Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

Debate between Nick de Bois and Caroline Lucas

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I do not agree that the two points that she makes are causally linked. Of course I do not want to see the abolition of nurses, but that does not mean that we should have to pay for our prescription charges. Either we want an NHS free at the point of delivery and with free eye tests and so forth or we do not. [Interruption.] Someone is speaking from a sedentary position, no doubt asking how we will pay for it. I will be very clear that there is massive potential in cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance, higher tax for the rich, higher corporate tax and so forth. We are essentially talking about political priorities. The priority that I represent—a great many more people are coming to this view—is that we should be willing to pay for the public services that we want.

Hon. Members may oppose amendment 48 on the basis that charging for prescription or for dental and eye care is an important way of raising revenue. In England, eligible patients pay a prescription charge of £7.20 an item. In Scotland the charge is £3 and Wales and Northern Ireland have abolished prescription charging altogether. England raised just £470 million through the charges in 2009-10, which was just 0.5% of the NHS resource budget.

Crucially, we should remember that income from charging in the NHS is not pure profit. There is a real cost to administering the plethora of exemptions and reduced charging rates for which different groups are eligible. For example, there are 11 different groups that are eligible for free dental care, 15 that are eligible for free sight tests and 12 that are eligible for free prescriptions. I hope that hon. Members will see the benefit of doing away with that convoluted and complex system, which provides little benefit in terms of income, and which goes directly against the NHS principles by significantly reducing people’s access to all forms of health care simply because of their inability to pay.

Much has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the founding principles of the NHS, and it will continue to be said. However, I put it to hon. Members that amendment 48, more than any other, seeks to point out that much important NHS care and treatment is charged for, and that we need to go back to NHS services as they were envisaged by its architect, who has been referred to many times this afternoon. Hon. Members might recall that he resigned as Health Secretary as early as 1951, in protest at his Chancellor’s efforts to impose charges for prescriptions, dental treatment and eye care.

Amendment 1181 raises serious concerns about the way in which CCGs will be able to charge for services. Although the power to charge, under proposed new section 14Z3 to the National Health Service Act 2006, is intended to be of benefit to the health service, it is very disturbing. Its scope is unclear—I wrote to the Minister last week to ask for clarification—but the fact is that important limitations on how the Secretary of State can exercise that power would apparently not apply to CCGs. The measure could run a coach and horses through the principle of a free health service, and Parliament needs to be clear on its impact in practice.

It is extremely worrying that CCGs will be able to decide that certain specialist services—for example, for pregnant women or women who are breast feeding young children, or aftercare—are not appropriate as part of the health service. That would mean that the statutory guarantee that the NHS will be free will not apply, because CCGs can decide that certain services and facilities should not be provided as part of the NHS. If that happened, CCGs could use the charging power to decide to charge for supplying, for example, goods to pregnant women, or for instructing people how to use their rehabilitation equipment.

Amendment 1181 would ensure that that could not happen. Ministers might say, “CCGs are commissioners and not providers”. If so, why is a measure that allows CCGs to charge necessary in the first place? The amendment would make it absolutely clear that there is no way in which a CCG could charge for anything that is related to the basic core health service, such as hospitals, doctors, nurses or ambulances, whether they are acting under section 3 or proposed new section 3A of the 2006 Act. The amendment would also impose on CCGs the same limitation that is already imposed on the Secretary of State. Why was that omitted from the Bill?

It is right that raising funds under that power should not interfere with a CCG’s functions. However, the Bill says that raising funds should not interfere significantly, but what on earth does “significantly” mean in that context? How is it to be determined or measured? If companies such as UnitedHealth got hold of that power and reckoned they could make money out of it, they will be on to it in a flash. The very least that they should be required to do is demonstrate that dealing in land and supplying goods and the like will not take them away from fulfilling their commissioning role. I would prefer it if those giant profit-driven companies were nowhere near the health service, but while they are, we need far greater safeguards than currently exist.

Unfortunately, the previous Government gave overseas companies the legal route into the NHS, and this Government are seeking to smooth that route yet further. Hon. Members may recall that at Prime Minister’s questions on 18 May, the Prime Minister claimed that he had not heard of Mark Britnell, one of his health advisers, who was also a key adviser under Tony Blair, until he googled him the previous Sunday. The Prime Minister’s interest was stoked by a report of a speech that Britnell, global head of health care at KPMG, gave to a group of private health companies in New York last October. Dr Philip Hammond pointed out in Private Eye that according to a brochure summarising the conference, Britnell said:

“GPs will have to aggregate purchasing power and there will be a big opportunity for those companies that can facilitate this process…In future, the NHS will be a state insurance provider, not a state deliverer…The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years.”

That is a shocking thing to say, and no wonder the Prime Minister was keen to distance himself from it, at least in public.

My last point is about the final proposal in amendment 1181, which would mean that:

“Income raised by a clinical commissioning group as a result of the exercise of powers under this section shall be specified in its annual accounts, referred to in its annual report under section 14Z13, and paid annually to the Secretary of State.”

Without the amendment, it is completely unclear what CCGs will do with the money that they raise and how, if at all, it will affect their budget allocations. I think it would be madness for Parliament to give CCGs the right to charge for supplying goods, dealing in land and providing instruction for the purposes of raising more funds for the NHS, and then not to require them to account for it in any way, and not to ensure that the funds find their way back to the public rather than the private purse. This part of my amendment seeks to ensure that that is done.

Amendment 1234 refers to the fact that once they managed to get into the CCGs, multinational health companies such as UnitedHealth would be allowed to do the actual commissioning, thus creating a very unhealthy form of what is effectively in-house outsourcing. I understand that they will be able to charge for the supply of goods if the Government do not accept the amendment. Parliament cannot trust companies whose primary duty is to their shareholders to be in charge of so much taxpayers’ money, nor should such companies be given the right that the Secretary of State currently holds to charge for the supply of goods or for land deals. We should make it clear that CCGs cannot agree among themselves that their functions will be carried out by one of their private company members. Commissioning is a public function that should be exercised in the public interest, and private companies such as UnitedHealth should not be entitled to charge for any it.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wish to speak to amendments 1172 and 1173, in my name, which require the Secretary of State to collect haematopoietic stem cells. The issue is, of course, that of the collection of umbilical cord blood and cord bank policy, which was first raised in the last Parliament.

I pay particular tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on stem cell transplantation for its work under the leadership of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and to the enormous contribution and determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). My previous lack of knowledge of the subject was probably no different from that of many other people, but after giving my hon. Friend and neighbour a lift home on several occasions I became a speedy convert. Quite simply, the collection of cord blood can be life-saving. I pay tribute to the work of the Anthony Nolan trust in that regard.

In 1974 the Secretary of State was not obliged to facilitate stem cell transplantation from unrelated donors. Because the Governments of the day took that position, advances made took longer to achieve, which undoubtedly cost lives. The situation is different now: both the Government and the Opposition support expansion of the practice, and in particular of the more modern use of umbilical cord blood for such purposes. However, it would be fitting for the Minister now to make it clear in the Bill that this issue is important, to lock in the bipartisan support while it is strong, and to send a message to future Governments and civil servants that for as long as the Bill remains on the statute book, the issue is not to be lightly disregarded or de-prioritised at a future date.

The amendments involve no financial or political cost, but they are not merely symbolic. They could be described as an insurance policy against the risk of thoughtlessness or distraction on the part of future Governments—a risk that would ultimately cost lives.