PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Health and Care Bill - 22 November 2021 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Cigarette pack inserts—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco manufacturers to display a health information message on a leaflet inserted in cigarette packaging.”

This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to require manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services inside cigarette packaging.

New clause 4—Packaging and labelling of nicotine products—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”

This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.

New clause 5—Sale and distribution of nicotine products to children under the age of 18 years—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit the free distribution of nicotine products to those aged under 18 years, and prohibit the sale of all nicotine products to those under 18.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include an exception for medicines or medical devices indicated for the treatment of persons aged under 18.”

This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit the free distribution or sale of any consumer nicotine product to anyone under 18, while allowing the sale or distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by under 18s.

New clause 6—Flavoured tobacco products—

“The Secretary of State may by regulations remove the limitation of the prohibition of flavours in cigarettes or tobacco products to ‘characterising’ flavours, and extend the flavour prohibition to all tobacco products as well as smoking accessories including filter papers, filters and other products designed to flavour tobacco products.”

This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit any flavouring in any tobacco product or smoking accessory.

New clause 8—Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)—

“(1) The Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling or facilitating—

(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme under section [Tobacco supplies: Statutory schemes], or

(b) the determination of the provision to be made in a proposed statutory scheme.

(2) The provision may, in particular, require any person to whom such a scheme may apply to—

(a) record and keep information,

(b) provide information to the Secretary of State in electronic form.

(3) The Secretary of State must—

(a) store electronically the information which is submitted in accordance with subsection (2);

(b) ensure that information submitted in accordance with this provision is made publicly available on a website, taking the need to protect trade secrets duly into account.

(4) Where the Secretary of State is preparing to make or vary a statutory scheme, the Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for transitional or transitory purposes which could be made by such a scheme.”

This new clause and NC7, NC9 and NC10 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.

New clause 9—Tobacco supplies: enforcement—

“(1) Regulations may provide for a person who contravenes any provision of regulations or directions under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] to be liable to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State.

(2) The penalty may be—

(a) a single penalty not exceeding £5 million,

(b) a daily penalty not exceeding £500,000 for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues.

(3) Regulations may provide for any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (4) or (6)(b) to be increased by an amount not exceeding 50 per cent.

(4) Regulations may provide for any amount payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of provision made under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (3), (4), (5) or (6)(b) (including such an amount as increased under subsection (3)) to carry interest at a rate specified or referred to in the regulations.

(5) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on manufacturers and importers a right of appeal against enforcement decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and this section.

(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (5) includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40), reading—

(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an enforcement decision,

(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to interested persons as references to any persons and the reference to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any enforcement decision.

(7) In subsections (5) and (6), ‘enforcement decision’ means a decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—

(a) require a specific manufacturer or importer to provide information to him,

(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or importer, any price or profit,

(c) refuse to give approval to a price increase made by a specific manufacturer or importer,

(d) require a specific manufacturer or importer to pay any amount (including an amount by way of penalty) to the Secretary of State,

and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the decision.

(8) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section.

(9) Subsection (8) does not apply to any action by the Secretary of State to recover as a debt any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] or this section.

(10) The Secretary of State may by order increase (or further increase) either of the sums mentioned in subsection (2).”

This new clause and NC7, NC8 and NC10 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.

New clause 10—Tobacco supplies: controls: (supplementary)—

“(1) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] may be exercised by—

(a) making regulations, or

(b) giving directions to a specific manufacturer or importer.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may confer power for the Secretary of State to give directions to a specific manufacturer or importer; and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the direction concerned.

(3) In this section and section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and [Tobacco supplies: enforcement]—

‘tobacco product’ means a product that can be consumed and consists, even partly, of tobacco;

‘manufacturer’ means any person who manufactures tobacco products;

‘importer’ means any person who imports tobacco products into the UK with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, and contravention of a provision includes a failure to comply with it.”

This new clause and NC7, NC8 and NC9 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.

New clause 11—Age of sale of tobacco—

“The Secretary of State must consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco from 18 to 21 within three months of the passage of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco products to 21.

New clause 14—Implementation of Restrictions on advertising of less healthy food and drink online—

“The regulator shall put in place a mechanism for the delivery of the requirements under Part 2 of Schedule 16 which shall require that advertisers—

(a) apply media targeting filters, based on robust audience measurement data, to ensure the avoidance of children’s media or editorial content of particular appeal to children;

(b) use audience targeting tools and, where available, proprietary audience or other first-party data to further exclude children; and

(c) use campaign evaluation tools to assess audience impacts and use any learning to continually improve future targeting approaches.”

This new clause would require the regulator to put in place a three-step “filtering” process for restricting online advertising by managing the targeting of an online advertising campaign for foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar, as developed by the Committee of Advertising Practice of the Advertising Standards Authority.

New clause 15—Alcohol product labelling—

“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or in future versions of that guidance, display—

(a) the Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines,

(b) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption,

(c) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption when pregnant,

(d) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and cancer, and

(e) a full list of ingredients and nutritional information.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation on alcohol product labelling.

New clause 16—Annual report on alcohol treatment services: assessment of outcomes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament at the start of each financial year a report on—

(a) the ways in which alcohol treatment providers have been supported in tackling excess mortality, alcohol related hospital admissions, and the burden of disease resulting from alcohol consumption, and

(b) the number of people identified as requiring support who are receiving treatment.

(2) Alongside the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the level of funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to deliver a high-quality service that enables patient choice.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work to improve treatment and reduce harm.

New clause 17—Minimum unit price for alcohol—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance published in 2018, or in later versions of that document, are liable to a minimum unit price.

(2) The regulations must provide for the minimum unit price to be calculated by applying the formula M x S x V, where—

(a) M is the minimum unit price, expressed in pounds sterling,

(b) S is the percentage strength of the alcohol, expressed as a cardinal number, and

(c) V is the volume of the alcohol, expressed in litres.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation that applies a minimum unit price to alcohol.

Amendment 14, in clause 138, page 118, line 5, after “drink)”, insert

“and section [Minimum unit price for alcohol]”.

This amendment would bring NC17 into force at the same time as section 129 and Schedule 16 (advertising of less healthy food and drink).

Amendment 3, in schedule 16, page 222, line 8, at end insert—

“(3) A brand may continue to advertise, or provide sponsorship, if the advertisement or sponsorship does not include an identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.

This amendment makes an explicit exemption from the advertising restrictions on television programme services between 5.30 am and 9.00 pm for brand advertising and sponsorship, where there is no identifiable less healthy food and drink product.

Government amendments 31 and 32.

Amendment 11, in schedule 16, page 222, line 26, at end insert—

“(da) a drink product is ‘less healthy’ if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”.

This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services.

Amendment 111, in schedule 16, page 222, line 28, leave out from “meaning” to end of line 30 and insert

“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.

This amendment, and Amendments 112 and 113, aims to define companies to whom the advertising restrictions imposed by this schedule would apply as medium-sized companies within the meaning given by section 465 of the Companies Act 2006.

Government amendment 33.

Amendment 6, in schedule 16, page 222, line 38, after “unless”, insert

“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed change to the relevant guidance, and”.

This amendment requires a public consultation to take place before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as “less healthy” and its advertising restricted on television programme services between 5.30 am and 9.00 pm.

Amendment 4, in schedule 16, page 223, line 4, at end insert—

“(3) A brand may continue to advertise, and provide sponsorship as a brand, if the advertisement or sponsorship does not include an identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.

This amendment makes explicit exemptions from the advertising restrictions on on-demand programme services for brand advertising and sponsorship, where there is no identifiable less healthy food and drink product.

Government amendments 34 and 35.

Amendment 12, in schedule 16, page 223, line 24, at end insert—

“(da) a drink product is “less healthy” if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”.

This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services.

Amendment 112, in schedule 16, page 223, line 26, leave out from “meaning” to end of line 27 and insert

“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 111.

Government amendment 36.

Amendment 7, in schedule 16, page 223, line 36, after “unless”, insert

“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed change to the relevant guidance, and”.

This amendment requires a public consultation to take place before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as “less healthy” and its advertising restricted on on-demand programme services.

Amendment 106, in schedule 16, page 224, line 8, leave out “must not pay for” and insert

“must not market, sell or arrange”.

This series of connected probing amendments is intended to create parity in treatment of television and online advertising. The platform carrying the advertising, rather than those paying for advertising, would be responsible for the placing of advertisements. The wording to denote a platform mirrors that used by Ofcom in its recent regulation of Video Sharing Platforms consultation.

Amendment 110, in schedule 16, page 224, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) in relation to advertisements placed on distributor or retailer websites which are associated with the sale of food or drink”.

This amendment aims to ensure paid-for branded HFSS product advertisements are treated as equivalent to HFSS own-brand products on retailer-owned spaces.

Government amendment 37.

Amendment 5, in schedule 16, page 224, line 26, at end insert—

“(4) A brand may continue to advertise, and provide sponsorship as a brand, if the advertisement does not include an identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.

This amendment makes an explicit exemption from the restrictions on online advertising for brand advertising and sponsorship, where there is no identifiable less healthy food and drink product.

Government amendment 38.

Amendment 13, in schedule 16, page 225, line 10, at end insert—

“(fa) a drink product is “less healthy” if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”.

This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the online ban.

Amendment 113, in schedule 16, page 225, line 12, leave out from “meaning” to end of line 14 and insert

“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.

See explanatory statement to Amendment 111.

Government amendment 39.

Amendment 8, in schedule 16, page 225, line 24, after “unless”, insert

“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed change to the relevant guidance, and”.

