a traditional work model across the NHS. We need to be more modern. We need to have a think about how we rip up the old rule book. But change in an area that is very risk averse because the nature of the work we do is really tricky, so we need our leaders and our workforce to embrace trying things”.

That was an alarming statement for her to make. I think we would all agree that healthcare professionals’ understanding of risk and the importance of mitigating risk is incredibly important. It is always a matter of concern when business says that it wants to “rip up” the rule book on employment rights and pay.

Yesterday, in the Minister’s summing up, he said that

“the Bill does not privatise the NHS.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 151.]

I have to say, however, that I disagree. ICBs—integrated care boards—will be able to delegate functions, including commissioning functions, down to provider collaboratives, and provider collaboratives can be made up of private companies. I do not understand what it is that the Minister does not understand about that.

Add to that the fact that the abolition of the national tariff will open up the opportunity for big business to undercut the NHS, this is a potent situation indeed, and one that will be exploited by big business if the Bill goes through. The late Kailash Chand, former honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association said:

“The core thrust of the new reforms is to deprofessionalise and down skill the practice of medicine in this country, so as to make staff more interchangeable, easier to fire, and services more biddable, and, above all, cheaper”.

The removal of professions from regulation is a part of that scenario he described.

I turn now to workforce planning. There is a workforce crisis in the NHS. In fact, that is probably an understatement. Earlier this year, I met members of the Royal College of Nursing in the north-west, who told me of the sheer exhaustion that they are experiencing because of staff shortages. I was struck by how, even at this point when they were describing how they are on their knees with exhaustion, their primary concern was patient safety. We owe it to them to address the matter. The British Medical Association highlighted:

“Burnout has led to significant numbers of medical professionals considering leaving the profession or reducing their working commitments”.

According to the latest figures, there are well over 90,000 full-time equivalent vacancies in England’s NHS providers. The best the Government can come up with is in this Bill is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report, at least once every five years, describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England. That is woefully inadequate. The Royal College of Physicians says that this duty on the Secretary of State

“falls short of what is needed given the scale of the challenge facing the health and care system”.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is among those who have called for this duty to be strengthened in the Bill. I ask the Government to listen to the expertise of those bodies.

The Government’s plans to remove NHS professions from regulations is wholly unacceptable and it is particularly alarming at a time when there are such acute shortages of staff, right across NHS professions. We all value the NHS highly and respect the high level of professionalism in the service. Instead of looking to deregulate professions, the Government should be investing in the training of the next generation of professionals.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my interests, which are set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that my wife is an NHS GP and has been for the past 30 years.

I rise to support amendment 10, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), as it seems to be absolutely right. I cannot understand why the Minister, an extremely good Minister, is not obliging the Government to accept it in full. It is clear from what is being said across the House that my right hon. Friend has achieved an unexpected unity. Even brilliant junior hospital doctors who in the past have marched against some of his policies are four-square behind what he is saying today and the work his Committee is carrying out so brilliantly.

I wish to make three points about why the House and indeed the Government would be wise to support my right hon. Friend’s amendment today. The first is that, for reasons he has set out eloquently, as has the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who speaks on these matters for the Scottish National party, burnout in the NHS is an incredibly serious issue. The need for us to project how many people we are going to need in all the different disciplines in the health service has never been greater, and the workforce requirements have never been more uncertain. As has been so eloquently set out, the cost of that uncertainty is paid in locums, with all the difficulties and downsides that have been mentioned.

I wish to quote a note I have had from Dr Rahul Dubb, the lead doctor in Royal Sutton Coldfield. He successfully led the roll-out of the vaccinations in our town hall and he is extremely experienced. He says, “A greater understanding is needed as to why doctors are leaving the profession. It is clearly multi-factorial across the generations. One of the reasons includes pension rules. These penalise staff wanting to work more hours due to capped taxation rules, deterring senior staff from staying, and may lead to a significant exodus from the profession. In these circumstances, it is essential that far more effort is put into projecting future workforce numbers and how many are required to meet future need.” In my judgment, Dr Rahul Dubb is absolutely right in what he is saying.