This amendment requires a public consultation to take place before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as “less healthy” and its advertising restricted online.

Amendment 107, in schedule 16, page 225, line 28, leave out “made a payment for” and insert “marketed, sold or arranged”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.

Amendment 108, in schedule 16, page 225, line 30, leave out “made” and insert “received”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.

Amendment 109, in schedule 16, page 227, line 3, leave out from “with” to end of line 4 and insert

“the person marketing, selling or arranging advertisements published on the internet”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.

Before I address the amendments tabled in my name, I want to briefly voice my support for amendments 11 to 13 and new clauses 15 to 17, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), which call for improved regulation of alcohol marketing and labelling, for minimum unit pricing in England and for better assessment of treatment outcomes. Sadly, my hon. Friend cannot be here today, as he is with his family and his father Mike, who is receiving palliative care after many months of treatment for lung cancer. I know how important these issues are to my hon. Friend; I express my love and solidarity, and that of the whole House, at this difficult time for him and his loved ones.

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of ill health. It has a devastating impact on our population: it killed approximately the same number of people in 2019 as covid 19 in 2020, and one in every two smokers will die from smoking-related illnesses. The Government and the Opposition both support a smoke-free 2030, but without meaningful action, that ambition will be missed by seven years—or by double that number of years, in the case of the poorest in society.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Professor Marmot’s work on social and health inequalities shows that 0.5% of GDP should be spent on health inequalities such as those she describes?

I could not agree more. Michael Marmot is one of the most important health inequalities experts around.

To make matters worse, smoking rates among young adults have surged to 25% above pre-lockdown rates. However, despite the damage that missing the 2030 target would cause, there is nothing in the Bill that would help to achieve the Government’s ambition to make smoking obsolete. That is why the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, of which I am the vice-chair, is fighting to get the 2030 ambition back on track. I was delighted to hear the Minister say in Committee that the Government would review the APPG’s proposals as they developed their own tobacco control plan, but that plan, which was due this year and expected in July, is now likely to be delayed beyond the end of the year. If the Government are serious about creating a smoke-free England by 2030, they will implement the APPG’s recommendations as soon as possible, and the Bill provides the ideal opportunity for them to do so.

Let me quickly summarise new clause 2. It gives the Secretary of State powers to add health warnings to cigarettes and cigarette papers. The Government are reviewing the proposal, but have said that more research is needed. Health warnings such as “Smoking Kills” have been shown to be effective on billboards and tobacco packs, so why on earth would they not be effective on individual cigarettes? At least eight peer-reviewed papers have been published in the last five years showing that the measures are effective. Similarly, new clause 3 would give the Secretary of State powers to require health information messages to be inserted in cigarette packs. That has been a legal requirement in Canada since 2000, and there is substantial evidence to show that it works there. Research carried out in the UK supports its use here as well.

The hon. Lady will, of course, understand that one of our key aims must be to stop younger generations taking up smoking in the first place. Does she believe that her proposals—which I fully support—will help to achieve that key strategic aim?

Most of my new clauses are indeed intended to prevent young people from starting to smoke in the first place.

The hon. Lady has said that these measures apply to England, but they will of course have an effect throughout the United Kingdom—and rightly so—contributing to our aim to bring about a smoke-free Wales as well.

Again, I could not agree more.

In Committee, the Minister said that the Department could already legislate under the Children and Families Act 2014 to require the insertion of such information messages. In that case, why do the Government not commit themselves to doing so now?

New clauses 4 to 6 address loopholes in current legislation. Now that those loopholes have been identified to the Government, they should be fixed without delay, and today we have the opportunity to do so. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State powers to remove child-friendly branding elements from nicotine products. There are e-liquids on the market that are given sweet names, such as “gummy bears”, and that have branding that is in garish colours and features cartoon characters. Surely more evidence is not necessary to prove that such branding risks attracting children.

Is this not one of the most important of the hon. Lady’s new clauses? As people age and die—events often driven by cigarettes—or perhaps manage to give up, the tobacco companies must recruit the young, with the indefensible aim of persuading them to start smoking.

I entirely agree. Tobacco is the only legal product that kills one in two of those who use it, and most people start smoking at a young age. These new clauses are therefore extremely important, because they would tackle that problem.

The figures back up what the hon. Lady says. Two thirds of smokers in the UK start smoking under the age of 18, and over a third—39%—start under the age of 16. What she proposes will address that issue in a substantial way. We need legislation in place, and there needs to be punishment as well; that is the only way forward.

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I will address that issue.

New clause 5 would close another loophole in the law, which allows the free distribution of e-cigarettes and other consumer nicotine products to children under 18. The Government rejected the proposal, saying that there was no evidence of a serious problem, but the Minister sympathised with the argument for preventive action. Prevention is precisely our intention. Fixing this loophole is an appropriate application of the precautionary principle.

New clause 6 would remove the limitations on the ban on flavourings in tobacco products. That ban currently applies only to characterising flavours. The new clause would extend the flavour ban to all tobacco products, as well as to smoking accessories, including filter papers, filters and other products designed to favour tobacco products. In Committee, the Minister claimed it was unclear how a ban could be enforced in practice, as it would include a ban on flavours that did not give a noticeable flavour to the product. I suggest that he seek advice from Canada on this point, where a complete ban on flavours is already in place and has been highly effective.

The new clauses on the tobacco levy would give powers to the Secretary of State to implement a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers. The Minister dismissed this in Committee as a matter of taxation for the Treasury to consider. However, we are not proposing additional taxation. Our new clauses are modelled on the American user fee and on the pharmaceutical pricing scheme in the UK.

Does my hon. Friend agree that prevention is much better than cure, because so many adult smokers have a terrible experience when trying to give up, and it comes at a huge cost to their health?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A theme throughout these new clauses is that most people start smoking when they are children or when they are young, and most of them say that they wish they had never started. The new clauses would tackle young people’s access to tobacco-related products.

It is often vulnerable children, and often those in care, who start smoking early, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible that the Government have so far said that they will not support these new clauses?

Yes, it is absolutely incredible. We have heard that a tobacco plan might be on its way, but every day that goes by without our putting these recommendations in place is another day on which someone dies of tobacco harm, and on which more young people become addicted to nicotine products.

Discussions with the Treasury on the “polluter pays” levy would not be necessary. The Food and Drug Administration administers the user fee in the United States, and the Department of Health and Social Care could and should administer such a scheme here.

New clause 11 has been revised in the light of the Government’s response to our proposal in the Committee, in which they cited the need to

“review the evidence base of increasing the age of sale to 21 in more detail”.––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 28 October 2021; c. 816.]

They also stated the need for a public consultation. I agree that a consultation is the appropriate next step, so the new clause has been revised to require the Government to consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco from 18 to 21 within three months of the passage of this legislation.

To sum up, my new clauses address loopholes in the law. They would take incremental and obvious next steps to strengthen tobacco regulation still further, and they would provide the funding that is desperately needed to deliver the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition—funding that the spending review failed to deliver. When I was chair of the Gateshead tobacco control alliance, I saw the damage that smoking can do. It shortens life expectancy, increases the pressure on our health services, drives down productivity and drains wealth from our poorest communities—and for one in every two smokers, it will kill them. Eventually, the Government will have to accept that the measures proposed are necessary. The only question is how long they will wait, and how many lives will be ruined by tobacco in the meantime. I urge the Government to accept these new clauses in full.

I rise to speak in this debate to outline the case behind amendments 106 to 109 in my name, and to speak in favour of those in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I am also grateful from the outset for the time that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have afforded me in recent weeks to discuss these matters.

First and foremost, I want to set out that in principle I am opposed to the expansion of the nanny state. I did not get into politics to tell people what they should or should not eat, or businesses how they should go about advertising their products and wares. However, I equally do not doubt for one moment that obesity is a serious health concern for this country. It is a question of the detail and the manner in which we go about tackling it as a country—principally, that we go about it through education and ensuring people are able to make choices for themselves, rather than using blunt tools that I fear will not work. As I highlighted in a Backbench Business debate on the obesity strategy some months ago, the Government’s own research shows that the measures in the Bill will reduce calorie intake among children by only 1.74 calories a day. If that is the outcome, we must seriously question the measures before us.

The amendments in my name, however, seek to rectify an unfairness that will exist if the Government push ahead with these advertising restrictions, which have businesses in my constituency very concerned. For example, farmers such as Morris of Hoggeston, who grow oats, are concerned that within the categories under the HFSS, or high in fat, sugar or salt, measures, products such as porridge and granola, which are hardly the choice of most children—certainly not my children—are in scope. We need to do something to sort that out. Great British broadcasters, both public service and fully commercial, also stand to lose some £200 million a year from the restrictions we have before us.

My amendments are about fundamental fairness, and seek to treat broadcasters the same way as online platforms. In the first place, research shows that children, who these measures are most prominently aimed at, do not watch broadcast television as much as they used to. They look more and more to YouTube, on-demand services and online; I can testify to that from my own home, where my five-year-old much prefers YouTube to watching CBeebies or other children’s television programmes, and I think that is the same for most children. [Interruption.] I am not sure what is causing amusement on the Opposition Benches.

In fact, 95% of viewing of broadcast television before the 9 pm watershed is by adults, not children, and there are already regulations in place during scheduled children’s programming. So I fear the measures in this Bill will not work, and the fundamental unfairness that I spoke of earlier is the manner in which broadcasters will be treated compared with the online platforms.

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Given that there is this disparity between the online advertiser and the broadcaster advertiser, and if we are seeking to restrict broadcasting advertisement to children so that they do not become unhealthy, would not the logic follow that we should equally restrict the online advertiser, rather than saying, “Let’s allow more of a free for all because this is more difficult to do for the online”?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he will let me make a little more progress, I think he will find that my amendments seek to put a harsher perspective of this on the online platforms, rather than letting anyone off anything whatsoever. I repeat that my fundamental position is one of opposition to the nanny state and restrictions, but recognising that if the Government are going to push these restrictions forward, we have to have fairness and parity across broadcast and online sectors, otherwise there will be loopholes, things will fall through the cracks and the Government will not achieve their objectives.

I certainly support the argument that my hon. Friend is putting forward. Does he feel that the Government have found themselves in a position where they feel they need to react because of the genuine obesity crisis among young people and this would seem to be the highest-profile publicity effort, but that really we should be focusing on the evidence of the case and the argument, so that we can actually have an impact on it, rather than steal the headline that might just last a couple of days?

My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: if we are to tackle obesity as a country, we have to look at the most successful outcomes. Fundamentally, I believe those to be ones of education, ensuring that parents are empowered to be able to make the best decisions for their children and ensuring that people are empowered to come to the right choices for themselves. The point about these amendments is to ensure that we are not giving a green light to one side while harshly penalising another for hosting these adverts.

The nub of the point is that the broadcasters will, in effect, have to pre-clear any advertising that is put on to their platform and there will be very harsh penalties, leading right up to the point of revocation of their broadcast licence, if they fail to do this. By contrast, although the Bill puts significant restrictions on the online platforms, they are not put through that same test. They are not put through the same harsh restrictions and requirements that are broadcasters are. This is especially important when we consider recent evidence that has been put into the public domain. The Advertising Standards Authority recently drew considerable attention to the mass flouting of the rules by online influencers across many sectors. This House’s Select Committee on Work and Pensions made an important point about online regulation in a report in March this year on protecting pension savers. It said:

“Regulators appear powerless to hold online firms to account”—

for online advertisements—

“in the same way they would be able to for traditional media.”

We need to bear that in mind as we consider this Bill, because if current regulations do not work in that field, I fear that the regulations on online providers proposed in this Bill will not either.

I offer these amendments as a call to those on the Treasury Bench, including the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—an excellent Minister who will consider these points carefully—to rethink the practicalities of what we are saying to the broadcast and online sectors. If the Government are intent on pushing this forward, I ask them to find that parity that ensures that broadcasters are not unfairly penalised. Great British broadcasters—ITV, Channel 4, Channel Five, Sky—already produce some incredible educational programming about diet, cooking, wellbeing and lifestyle. It would be horrendous for us to cut off their lifeline of funding.

I have put my name to my hon. Friend’s amendments because I agree with the points that he makes.

It is surely vital that those responsible broadcasters should not be penalised when they are doing the right thing—and yet there is effectively a wild west on the internet, where we are simply not able to manage the issue. I recognise that the Minister will be concerned that the online harms Bill will also deal with some of these matters, but we need to find a cross-Government way of dealing with this.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with great experience from her time as Secretary of State at DCMS. That is the fundamental point of the amendments; it is not a complex or difficult case, but purely one of fairness and treating the different platforms—the diverse media of 2021—the same, rather than pretending that the media from the old analogue age can somehow be treated differently from those of the digital age.

Let us not cut off the lifeline that funds so many good educational programmes. Let us think again about restrictions on advertisers, move forward in a way that can enable people to make the right and healthy choices about what they and their children eat without this level of restriction, and ensure that, when restriction is brought in, it is fair.

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this first part of the debate on the Bill.

A decade ago, virtually to the day, I was a young activist taking part in marches, protests, online campaigns, letter writing campaigns, petitions and much more in opposition to what would become the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We argued that it would lead to more fragmentation, less integration, confused decision making and more privatisation and that it would not make anybody any healthier.

Despite significant opposition to the legislation, the Government pushed on. But as campaigners, we were right, weren’t we? The 2012 Act created a fragmented system that did not promote health and care integration. Performance against NHS targets, even pre-pandemic, was dismal and now it is even worse. Waiting lists have grown extraordinarily, and staff vacancies have grown to crisis proportions.

We are here today and tomorrow to consign that legislation to history—perhaps less the end of an era and more the end of an error. But the same Government who broke the system now offer a new package of reforms, and that should really scare us. These are the wrong reforms at the wrong time. There are no answers in them to the waiting times crisis, no answers to the capacity issues in accident and emergency or our ambulance services, no answers to access issues for our GPs or dentists, and no answers to the environmental factors that make a country with so many assets so unhealthy.

Does the shadow Minister agree that the Bill gives the green light to private profit making companies sitting on integrated care organisations?

Yes. That was a strong theme in Committee that we on the Opposition Benches are very much against; it is likely to be a prominent theme during our discussion of upcoming amendments. Through what we are discussing now, we at least have the chance to put something in the Bill that might improve the public’s health.

My hon. Friend talked about waiting lists. Would he confirm that at the moment approximately 5.6 million people are on the waiting list and that the Government’s own projections are that that figure could rise to 13 million? What in the Bill does my hon. Friend believe can address that extraordinary situation?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Secretary of State must be the first in the history of the NHS who came into that important role saying that he was expecting waiting times to grow to the extent that they are. That is of course pandemic-related, but it also has a reality far beyond this extraordinary last 18 months. There are more than 125 clauses in the Bill and the Government have proposed more new clauses in Committee and on Report, but not one of them will have a meaningful impact on waiting times, so people should be really disquieted.

I have listened carefully to the hon. Member’s comments about waiting times in England and the measures that are to be introduced here. He urged disquiet; can I assume that his disquiet is even louder when he considers my constituents in Wales who have much longer waiting times?

There is a danger that the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The reality is that for a decade there has been historically low investment in our health service, which of course has Barnett consequentials for Wales. That is the reality and why the system is as distressed as it is. I do not think he can put that at the door of the Welsh Government.

Let me come back to public health. Over the past five years we have removed £1 billion in public health funding, which means that the challenges in respect of childhood obesity, smoking, sexual health and access to drug and alcohol services are all developing and growing. The sad thing is that such cuts make an immediate local government saving for the Treasury but create greater costs for the public purse later, never mind the impact on people’s lives. They are the falsest of false economies. For all the talk of the end of austerity, last month’s Budget did nothing to tackle that reality. Indeed, local authorities are under greater pressure and the cycle will continue.

Being smoke-free by 2030 is a major national prize, and with that I turn to new clauses 2 to 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). She made an excellent case and has shown tremendous leadership on this issue, in concert with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), through the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. They have given the Government a number of really good ways to improve our nation’s efforts and I hope we will hear from the Minister that they will be taken on.

Tackling smoking is a crucial part of not only improving the nation’s health but addressing health inequalities. A child born where I live, Nottingham, can expect to live seven years fewer than a child born here in Westminster. When it comes to healthy life expectancy, we can expect that difference to double. Tackling that inequality should be a core part of the business of this place. Nearly half that inequality is attributable to smoking—that is how pivotal this issue is.

Successive Governments have shown over the past 25 years that we can make inroads with public policy on smoking, but the benefits have been unevenly felt: the smoking rate among those in professional occupations is now down to just one in 10, so is well on track to meet the 2030 target, but incidence rates among those in manual or routine occupations remain a stubborn one in four, so we must now renew our efforts with that group of people who are, of course, disproportionately likely to use stop smoking services—the very services we have lost over the past decade. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the pandemic has posed new challenges, with a new group of people who have started smoking but would not otherwise have done so.

We have been promised a new tobacco control plan by the end of this year, but that promise looks a little less secure by the day—I hope the Minister will tell me I am wrong. We could get on with impactful interventions right away. The labelling and information interventions set out in new clauses 2 to 4 have very strong evidence bases from other countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, and would be quick, easy to implement and impactful.

On new clause 4 in particular, we know that e-cigarettes and vaping are important quit aids, but we would not want them to be a gateway for children to smart smoking. We should be concerned about the 2021 YouGov research for ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—that suggests that more than 200,000 11 to 17-year-olds who had never smoked previously had tried vaping this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, we must make sure that that age group does not take smoking through that route and that products are not targeted at it.

New clause 5 would tackle the bizarre loophole, which colleagues sometimes struggle to believe is true, that would allow the egregious practice whereby e-cigarettes or similar kit could be given free to someone under 18, although they cannot be sold. That is an extraordinary part of the law and I know that the Minister agrees it is daft—he said that in Committee, but also that he did not feel there was quite the evidence that it was a risk. Well, risk or not, I think the loophole should be closed, because I suspect that eventually someone will happen on it as a bright idea.

New clauses 8 and 10 are a beautiful support to any Minister who wants to improve smoking outcomes in this country, as I know this Minister does, but is conscious about the finances. This gives the Minister a chance, through a US-style polluter pays model, to fund all these interventions, including the restoration of the lost smoking cessation services in this country. He did not close the door to that in Committee when we talked about it, so I hope that he might tell us today that it is likely to form part of the new tobacco control plan. New clause 11 promotes a consultation on raising the age of sale, as we know that the older a person gets, the less likely they are to start smoking.

Let me turn to new clauses 15 to 17 and amendments 11 to 14 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). Colleagues will have been profoundly moved to hear him speak of his battle with alcoholism, and I know that his bravery has connected with people across the country. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham regarding his entirely understandable absence from the Chamber today. With him in mind, I speak in support of those new clauses and amendments.

New clause 15 seeks to improve alcohol product labelling. This is overdue and it is popular. It is about not taking alcohol products out of people’s hands, but instead making sure that they can make an informed choice.