The second reason is that the Government should listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said. During his time as Health Secretary—no one in the House has been so long at the crease and has as much experience as him—he significantly increased the number of doctors who will be trained. We were particularly pleased in Birmingham to see the additional work that Aston University has been able to do to bring those who might have felt themselves excluded from the medical profession into contention, so that they could go to university and achieve their ambition of qualifying as medics. Having that sort of analysis—the analysis that is behind his amendment—is right in securing value for money. I have been dismayed that when we had the measures to increase national insurance earlier this year—this was greatly to the credit of the Government for grasping a nettle that so many have not grasped before—those on the Treasury Bench were extraordinarily disinterested in checking that value for money for this additional taxpayer spend was achieved. When I suggested that we should account to our constituents through the Treasury, making certain that we understood where this £1.2 billion was going, the answer from those on the Treasury Bench was extremely lacklustre. Ensuring value for money and that we get these judgments right will save money and, for the reasons that have been set out, will make medicine and the treatment of our constituents that much safer. As my right hon. Friend set out, the whole sector is united behind this amendment, and the Government should hear that loud and clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must ask for brief contributions from now on. I call Margaret Greenwood.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The proposed NHS payment scheme in the Bill will, in effect, give private healthcare companies the opportunity to undercut NHS providers, and I believe we will then see healthcare that should be provided by the NHS increasingly being delivered by the private sector, with money going into the pockets of shareholders rather than being spent on patient care. If that happens, NHS staff may well find themselves forced out of jobs that currently provide Agenda for Change rates of pay, NHS pensions and other terms and conditions, and find that only private sector jobs with potentially lesser pay and conditions are available for them to apply for if they wish to continue working in the health service.

My amendments 54, 55 and 56, which are supported by the Royal College of Nursing, are intended to ensure that the pay rates of Agenda for Change, pensions, and other terms and conditions of all eligible NHS staff are not undermined as a result of the adoption of the NHS payment scheme, and that all relevant trade unions and other organisations representing staff who work in the health and care sectors are consulted by NHS England on the likely impact of the proposed scheme.

On hospital discharge, I have tabled amendment 60, which would remove clause 80 from the Bill. The hospital discharge proposals pose risks to patients and staff. In its written evidence given to the Bill Committee, the RCS said:

“In the context of current high vacancy rates across district and community nursing, and poor understanding of workforce shortages across the health service, public health and social care, along with chronic underfunding due to failure of the current service payment model to recognise community nursing, this legislation should not seek to demand a service delivery approach which transfers such disproportionate risk to nursing staff and patients.”

As of May this year, 4 million patients had been discharged since 2020 under discharge to assess and the temporary measures of the Coronavirus Act 2020. I asked the Government how many of those patients had been readmitted within 30 days but they told me that they did not hold the data. In effect, they did not know; they do not have that information. Back in June of this year, the Government told me that the national health service had commissioned an independent evaluation of the implementation of hospital discharge policy, and that the evaluation was under way. It was due to report in autumn 2021—that is, now. Yet the NHS told me last week that the report containing the evaluation had not yet been finalised. It is therefore a matter of extreme concern that the Government are pushing ahead with a policy that is risky to both patients and staff without properly understanding its clinical outcomes, and that they know they are doing so. I ask the Minister to withdraw clause 80 from the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

For years, colleagues in health and social care have worked hard and as one to deliver for the benefit of their patients, but their ambition has not always been matched by the structures they have had to work with. This Bill provides the framework in legislation to help them to achieve just that.

We are not only recovering from the pandemic but learning from it, and the principles that underpin the Bill—embedding integration, cutting bureaucracy, boosting accountability—have never been more important. I am hugely encouraged by the support that the Bill has received from so many quarters, from the NHS Confederation to the King’s Fund, the Health Committee and even those on the Opposition Front Bench.

[Margaret Greenwood]

rose—

[Sajid Javid]

Talking of the Opposition, I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Will the Secretary of State comment on the discharge-to-assess proposals? I am concerned, because his Department told me that a report about how the process goes was meant to be published in autumn. His Department told me back in May that 4 million people have been discharged under discharge to assess—that is, having their care needs assessed after they have left hospital rather than before—but the same Department did not know what the clinical outcomes were and it did not know how many people had been readmitted to hospital within 30 days. I would have thought that it was essential that MPs were provided with that information and with a full outline of the clinical outcomes of that policy. Will he comment on that and tell us what he can do about it, so that we really understand what is happening?

[Sajid Javid]

I listened carefully to the hon. Lady and I will look into the specifics of what she said, but it is clear—I hope she agrees—that if people are clinically ready to be discharged, it is better that they are discharged rather than staying in hospital a moment longer.

I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped us to shape this important legislation, including hon. Members across the House and colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, whose engagement will help us ensure that the Bill delivers for the four nations of the United Kingdom. I also thank members of the Public Bill Committee for their constructive scrutiny. The Bill is a lot better for it.