While an energy drink carries not only calorific information but a health warning that drinking too much can have a laxative effect, alcoholic drinks carry no calorific information and no health warning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a damning indictment of where we are in society and that a change, which the amendment could make, is needed?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I completely agree with him. I would be the last one to police people’s consumption habits in the night-time economy for fear of being a hypocrite, but I do think that we should all have informed choice. What we have at the moment is inconsistent and unclear. We know that that frustrates people. A recent survey has shown that: 75% of people would like to know the number of units in a product; 61% would like to know the calorie information, as he mentions; and 53% would like to know the amount of sugar. We should give people the chance to have that full information to make their own decisions.

My hon. Friend will know that two thirds of people in Britain are overweight and that one in four is obese. An enormous amount of added sugar is put into processed foods that people do not know about. Men, for instance, are not supposed to have more than nine teaspoons of added sugar, and women six, which is the equivalent of a can of coke and a light yoghurt. Does he not agree that this Bill is tremendously light on the killer that sugar is, and that not only should we be labelling it, but that the Budget should tax added sugar in processed food to reduce the waiting list?

My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I will be coming on to the modesty of the Government’s plans for tackling obesity, but I have to finish my remarks about new clause 16.

New clause 16 compels the Secretary of State to publish an annual statement about the spend and impact of alcohol treatment funding. After a decade of reduced commitment in this vital area, the Secretary of State should seek to embrace this opportunity. At the moment, national Government cannot say they are meeting their responsibility to tackle alcohol harm with the requisite financial commitment and in the right place, which should discomfort them greatly. New clause 17 would replicate in England the minimum unit pricing restrictions that we see in Scotland and Wales, and we are all watching with great interest as evidence gathers as to their impact.

Let me now turn to the amendments and new clauses relating to advertising. The Government have included a couple of elements of their obesity strategy in the Bill. As I have already said to the Minister—in Committee and upstairs in the delegated legislation Committee—I wish that they had put the entire obesity strategy in this legislation, because there are bits that could have been improved by amendment, by debate and by discussion, as we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and as I dare say we will in that of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). We should have taken that approach to the entire document, and it is sad that we did not.

On the obesity strategy itself, it is too modest and it fails to attack a major cause of obesity, which is poverty.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he is saying. I am a type 2 diabetic and I am well aware of the issues. As I understand it, figures that have been gathered during the covid-19 pandemic showed that the number of diabetics rose by some 200,000. That tells me that, if we are going to address the issue of diabetes, we need to have a tax process in place, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, rather than a regulation, because that is the only way that we can control diabetes.

I think that a solution might be a little from column A and a little from column B, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

We have heard about the modesty of the strategy from the hon. Member for Buckingham. The reality is that any benefits from the obesity strategy will be outstripped by losses in the nation’s health caused by the impact of the cut to universal credit. We want the strategy to succeed, but it needs to be seen in that broader category.

Obesity is an important issue, with nearly two thirds of adults carrying excess weight. Childhood obesity is also a significant issue, with one in 10 children starting primary school obese, rising to one in five by the time they leave—extraordinary at such a young age.

I thank the shadow Minister, who is making an excellent argument, and colleagues across the House for all their work on this important Bill. Does he agree that we could do an enormous amount for the health of the nation by looking holistically at the role of exercise and prescribing exercise through the national health service, including swimming—the statistics on 11-year-olds who can swim 25 metres are going backwards due to all the lessons they have missed during coronavirus—and other important sports?

Yes, I agree. I look with real sadness at the loss of exercise-on-prescription schemes that were part of the public health grant but have gone over the last decade. Similarly, on swimming, the decisions in the Budget relating to local authorities will lead to councils, which are setting their budgets as we speak, closing more leisure centres and swimming pools. We should mourn those losses, which come as a result of a weak bit of public policy.

In the Bill, the proposed watershed with regard to high fat, sugar and salt products is broadly a good thing. With that in mind, we do not oppose Government amendments 31 to 39, which are relatively modest tweaks, but we should not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a significant proposal; I know that colleagues have interest in this. Beyond a watershed on traditional broadcast media, we will also see a complete online ban of high fat, sugar and salt advertising. This is a blunt tool in pursuit of an important goal.

New clause 14 in the name of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire would implement a more nuanced system, as proposed by the advertising industry itself. This is mirrored in amendments 106 to 109 in the name of the hon. Member for Buckingham. We probed this point in Committee. I was surprised then, and remain surprised, that there seems to be little interest from Ministers or the Department in even having that conversation and exploring creative alternatives. The desired benefits are non-negotiables. If there are other ways to achieve those benefits, they ought to be approached with an open mind.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my new clause. We have a number of issues potentially to put to a vote later. Given what he has said and given that the Minister was a bit hazy about this issue in Committee, would he be minded to support my new clause if it were put to a vote and the Minister did not come forward with something more robust?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but my problem is that I want to know that the conversations have taken place and that the proposal has been considered as an option. I would not say today that I think it is the best option, but I am surprised that that conversation has not taken place, which is why I have highlighted it. There is still time for the Minister to reconsider, and he should.

I was less persuaded by amendments 3 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, which seek to permit brand advertising as long as it does not refer to an HFSS product. In many cases, the brand and product are so inexorably intertwined that it might undermine the goals and aims of the whole intervention. I do, however, support amendments 6 to 8, which refer to the nutrient profiling model—the model that is used to determine what is and is not considered to be a high fat, sugar and salt product. It is important that there is certainty and that it does not move around more than the science would say that it ought to.

We talked about this issue at length in Committee. If we are asking the industry to reformulate and change, companies ought to be able to base product decisions on the certainty that the Government will not arbitrarily change the criteria. Such companies may have made significant time, financial or infrastructure investments in a certain product and then could see the criteria change overnight. In Committee, we extracted a commitment from the Minister to a Government amendment on this matter. That was reiterated in a letter on 13 November, when the Minister wrote to Committee members and committed to

“introducing a Government amendment at Commons Report Stage to include a duty to consult before changing the NPM technical guidance.”

I am surprised not to see that at this point. I hope that we will get clarity from the Minister, or indeed that he is minded to accept these amendments, because this is an important development. We also want the level playing field suggested by amendments 110 to 113, so we will be listening with great interest to his reply.

This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. It does nothing to address the real causes of ill-health in this country today. In this part of the proceedings, colleagues have given the Minister a chance to change that and I hope he is minded to take it.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). I will speak to new clause 14 and the other amendments in my name. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for amendments 6, 7 and 8 and for an industry-led alternative—in spirit, if not necessarily in voting. I think the hon. Gentleman, as well as many of my hon. Friends, will be wanting to hear something from the Minister to show that he has been listening to concerns that have been raised across the House.

I was surprised and delighted to see on some of my amendments the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but she advised me that that was an error, so I am sorry that the potential amity between me and those on the Scottish National party Benches will have to wait for another day.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that has saved me from having to put a disclaimer at the start of my speech, as I was rather shocked to find my name on his amendments. I just reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). It is a concern that the names of companies, as we saw in F1 racing and other things, simply promote certain types of food and drink and you cannot separate the brand from the product.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her point clear.

As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members know, my amendments relate to the ways in which the Government are seeking to restrict advertising for foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt as part of their obesity strategy. Those measures essentially ban such advertising on TV before the 9 pm watershed and ban all paid-for HFSS advertising online at any time of the day or night. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has already done a very good job in drawing out some concerns about that.

What are the concerns about what the Government are doing? First, I should mention that I have a number of important food businesses based in my constituency, including Unilever and the cereal company Jordans Dorset Ryvita, and I think everyone would be surprised to hear that products such as porridge, muesli and granola are going to be subject to these bans. All these products have ingredients such as naturally occurring oils and sugars, as well as fibre, vitamins and minerals, and because of those natural ingredients they will be caught by the Government’s definition of “HFSS”.

It is also worth considering—I was not on the Committee and I do not know if it was considered at length—the impact on food services such as takeaways and home-delivered foods. Papa John’s, which is located near me in Milton Keynes, supports hundreds of entrepreneurs and small businesses through its franchise model, and it writes to warn me:

“These would restrict our ability to invest in our businesses and our people, at a time of significant economic uncertainty for the UK economy, and would also place our franchisees, many of whom are single owner small businesses, on an unsustainable financial footing.”

I think the Government have to do a few more hard yards in support of our small businesses, and this is not a very good way of showing any support for them.

The number of diabetics, both type 1 and type 2, across the United Kingdom and the number of children with obesity is rising. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that new clause 14 cannot address the issue of those rising numbers? If it cannot, what more needs to be done?

I absolutely do not agree. The reason why the Opposition Front-Bench team are probing on this is that we are not harnessing all the talents to come up with the solution. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, he does not have, or want, any objection to the objective—he just feels that there may be better ways to do it. That is what my amendments are trying to create. They would introduce a better way, working with established principles and with the industry—let us face it, it has the experts in this—rather than undermining issues to do with how the Advertising Standards Authority has managed how products are advertised and rather than bulldozing through the industry, which is the current process that the Government, or this Department anyway, are proposing.

Let us just remember that this pressure on our food and drink manufacturers is part of a wider effort of social responsibility that we are putting on them. The proposal does not sit alone, but with other things, in particular around environmental protection. The Food and Drink Federation has calculated that the cost of the UK Government’s proposed environmental health policies is at least £8 billion. That is equivalent to £160 a year on household food bills that we are asking the industry to take on.

It is estimated that the introduction of this policy will cost £833 million, but the Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the benefits are likely to be in the order of only £118 million. That is a real dead loss that we will be putting, let us face it, on food bills, primarily of those in lower income brackets. Members on all sides should take a moment to consider whether this is the right time and the right process for doing that. As the Government’s own assessment shows, the actual effect on diet for those who are targeted is estimated to be 1.7 calories a day, so it is a lot of effort and cost, but not very much impact.

New clause 14 proposes an alternative that would require the regulator to implement an alternative set of increased restrictions for online, but developed through the industry by the Committee of Advertising Practice. The new clause would legislate for a three-step filtering process drawn up by the industry to appropriately manage the targeting of online ad campaigns.

Another of my amendments would introduce brand exemptions. I take a different view from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who said that brands are intrinsically tied to their product. The truth of the matter is that Coca Cola is made by Coke and Coke Zero is made by Coke. Coke Zero is advertised with the word “Coke” on it. This issue is not necessarily covered by the legislation, but Coke is not tied to one thing. Brands are extraordinarily flexible in how they can assist progress in achieving some social means. The Minister should consider looking again at this area.

Finally, on the nutritional profile, the issue is consultation. I can see that the Secretary of State has tabled some amendments on that, and perhaps the Minister can talk about that. They do not seem to make the changes I would like to see, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say.

It is worrying that the Government have undermined the Advertising Standards Authority with their approach. One of the other things is targeted advertising. I am sure it has struck hon. Members here as it has me that the tech revolution of the dotcom era was 20 years ago, and two decades of technical expertise in understanding how adverts are targeted is being swept away or ignored by the Department of Health and Social Care, which would much rather have “nanny knows what’s best”. The truth of the matter is that, by harnessing technology, the Government could get a better outcome than this official ban. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, there are plenty of other ways to do it that would be hard for advertisers to get around.

I say to the Minister that I am trying to be helpful, as always, and, to be serious, as are the Opposition. The Government have made a slight misstep by adopting a top-down, state-driven model. I say to the Minister that the path of good intentions is littered with unintended consequences. The essence of conservatism is not to use the state to bully or, as perhaps the advisers in the various Departments say in modern parlance, to nudge. It amounts to one and the same thing. The Department’s attempt to censor products such as these is profoundly un-Conservative. Our party believes in individual responsibility and that families are the foundation of society where choices and power in society most naturally lie. Nowhere is that more important than in health matters, yet these proposals extend the role of the state and undermine parental responsibilities.

The measures make the Department of Health and Social Care look like a new outpost of cancel culture that denies free speech and has a predisposition that individuals should conform to what the state determines, rather than enabling informed free choice. It is desperately sad to see them being pushed through by a Conservative Administration. I say to my colleagues on the Back Benches: when will we wake up and realise that we need a Government who support free enterprise and individual responsibility, and who understand that the way to create growth in the economy is through enabling people to make free choices, rather than expecting the state to be the answer to every problem? With that question, I will wait to listen to what the Minister has to say.

I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for clarifying that I had not voluntarily added my name to his amendment.

Whenever we talk about such subjects, we hear a lot about the nanny state. As a surgeon working in A&E in general surgery, however, the difference when seatbelts, airbags and speed limits came in was night and day in how much time I spent dealing with people in operating theatres who had been involved in car crashes. Sometimes the state has to take action to protect people’s health and wellbeing.

The Bill focuses largely on reversing some of the most egregious aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which I welcome, but these measures focus on improving public health. There is no question that obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases associated with obesity pose not just a real threat to individual health but a threat that will overwhelm national health services in future. When I looked at the original Bill, however, I was surprised that, apart from the measures around obesity, there was little in the way of public health policy to improve and promote health, and there is also little enough about care.

It is not the national health service that delivers health. I have often said that it would be more appropriate to call it the national illness service, but who would want to work somewhere called that? The NHS spends most of its time catching people when they fall. Health comes from a decent start in life, a warm dry home, enough to eat and a decent education. Those are the things that deliver health, but there is nothing like them in the Bill.

Particularly, and surprisingly, there is nothing in the Bill on reducing harm from tobacco products and alcohol, which is why I rise to speak in support of new clauses 2 to 4, which seek to strengthen the health warnings on all tobacco products; new clauses 7 to 10, which seek to allow regulation of tobacco pricing; and particularly new clause 6, because the use of sweet flavourings to entice children and young people to take up smoking is indefensible.

I heartily commend the hon. Lady for her comments. Does she experience in her constituency, as I do in mine, that smoking cessation services are diminishing and becoming less successful? As the tobacco industry concentrates on a core group of existing addicts, it is desperate to move down the age range and encourage new addicts. That is why that element of the new clause is important.

I agree that new clause 6 is the most important of the new clauses, because tobacco companies are driven to recruit new victims—as I would have to call them, as a doctor—and they are recruiting them from young people.

Public health is devolved, so we have not had the cuts in public health funding that we have unfortunately seen in England since 2016. Therefore, we have not had the cuts to smoking cessation and sexual health services that many local authorities experienced across England when public health moved into local government.

Smoking does not just cause respiratory problems such as chronic obstructive airway disease, but affects all the blood vessels causing peripheral vascular disease, vascular dementia, strokes, heart attacks and many forms of cancer, not just lung cancer. Stopping smoking is the best favour anyone can do themselves, but many people require the very smoking cessation services that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Obviously, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm, I know that part of the issue with treatment—I am thinking in particular of new clause 16—is the stigma behind alcohol dependency and its still being seen as a personal choice. While we need to overcome the stigma of addiction, we first need to be having a conversation about alcohol. Does the hon. Member agree that, as part of the treatment, we need to be having this conversation on a national level?

I would say that really no one who has a health problem should be stigmatised. Having dealt over 33 years in the NHS with many people who were problem drinkers, I know that the public image of someone who abuses alcohol is quite a caricature. There will be many people across this House who drink more than is healthy for them and I have met many people as patients from the middle and upper classes who had serious alcohol problems, so we should get away from the stigma and the caricature. We will not spot everyone who needs to deal with alcohol just by looking at them.

I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) in this regard. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that the whys and wherefores are all very well in this debate, but in the end the cuts to local government, which would primarily be providing services in relation to alcohol abuse, have been most disgraceful, and that is why we are seeing the huge increase in the number of people who have passed away from alcohol disease in the last couple of years following covid?

There is no question but that, after public health moved into local government—we can absolutely defend that because, as I have said, health is often delivered by things that are nothing to do with the NHS—the problem was that the budget was then cut, so the potential benefit of putting public health into local government was lost due to the cuts to services.

On alcohol not being classed as a less healthy food, with this Government I find it hard not to ask: why not, and what or who may have influenced that decision? I certainly support amendments 11 to 13 from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), which would include alcohol, particularly the medium and high-strength alcohols, under less healthy foods, so that alcohol is covered by advertising regulations. I also support his new clause 15, which would mandate much clearer labelling of alcohol units, or whatever measure, on labels. It is no good just saying “Drink aware” or “Drink Responsibly” when the consumer has not actually been given the tools on the product to make a proper choice, such as by asking, “How much is in this?” Why not agree to use a simple, straightforward approach? A lot of public health advice is in units, so why not actually use them? People would then learn to be aware and ask, “How many units have I already drunk today?” or “How many units have I already drunk this week?”

New clause 17 calls on the UK Government to follow Scotland, and now Wales, by introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol. The UK Government have the advantage in that they can do that by setting alcohol duty based on unit, instead of on classes of drink. In every Budget we hear about a penny on a pint of beer, or so much on spirits, but why not do it by unit? It is much more accurate, and it would still allow the raising of taxation to help fund alcohol services, as well as those public services most hit by alcohol abuse, such as healthcare and policing. Under devolution the Scottish Government, and now the Welsh Government, did not have that power.

Over the past year and a half of the pandemic we have, unfortunately, seen a big increase in both smoking and alcohol consumption, as people struggled to cope with the loneliness and boredom associated with lockdowns and pandemic restrictions. However, the initial valuation of minimum unit pricing in Scotland showed that alcohol sales fell, for the first time in many years, by more than 7% in Scotland, compared with a continued rise in England and Wales. It was not possible to demonstrate a reduction in overall alcohol-associated admissions to hospital, which may include car accidents, violence and so on, but there was a drop in admissions due to alcoholic liver disease, suggesting that the policy was working. More evaluation after the pandemic will be required, but an immediate impact was an almost three-quarters drop in the sales of cheap white cider. That product is cheaper than soft drinks, and predominantly used by young—indeed, often under-age—drinkers, who purchase it, or get someone else to purchase it, so that they can drink it at home. However, that sector is literally disappearing overnight.

It will be important to review and maintain the pressure of the unit price on a regular basis, because young drinkers also drink many other products—this is the same issue as young smokers; more people are being recruited, often into problem drinking and problem products. Minimum unit pricing does not affect good wine, high-end spirits, or what is sold in a pub, but it does affect what someone can buy in a small shop to then hang out with their mates in their bedroom. Some of those products are not affected by the 50p unit price, and that must be kept under review.

I was disappointed that new clause 30, which is listed for discussion tomorrow, was not included in this group. It calls on the Government to reform the out-of-date Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and to devolve it so to allow the devolved nations to take a public health approach to tackling drug addiction, in the same way as we take a public health approach to dealing with alcohol. Such an approach has already been demonstrated in many countries across the world, yet the Government keep sticking their head in the sand.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning new clause 30, which I still hope against hope we might be able to discuss tomorrow. I am sure she will agree that problematic drug abuse is an illness and a social ill, not a crime, and our emphasis must be on harm reduction, treatment, and support for the problematic drug user.

That is the policy of the Scottish Government, and we would absolutely support the new clause if it is voted on tomorrow.