Let me draw the House’s attention to some of the changes that we have considered since Second Reading.

Health and Care Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine]

I have sat through all this debate and taken issue with the Government in some places and supported them in others. I am going to take issue with them on amendment 51. It is always hard to take issue with this Minister, but I seem to have done it twice already today. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and I did not compare notes but seem to have exactly the same comments, which suggests that this is an important amendment.

I want to make a few points about young carers in Hampshire and nationally who have been in touch with me about amendment 51. The amendment that we are being asked to strike out says at paragraph (5)(b) that

“a ‘carer’ means any person, including any child under the age of 18”.

It does not say that in the Minister’s amendment in lieu, but I have heard what he has said today and I hope that it will be heard clearly, because what is said at the Dispatch Box matters a great deal. The Minister in the Lords said on Report that there will be statutory guidance that hospitals “must have regard to” and that that is a sufficient measure for carers. Again, I hear that, but what is said at the Dispatch Box in the Lords matters as well. As young carers have said to me, ahead of today, this is not the same as primary legislative rights and it can be withdrawn or changed at the stroke of a Minister’s pen, intentionally or unintentionally. It does not mean the same for carers and young carers in the daily operation of the system. I would suggest that very few carers, especially young carers, have the energy, the means or the knowledge to go to judicial review if their rights are not followed.

When the Minister winds up, I beg him once again to make it absolutely crystal clear that his amendment in lieu does the same as the Lords amendment that he is asking us to strike out, because young carers, in particular, want and need that reassurance. Other than that, it is a good amendment that is worthy of our support, but I just want to hear a little bit more from my excellent Minister—and now that I have flattered him he cannot deny me.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 51, 11 and 105. With this Bill, the Government are legislating so that a controversial approach known as “discharge to assess” can be used when discharging patients from hospital. This would see patients discharged from hospital before their social care needs have been assessed, with vulnerable patients potentially sent home without the support that they need in place, leaving families to pick up the pieces and those without family at risk of neglect. Lords amendment 51 is important in relation to that.

The amendment would retain the principle and duty on a hospital, whether an NHS hospital or an independent hospital, to ensure that a patient must be safe to discharge from hospital, and it mirrors carers’ rights established by the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. This important amendment would recognise the vital role played by carers across the country in looking after their loved ones. However, it does not stop the Government from legislating for discharge to assess, a policy that has been piloted and was included in the Coronavirus Act 2020 as a temporary measure. I am concerned that the Government are not only going ahead with an approach fraught with risk for vulnerable patients, but are doing so in the knowledge that an independent evaluation commissioned by NHS England of the implementation of the hospital discharge policy has still not been published, despite the Government promising that the evaluation was due to report in autumn last year.

I am concerned, too, that the Government do not even understand the clinical outcomes of discharge to assess. When I submitted a question last year asking the Government how many patients discharged in this way were readmitted within 30 days, the Government said that they did not hold the data. I believe that to be a dereliction of duty.

Lord amendment 51 would put in place important rights for patients and carers at what can be a very difficult time. I note that the Government disagree with the amendment and have tabled an amendment in lieu, but I believe that it waters down carers’ and patients’ rights. It merely proposes that

“the relevant trust must, as soon as is feasible after it begins making any plans relating to the discharge, take any steps that it considers appropriate to involve…the patient, and…any carer of the patient.”

That gives inappropriate levels of discretion to trusts over patients’ and carers’ involvement, instead of guaranteeing their rights.

Lords amendment 11 is a step in the right direction, although it does not go far enough. It would ensure that conflict of interest rules that apply to integrated care boards would apply to commissioning sub-committees of integrated care boards. The Government have said that they disagree with the amendment and have proposed an amendment in lieu that would prohibit a chair of an ICB from approving or appointing someone as a member of any committee or sub-committee that exercises commissioning functions

“if the chair considers 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.”

I am concerned that the phrasing is clearly open to interpretation, and it by no means rules out people with interests in private healthcare from sitting on these sub-committees.

It is wrong, too, that the power should rest with one person, namely the chair of the ICB. If we are serious about providing governance that rules out the possibility of the private sector influencing the expenditure of public money, an organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf should be a statutory NHS body. It is a great pity that the Government have not legislated for that.