As Opposition Members have said, key to improving public health would be restoring the non-covid related public health budget in England. We cannot hide behind covid funding, because that is used up by the pandemic and does not help us with smoking, alcohol, or drug addiction. The biggest contribution the Government could make would be to abandon their plans for yet another decade of austerity. We hear the slogan all the time—levelling up—but it rings hollow after taking away £1,000 a year from the poorest families and most vulnerable households. Over the past decade, cuts to social security have caused a rise in poverty among pensioners, disabled people, and particularly children. Sir Michael Marmot was mentioned earlier, and his research was clear: poverty is the biggest single driver of ill health, and the biggest driver of poverty is Tory austerity.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who brings her knowledge of the medical profession to this House on every occasion. I agreed with almost everything she had to say, apart from the last comment.

I declare my interest as chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, and I support all the new clauses tabled in the name of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). These comprehensive proposals are complementary and can be picked up by the Government. The new clauses were tabled in a different form in Committee. They were discussed and debated, and I think Ministers said they would take them away and have a further look. We have refined the proposals on the basis of the debate in Committee, strengthened them, and brought them back again, and they address the loopholes in current legislation. They strengthen the regulation of tobacco products still further, and they provide funding for the tobacco control measures that are so desperately needed if we are to deliver the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition.

We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall last week, to which the new Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup) responded. Questions were posed to the Government from across the Chamber about when we will see the long-promised tobacco control plan, which is presumably due to be delivered by 31 December this year. We got no firm commitment on when we will see it, and I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to bring that forward as soon as possible. We can then measure what will happen.

The problem we have with tobacco control right now is that if we do nothing and none of these measures is introduced, the risk is that, as the hon. Member for City of Durham rightly articulated, we will miss the target by seven years. For those on low incomes and in deprived circumstances, it will be 14 years. We must consider how many people will die from smoking-related diseases as a direct result of the Government’s failure to achieve their Smokefree 2030 ambition. It is clear that we need to take further action, and I urge the Minister, who I know is a doughty campaigner for public health, to make sure that we deliver on the proposals.

My main focus is obviously on the new clauses that seek to provide funding for tobacco control. We all accept that not only can we implement measures, but we have somehow to fund them. That is critical. We must also consider raising the age of sale, as that, unfortunately, is a key proponent in encouraging young people to start smoking. The spending review failed to address the 25% real-terms cut to public health funding since 2015. Reductions in spending on tobacco control have bitten even deeper, by a third, since 2015. We need new sources of funding.

The Government promised to consider a polluter pays levy in the 2019 Prevention Green Paper, when they announced the Smokefree 2030 ambition. The all-party group on smoking and health has done the analysis, and we estimate that in the first year alone of a polluter pays levy, £700 million could be raised. That would benefit not only England, but the whole United Kingdom. It is more than twice the estimated cost of the tobacco control measures that we are proposing tonight, and that would then leave the Government with further funding to spend on other health priorities. The proposal is for a user fee, along United States lines, rather than an additional tax. Now that we have exited the European Union and can set our own rules, EU tobacco manufacturers’ profits can be controlled. They cannot pass the cost on to the consumer, but we can control their profits and use those for preventing people from smoking in the first place. It is quite justified that we should tax the manufacturers’ profits. This is the most highly addictive product that is legally available, and it kills those who use it for the purpose for which it was intended.

The hon. Gentleman refers to public health funding since 2015, but is he aware that in 2015, it was identified that the cost to the NHS of smoking was £144.8 million in prescriptions, almost £900 million in out-patient visits, almost £900 million in hospital admissions, and a total of £2.6 billion? Is not investing in smoking cessation money well spent?

Clearly, if we invest in public health and smoking cessation, we prevent costs in the health service later. It is estimated that most of the cost of people’s healthcare arises in the last two years of their life. Individuals who suffer from cancer or other respiratory diseases caused by smoking will cost the health service dramatic sums of money, so through cessation, we are helping the nation to be healthier and, indeed, saving money for the health service in the long run.

To quote the chief medical officer, the great majority of people who die from lung cancer

“die so that a small number of companies can make profits from the people who they have addicted in young ages, and then keep addicted to something which they know will kill them.”

The time has come to make the tobacco manufacturers pay for the damage that they do, not only to older people but to young people in particular. We need to bring forward the day when smoking is finally obsolete in this country, and I regret to say that if we do not take measures, the time before that day arrives will be lengthened quite considerably.

However, funding alone is not enough; we have to consider tough regulation. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned that since lockdown, we have seen the smoking rate among young adults surge by 25%. In the United States, raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 reduced the smoking rate among 18 to 20-year-olds by 30%. We could do the same thing here. We talk about complementary measures; giving tobacco products away is not illegal at the moment. Just imagine—tobacco manufacturers may say, “If we give tobacco products away for free, we can encourage people to become addicted, and then they will buy them, and that will lead them on to a lifetime of smoking.” We have to break that chain of events and make sure that people do not do that.

I have a passion for ensuring that women do not smoke in pregnancy. That is one of the most stubborn measures, and we have to overcome it. Some 11% of women still smoke in pregnancy. We must give them every incentive and introduce every measure to ensure that they give up smoking, and that their partners give up smoking at the same time. That is something that I passionately support.

Our revised amendment, new clause 11, addresses the concerns that the Government raised in Committee about a review of the evidence. I hope that the Government will adopt the new clause at this stage, and then look at the evidence and consult.

People start smoking at certain key points in their life. They may take it up when they are at school and their friends are smokers and they want to be part of the team or the gang. They may take it up when they go to college or university or start a new job, when they are in a new social environment, or at a dreadful time of stress in their life. We have to make sure that they understand that if they take up smoking, they will shorten their life and cause damage to their health—and, indeed, to the health of the people around them.

I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely. Does he agree that there is an interrelationship between the issues to do with alcohol dependency that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned and the issue of smoking? One of the things that comes out from the book “Alcohol Reconsidered” by Lesley Miller and Catheryn Kell-Clarke is that the science shows that alcohol reduces people’s inhibitions, and it is therefore more likely that they will smoke. If we had a culture of moderation in alcohol, we would probably do better on smoking.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising that point. Clearly, the fact that people can no longer smoke in public houses or restaurants has dramatically reduced the incidence of smoking. Someone has to make a deliberate decision to go outside and inflict their smoke on the outside world rather than on the people in the public house or restaurant.

We who support these amendments tabled them in Committee—we sought Government support and we debated them in Committee—and now we are debating them on Report. I understand that we may not be successful tonight, but I give fair warning that these amendments, in another form, will be tabled in the other place, and we will see what happens. We know that there is very strong support in the other place for anti-tobacco legislation. In July 2021, the Lords passed by 254 votes to 224 a motion to regret that the Government had failed to make it a requirement that smoke-free pavement licences must be 100% smoke free. That is smoking in the open air; we are talking about measures to combat smoking overall.

Finally, if we look back over the years, the measures on smoking in public places, on smoking in vehicles, on smoking when children are present and on standardised packaging of tobacco products were all led from the Back Benches. Governments of all persuasions resisted them, for various reasons. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I know well, may resist these measures tonight, but we on the Back Benches who are determined to improve the health of this country will continue to press on with them, and we will win eventually. It may not be tonight, but those measures will come soon. I support the measures that are proposed.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who gave an eloquent speech about smoking. What he did not include, and what the Minister is not considering, is the mass passive smoking from air pollution, which causes 64,000 deaths a year. I know that I am in danger of being outside the scope of the Bill, but I will make this point just briefly, because it is about public health.

Indoor and outdoor air pollution is endemic. It costs £20 billion a year. We could simply ban wood-burning stoves, which 2.5 million people have and which contribute 38% of the PM_2.5 emissions in our atmosphere. That is particularly problematic in poorer areas. I make this point partly as I chair the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution, but this is a critical public health issue, so I feel that the Department of Health and Social Care should look at it centrally, rather than leaving it to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as an air quality issue.

I turn to the comments by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who sadly is not in his place, about free choice in advertising. Advertising is not about free choice; one would not need to advertise unless one was trying to convince somebody to do something they would not otherwise do. That is not to say that advertising is always bad—good things and bad things can be advertised—but let us be straightforward.

As it happens, I have a background in multinational marketing; I have been involved with PG Tips and Colgate toothpaste—good products. However, the reality is that if someone wanted to make money from a product such as a potato, which is intrinsically good for people, they could impregnate it with salt, sugar and fat, make it into the shape of a dinosaur, get a jingle and call it “Dennis’s Dinosaurs”, and make a lot of money out of that simple potato. That is the way a lot of processed foods work.

Going back to the point about diabetes and added sugar, it is important to remember that diabetes in Britain costs something like £10 billion a year. There is a compelling case for the Government to do more about added sugar, as opposed to natural sugar; obviously, we could discriminate between the two, though a lot of manufacturers will say, “Are you going to tax an apple?”. Clearly, when a child or adult can find a huge bar of chocolate in a shop for £1, we have problems, in terms of the amount of sugar we are supposed to have. Henry Dimbleby put forward a national food strategy, which is worth a read. He makes the key point that reducing the overall amount of money people have—for instance, through universal credit—has a major impact: we find that when universal credit goes down, consumption of alcohol and smoking go up.

It is important for the Department of Health and Social Care to have an idea of how the nutrition of particular natural foods can be increased through better farming. An app will be available next year that will enable people to test a carrot in their local shop. The carrot will have different levels of antioxidant, depending on how it is grown. If it is organic and not impregnated with all sorts of fertiliser and chemicals, it develops a natural resistance to pesticides and is much better for human health. The Government should, in this post-Brexit world, be actively encouraging local high-value, high-nutrition products for export and local consumption.