We cannot forget that NHS guidance last year stated that the Health and Care Bill, if enacted, would enable ICBs to devolve budgets to provider collaboratives, which are one of a complex array of sub-committees that could take on commissioning functions. Representatives of private companies, which are accountable to shareholders, should not be able to influence these commissioning sub- committees in any way. Lords amendment 11 at least improves the original Bill, and I therefore welcome it.

I also welcome Lords amendment 105, which would mean that the membership of an ICB must include at least one member with expertise and knowledge of mental health in the integrated care board’s area. The fact that the Government did not provide for that originally shows that they are still not treating mental health with the level of seriousness it deserves. It is disappointing that the Government have indicated that they disagree with the amendment.

The amendment in lieu that the Government have proposed makes provision for the chair of an ICB to act

“with a view to ensuring that at least one of the ordinary members has knowledge and experience in connection with services relating to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”

The Government have watered down the amendment, and it is regrettable that they have removed expertise in mental health as a characteristic that this member of an ICB must have. It is feasible that that person could be a manager who once dealt with mental health rather than a mental health clinician or health professional. I noticed that in the Minister’s opening remarks, he commented that ICBs would be able to commission out of area. I would be grateful if he gave some clarity about how A&E services will be guaranteed to people should they happen to fall ill out of area.

This is a devastating piece of legislation and it is all the more shocking that the Government have pressed ahead with it at a time when NHS staff are exhausted and patients and people across the country are still struggling with the pandemic. It will embed a postcode lottery and open up the NHS to widespread privatisation. In so doing, it does a disservice to patients in England and to NHS staff.

The Bill provides for the scope of “Agenda for Change”, the pay and terms and conditions of about a million people who work in the health service, to be undermined; it allows for NHS professions to be taken out of regulation; and, as I have mentioned in relation to Lords amendment 51, it will allow for vulnerable patients to be discharged from hospital before their social care needs assessments have been carried out. The NHS is our most treasured institution and I pay tribute to all those campaigners across the country who have fought hard to oppose the Bill.

[Sir Charles Walker]

I congratulate the Government on their amendments on mental health. As a former Minister with responsibility for mental health, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I have long taken an interest in the subject, so I am delighted that parity of esteem is included in the legislation. It is a very important amendment.

Parity of esteem must mean something, however, and should not be a jumble of words. It was the case that too many voices on both sides of the House fell silent during the covid pandemic. That may have been due to the fog of war, but the scarring of that silence runs deep in the communities that we represent—there are some very ill and damaged people out there. It is fine for us to talk about parity of esteem, but we have to live it and deliver it, and I am afraid that we fell short for 18 months.

I welcome the amendment and the recommitment of hon. Members, but we were all found wanting when it counted. I have the witness statements of more than 2,000 people who suffered with mental health problems during the pandemic and who wrote to me detailing what that was like. One day, I will make those statements available to the Government and to the inquiry, but today, I just thank the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who joined me in initiating the amendments. I hope that the next time that the country and this place are challenged, we rise to it, because mental health is as important as physical health.

Health and Care Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am grateful to have a few minutes to say a few words on the cap on care costs and on workforce planning.

With regard to the care cap, it is important to congratulate the Government on tackling a problem—or attempting to defuse a ticking time bomb—that all their predecessors shied away from. However, there is concern that the proposals are a rushed tag-on to a Bill that was designed for a different purpose: the integration of health and social care and the setting up of integrated care systems. I accept that there is a clear correlation, but the legislation that addresses the problem of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for their care should have been considered and scrutinised separately and carefully, with the objective of putting in place a system that has political consensus and will stand the test of time. That is what the Dilnot proposals and the Care Act 2014 achieved, and they should be the foundation stone on which we build this new system.

My concerns are twofold. First, clause 140 is extremely unfair to those with limited assets and modest incomes. The changes may save the Government hundreds of millions of pounds, but they do so at the expense of those on low incomes and those who live in parts of the country where house values are lower, such as Lowestoft in my constituency. Secondly, there is a worry that working-age adults with disabilities will be unfairly penalised, hence the introduction by the other place of a provision to address it. I acknowledge the Government’s worries about the cost implication of that additional provision, but that iniquity needs to be addressed.

On workforce planning, there is a staffing crisis both in the NHS, where there are 110,000 full-time equivalent vacancies, and in social care, where there are another 100,000 vacancies, high staff turnover and very limited respite for unpaid and family carers. Those deficiencies cascade through the health and care system, creating bed-blocking in hospitals and impeding the efforts made to reduce waiting lists. There is an urgent need for strategic planning to address this crisis. There is concern that framework 15 is not working because of inadequacies in the collection of data, lack of assessment of workforce numbers, and unresponsiveness to societal shifts.