A whole range of public health measures that need to be moved forward are not in the strategy; but some are, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Harrow East.

I call Christian Wakeford. Do you wish to remain seated?

That is greatly appreciated, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I would like to put on record my support for amendments 11, 12 and 13, and new clauses 15 and 16. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). We have heard why he cannot be here; I wish him well with what is going on in his family.

These much-needed amendments and new clauses are aimed at reducing alcohol harm by introducing advertising restrictions, transparent alcohol labelling and support for effective alcohol treatment. Alcohol abuse leads to many harmful things, and deserves to be called the silent killer. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm, and the group has heard in our evidence sessions the stories of those affected by alcohol. It has the potential to destroy individuals, families and wider society. Alcohol has a very public face, but it harms privately. Hospital admissions and deaths from alcohol are at record levels, and have been exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic. Some 70 people die every day in the UK due to alcohol. Alcohol harm is a hidden health crisis that needs to be recognised.

The Bill does not go far enough to stem the rising tide of this issue. For instance, the Bill introduces restrictions on advertising for “less healthy” products, such as sugary soft drinks, but the same restrictions do not apply to adverts for alcoholic drinks, despite alcohol being linked to more than 200 health conditions, as well as having very high calorie and sugar content. There is significant evidence that children who are exposed to alcohol marketing will drink more earlier than they otherwise would. Existing laws are failing to protect children and vulnerable people. In fact, four in five 11 to 17-year-olds have seen alcohol advertising in the past month. The advertising they are exposed to builds alcoholic brand awareness and influences their perceptions of alcohol. A forthcoming report by Alcohol Health Alliance found that seven in 10 young people recognise the beer brand Guinness, including more than half of 11 to 12-year-olds. Amendments 11 to 13 would ensure that alcohol was considered a less healthy product and was therefore liable to the same proposed restrictions as sugary soft drinks when it comes to advertising on TV, on demand and online.

Awareness of the risks of alcohol is low: about 80% of people do not know the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines of 14 units a week; only 25% are aware that alcohol can cause breast cancer; and only 20% know the calories in a large glass of wine. I need only refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Six Nations championship earlier this year—you may have a slightly better recollection of it than I do. There was alcohol-related advertising on billboards around the stadiums. There were many billboards advertising alcoholic brands. There were also drink awareness campaigns, but they were not seen, due to where those advertisements were placed. People were seeing adverts for Guinness, but not for Guinness 0.0 or for drink awareness campaigns. This is something that the Government really need to look into.

I rise to support the amendments in my name: 110, 111, 112 and 113. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have a significant number of food and drink manufacturers in my constituency, and that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for food and drink manufacturing. I also support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and fully support and endorse their comments.

In reality, I and many others would have preferred clause 125 and the whole of schedule 16 to have been removed from the Bill. I and I think many others are not convinced that that is really the way forward or that it will achieve very much. That view is shared by many of my colleagues, but also by many in the advertising industry and the food and drink sector. That is not because they are against the Government’s attempts to respond to the challenge of obesity, which is and should be a concern for all of us, but because their impact is likely to be so insignificant that it is disproportionate to what is proposed. We should also remember that the industry has already done a huge amount. It is incredibly innovative—reformulation, reductions in salt and sugar—and the reductions we have already seen are very significant. The industry continues to make changes and I believe it will continue to do so in the future. We should also remember that there is something called personal responsibility.

There is an opportunity, however, for compromise and improvements to schedule 16—hence the various amendments that have been tabled. I very much hope that the Government will be willing to compromise in their approach and see the benefits of the amendments that stand in my hon. Friends’ names and mine. I do not intend to detain the House for long, because my amendments are primarily technical rather than anything greater.

I tabled amendments 111, 112 and 113 because I believe that we want a food and drink manufacturing sector that is competitive and is based in the UK as much as possible. As presently drafted, the Bill exempts certain businesses, but the criteria are based on UK employee numbers. Large multinational companies could therefore be exempt if the UK element of their business has under 250 employees; conversely, a UK business with 250-plus employees would not be exempt. That has the potential to be unfair in many respects to UK businesses from a competition perspective, and could lead them to divert manufacturing abroad. A simple solution would be to take account of turnover as well as staff numbers. I have suggested using the definition in section 465 of the Companies Act 2006, which I believe would deal with the situation.

Under the Bill, paid-for branded adverts for products that are high in fat, salt or sugar would be prevented on retailer-owned spaces, but retailers would still be able to advertise equivalent HFSS own-brand products. That could distort competition directly between retailers’ and manufacturers’ products. Amendment 110 would ensure a level playing field, which in my view would be much fairer.

I hope that the Government will be receptive to my amendments—if not now, via changes introduced in the other place. In anticipation of such a compromise, I do not intend to put them to the vote.

I am grateful for this evening’s debate. More than once during the passage of the Bill, I have put on the record the Government’s commitment to improving and protecting the public’s health and have paid tribute to the hard work and dedication of our NHS and public health professionals in rising to the greatest infectious disease challenge of modern times. I would again like to put on the record those important points, with which I know Opposition Front Benchers agree.

Our commitment to public health is clear in the Bill, in the proposals set out in the Government’s recently published plan for health and care, “Build Back Better”, and in our wider programme of public health reform. A focus on the prevention of avoidable diseases is a central principle in delivering a sustainable NHS and in levelling up health outcomes across the country.

Childhood obesity is one of the biggest health challenges that this nation faces. The latest data from the national childhood measurement programme revealed that approximately 40% of children leaving primary school in England were overweight or living with obesity.

The Minister is being generous in allowing interventions. Is the Bill silent on the challenge around prescriptions for exercise? In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the impact of school swimming. Unfortunately, we are going backwards: fewer 11-year-olds can swim 25 metres—that is just an example. On childhood obesity, we need to address both: not just diet, but exercise.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, with whom I worked in London local government many moons ago on issues not dissimilar to those that we are debating. The Bill focuses on diet and the obesity that it causes, but she is right to highlight that exercise and a healthy lifestyle also play a key role in tackling obesity. We do not believe that the Bill is the right place to put that role into legislation, but I join in the sentiment underpinning what the hon. Lady says. Schools, local authorities and health bodies need to consider the issue in the round.

Nearly two thirds of adults—64%—are also overweight or living with obesity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for gently tempting me to respond to his points about the nanny state, but I would argue that it is not being a nanny state to look out for the health of our citizens. Yes, it is about giving advice and giving people the information to make informed judgments, but it is also about putting in place a proportionate framework in legislation.

As with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, particularly her concluding comments, but I listened carefully to her comments about seatbelts. She said that she, as a clinician, saw the impact that legislation on that public health and public safety measure had on reducing injuries.

Does the Minister agree that the industry itself is doing an awful lot now to support the Government’s agenda? Does he also acknowledge that personal responsibility is very important?

I wondered what I was about to have bowled at me there, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I entirely agree that a huge amount of progress has been made; we believe that we need to go further with our proposals, but he is right to highlight that progress. He is also right to highlight the relevance of the central role of personal responsibility and the decisions that we and our families all take.

To meet the ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030, it is imperative that we reduce children’s exposure to less healthy food and drink product advertising on TV and online. We want to ensure that the media our children engage with the most promote a healthy diet. The Bill therefore contains provisions to restrict the advertising of less healthy food and drink products on TV, in on-demand programme services and online.

The Minister has just mentioned seatbelts, and earlier he talked about alcohol and cigarette smoking, but this is about porridge and muesli. There is a sense that there is no end to what the Department of Health and Social Care feels is its responsibility to legislate on for what people should be able to do for themselves and their family. My point is that this is overreach by the state, as well as perhaps being the incorrect process for achieving the Government’s aims.

I know my hon. Friend well and entirely understand the perspective that he brings, but I would argue as a counterpoint that the Bill strikes a proportionate balance, in the same vein as with seatbelts and other issues. Alongside personal choice and giving people the information to make choices, I believe that it is a proportionate and balanced approach—not the thin end of the wedge, as he might suggest, although perhaps I am characterising his words unfairly.

Will the Minister give way?

May I make a little more progress? I have more to say on obesity, so my right hon. Friend should not worry.

We held two consultations, the first in 2019 and the second in 2020, which have informed our policy on introducing further restrictions to the advertising of less healthy food and drink products. I welcome the devolved Administrations’ engagement and support for the policy, which is being brought forward UK-wide. The UK Government have engaged with them extensively on the matter since early 2021; I put on the record my gratitude for the spirit in which they have approached it.

I happen to agree that there is a question of proportionality on the alleged nanny state issues, but does my hon. Friend agree that where an issue is contentious—such as the fluoridation of water supplies, which has been contentious over many years in this House—it should be properly debated before the state takes control of it, not just tucked away at the end of a very long Bill? That causes me concern.

I take my right hon. Friend’s point, but I would argue that we are placing the matter before the House in a Bill that has been debated and has gone through its stages, including one of the longest Committee stages of a Bill in my time in this House. There is, or was, the opportunity for Members to table amendments on Report on the aspect that he mentions, and I suspect that it will be extensively debated in the other place as well. I take his point, but I would argue that we have provided sufficient time and have brought the issue to the House in that way.

Would the Minister be as surprised as I was to know that quite a lot of Members of this House are completely unaware that that provision has been added at the end of the Bill?

All I would say—without in any way implying any criticism of right hon. or hon. Members—is that soon after I entered the House I was a member of the Procedure Committee for a year, and one of the first pieces of advice I was given was to read the legislation and go through it in its entirety. I recognise that this is a long and complex piece of legislation, but I would make that point.