Since we last considered the issue last month, the other place has sought to address the Government’s concerns and, as we have heard, has made reasonable concessions. There is a crisis that must be addressed, and I hope that at this very late stage the Government will accept this reasonable amendment, so that we can get on with this much-needed work.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Amendment 29B goes much further than the Bill’s current provisions on workforce reporting, which are extremely weak. It would require the Government, at least once every three years, to lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of health, social care, and public health services in England. What could be more reasonable? One has to wonder why the Government do not support amendment 29B. Surely any Government who were committed to running the NHS as a public service would see these provisions as crucial.

The Royal College of Physicians has pointed out that clause 35

“will not set out how many health and social care staff are needed to meet demand”

and has stated that, without long-term projections, which amendment 29B would provide, there is no way to assess how changes in workforce trends, such as retirements or working part time, will impact the delivery of healthcare. The Royal College of General Practitioners has spoken of unsustainable pressures driving GPs out of the workforce and threatening to destabilise general practice.

Just a few weeks ago, the Royal College of Nursing said that nursing staff are exhausted and that staff shortages are undermining their efforts to give safe and effective care—a sentiment reflected by a nurse I met on bank holiday Monday. That is hugely concerning. As the RCN has said, there is a clear evidence base showing that staffing levels have a direct impact on the safety and quality of patient care. When I met members of the RCN last year, they made clear to me the increased stress levels that nurses are experiencing as a result of staff shortages and the impact that is having on the care they so desperately want to deliver.

According to the Health Foundation:

“In the next 25 years, the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million”

in England, so demand for social care is increasing and we need to know that there will be enough doctors, nurses and social care workers to meet people’s needs. The “Strength in Numbers” campaign, a coalition of more than 100 health and care organisations, says that we must put

“measures to adopt a sustainable long-term approach to workforce planning on a statutory footing.”

Without credible, up-to-date numbers, the system cannot plan.

I support Lords amendment 29B. I urge the Government to think about those NHS staff who are working so hard and are so stretched by the amount of stress they are under because they do not have enough colleagues around them, and to listen to the clinicians who are calling on the Government in this regard.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor. I welcome the Government’s concessions on modern slavery and procurement and on the reconfiguration of NHS services. However, I remain concerned about two issues: the care cap and independence in the staffing assessment process.

To touch briefly on the issue of the care cap, a number of years ago I took through this House the Care Act 2014, as a Minister in the coalition Government. We based that Act and the care cap on the Dilnot proposals. I continue to be concerned that the current proposals deviate from the Dilnot proposals, in that those with lower or more moderate net assets will be asked to pay disproportionately more than those with greater assets. That is something I find very difficult to accept. It deviates from the principles of the 2014 Act and the Dilnot proposals, and I hope that even at this late hour the Government will reconsider their position on it.

I rise in particular to speak in support of Lords amendment 29B and the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). It is undoubtedly the case that we cannot have safe staffing in the NHS if we do not have the right number of staff. We cannot meet the increasingly complex care needs of patients with not just one, two or three but sometimes four comorbid conditions if we do not have staff with the right skills and in the right numbers to meet those care needs.

We talk often of building new hospitals and of our programme of capital investment in hospitals, but unless we have the right numbers to staff those hospitals, we will not be able to deliver safe care. In every constituency represented in this Chamber, we recognise that there are staff shortages in the local NHS. We recognise particular challenges in the medical workforce among fully qualified GPs—over the past seven years the number of full-time equivalent GPs has fallen. We recognise challenges in the midwifery workforce, which were brought tragically to our attention by the Ockenden report, and we recognise challenges in areas such as intensive care and paediatrics and throughout the health service.

The problem with health workforce planning is that Governments see the NHS in electoral cycles, but workforce is much more complicated than that. From starting medical school to becoming a consultant it takes perhaps 15 years, and to become a fully qualified GP takes about 10 or 11 years. It is important that we have a genuine independence to the process of workforce planning. I have great faith in Health Education England and I am sure it will produce a good report and assessment, but unfortunately it will be doing so with one hand tied behind its back, because it must do so within the confines of the financial envelope in which it is working, and it lacks the genuine independence to say what the NHS really needs.

If we care about patients and about the future of the NHS and its needs, true independence in a report on workforce is required. That is in the best interests of patients, of the health and care workforce and of the future of our health service. I hope the Minister will reconsider.