Telecommunications and internet services are reserved matters. The UK Government are clear about the fact that the primary purpose of provisions on the advertising of less-healthy food and drink for TV and internet services is to regulate content on reserved media, and on that basis the policy is reserved. The purpose is not incidental. Therefore, the provisions do not fall within the competence of the devolved legislatures or engage the legislative consent process. While the Scottish and Welsh Governments have agreed with our policy ambitions, they disagree with our legal assessment, and thus far we have had to agree to disagree on this matter, but we have had extensive engagement, and I suspect that we will continue to do so. I see that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is in her place, and while she is present I would like to thank both Governments for their engagement and offer my assurances that it will continue as we implement the policy for the benefit of citizens across the UK.

It was my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire who inspired my intervention. I just want the Government to make it clear that they are not contributing to a strange paradox which seems to prevail in modern society, that of being simultaneously more puritanical and more prurient. We are prurient in that we let the tech giants corrupt our children in all kinds of ways, and puritanical in that we are censorious about the jokes people tell, the language they use, and how much ice cream—or indeed Christmas cake—they eat.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It has been a while since he intervened while I was at the Dispatch Box, so this has been a pleasure. I have never seen him as in any way a puritan; I suspect that he is rather more a cavalier in his approach to life.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire has also tabled amendments to schedule 16 which would insert in the Bill an exemption from the advertising restrictions for brand advertising. I am grateful to him, but I can reassure him that the Bill already delivers that exemption, and I therefore believe that his amendments are not necessary to achieve the effect that he seeks. We made that clear in the consultation response published in June this year, and in speeches made in Committee.

My hon. Friend has also tabled new clause 14. As I am sure he and other Members are aware, the Government consulted on different approaches for restricting online advertising in 2019, and considered alternatives submitted through the consultation process. However, it was felt that the alternatives, including the proposal from the Committee of Advertising Practice to use a self-regulatory mechanism based on targeting, were sufficiently similar to the policy options previously consulted on. These were not sufficient to meet the objective of the policy, namely to protect children from advertisements for less-healthy food and drink.

Does the Minister accept that there is a significant inconsistency between the approach to television broadcasters and the approach to those who use social media and online provision, and that a consistent approach would help? Does he also accept that a considerable array of views has been expressed by those seeking to help him to develop the Bill in a positive way, and will he maintain an open mind as it passes through the other place to establish whether it can be refined to achieve some of these objectives?

I hope I can reassure my right hon. Friend, and other Members, that I always seek to maintain an open mind, and always seek to reflect carefully on the contributions made by Members. I will turn shortly to the challenges posed by television, which is essentially a linear broadcasting medium, in comparison with those posed by online broadcasting. I am conscious that I must conclude my speech before 7 pm.

There is evidence to suggest that the targeting of online adverts does not account for the use of shared devices and profiles between parents and children, the communal viewing of content or false reporting of children’s ages. This, combined with concerns about the accuracy of interest-based targeting and other behavioural data as a way of guessing a user’s age and a lack of transparency and reporting data online, shows why the Government believe that we need to introduce strong advertising restrictions online. Any alternative proposals would therefore need to meet a high bar in terms of protecting children online, and we consider alternatives that rely on a targeting approach to be—currently—potentially insufficient to meet the policy objectives.

Amendments 106 to 109 are relevant to the point that my right hon. Friend has just made. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for raising these matters. His amendments mean that liability for online advertisements found to be in breach of the restrictions included in the Bill would shift to become the responsibility of the platforms rather than the advertisers, which some may see as providing parity with the enforcement mechanisms for broadcast television.

During the 2020 consultation, we considered whether other actors in the online advertising sphere should have responsibility for breaches, alongside those of advertisers. However, we concluded that this was not the right place to consider that broader issue.

The online advertising ecosystem is complex and dynamic. The scale and speed of advertising online, as well as the personalised nature of advertising and the lack of transparency in this system, makes it difficult for platforms to have control over what is placed on them. The approach that we are taking in the Bill best aligns with the current enforcement frameworks across TV, online and on-demand programme services advertising, and is familiar to industry. It will ensure that there is limited confusion for broadcasters, platforms or advertisers, as the liable parties for less-healthy food and drink product advertising breaches will be the same as those for any other advertising breaches. The Government intend to consider this issue as part of the wider online advertising programme, on which the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will consult in the coming months.

I am grateful to the Minister for that commitment to consider the points in my amendments, and with that commitment in place, I will not seek to push them to vote. However, may I ask him, as he makes these considerations along with colleagues in the DCMS, to ensure that broadcasters are fully consulted so that they can point out the loopholes that any online provisions could throw up?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s confirmation that he does not intend to press his amendments to a Division, and I will ensure that his point will be heard not only in the Department of Health and Social Care but in DCMS as well.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for his amendments 111 to 113 and for bringing this debate before the House. I would like to reassure him that small and medium-sized enterprises—businesses with 249 employees or fewer—that pay to advertise less healthy food and drink products that they manufacture and/or sell will be exempt from the less healthy food and drink restrictions and can continue to advertise. The definition of SMEs will be provided in secondary legislation and not on the face of the Bill, which will enable Ministers to act promptly in future years if new or emerging evidence suggests that amendments are needed. We will conduct a short consultation as soon as possible on the SME definition to be included in the draft regulations. The Government want to ensure consistency with other definitions for size of business that have been used for other obesity policies, such as the out-of-home calorie labelling policy, to create a level playing field. Our preferred definition, therefore, is a standard definition used by Government across other policies.

On the point about an industry-led alternative, on which the Minister has kindly made some comments today, I think that this discussion will continue, particularly when the Bill is considered in the other place, so would he be prepared to meet me so that I can continue to make representations about certain improvements that could be made?

I am certainly happy to commit that either I, as the Bill Minister, or the relevant policy Minister will meet my hon. Friend to discuss his views in this space.

Amendment 110 would ensure that advertisements placed on distributor or retailer websites are out of scope of the less healthy food and drink advertising restrictions. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle for tabling the amendment, and I would seek to reassure him that the Government’s intention is to ensure that restrictions are proportionate to the scale of the problem. It is not our intention to prohibit the sale of less healthy food and drink products on the internet. Our aim is to reduce children’s exposure to advertisements of less healthy food and drink products, which is why the restrictions are being applied only to paid-for advertising online—namely, where an advertiser pays by monetary or other reciprocal means for the placement of adverts online.

We appreciate that there will be consumers who seek less healthy food and drink products, which is why this restriction applies only to paid-for advertising, and companies will be able to continue to use owned media in the same way as they do now. The restrictions will not apply to spaces online where full editorial control and ownership apply, such as a brand’s own blog, website or social media page. This means that retailers are able to continue promoting their own products on their own website, as this would not be covered by the restrictions.

I shall turn briefly to Government amendments 32, 35 and 37, tabled in the name of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Amendments 32 and 35 will amend the definition of an advertisement placed on television and on-demand programme services to ensure that sponsorship credits around programmes and sponsorship announcements respectively are included for the purpose of this Bill. Members will be aware that sponsorship announcements and sponsorship credits are required so that viewers know which product is sponsoring any particular programme. Although these are not routinely considered to be advertisements in other contexts, the Government’s view is that they could reasonably be considered to be advertising less healthy food and drink products for the purposes of the Bill’s restrictions.

Amendments 32 and 35 will therefore clarify the status of those announcements, in effect to prohibit identifiable less healthy food and drink products from sponsoring programmes before the watershed, in line with the Government’s original policy aims. Amendment 37, meanwhile, will make it clear that UK businesses producing online advertisements intended to be accessed principally by audiences outside the UK fall in scope of the exemption and will not be in breach of the less healthy food and drink advertising restrictions set out in the Bill. This amendment is needed to ensure that the legislation aligns with the Government’s policy intention to exempt advertisements made to be viewed outside the UK. We are confident that the likely frontline regulator already has a clear remit and tests in place that should allow it to apply this exemption effectively.

I reiterate the comment I made earlier that the best way to treat alcohol addiction and dependency is to treat it like a mental health illness, because that is what it is. The best way to do that is to remove the stigma and put more money into mental health, but in trying to overcome the stigma, we need to ensure that there is parity between mental and physical health. If we treat the mental health issue, we treat the alcohol issue. We cannot do one without the other. Will the Minister commit today to going some way towards doing that and to putting more money into mental health to deal with this?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that this Government have continued not only to highlight and promote parity of esteem between mental and physical health but to increase the funding available to mental health, reflecting that reality on the ground. He is right to highlight that issue.

We have announced a comprehensive set of reforms to alcohol duty in this year’s Budget which, taken with the steps we have put in place on a public health basis, have put in place a strong regime to tackle the consequences of alcohol misuse. We do not feel that this Bill is the place to legislate further on this issue but, as I have said, I am none the less grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for his amendments and for this opportunity to debate them.

On amendments 11, 12 and 13, this Bill would introduce a 9 pm TV watershed for less healthy food and drink products and a restriction on paid-for advertising of less healthy food and drink online. Those amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, would expand the definition of a less healthy product to include alcohol. This would have the effect of making alcohol advertising liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services and the online restriction on paid-for advertising.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman, through Opposition Members, that the Government have existing measures in place to protect children and young people from alcohol advertising through the alcohol advertising code. Material in the broadcast code and the non-broadcast code relating to the advertising and marketing of alcohol products is already robust, recognising the social imperative of ensuring that alcohol advertising is responsible and, in particular, that children and young people are suitably protected. If new evidence emerges that clearly highlights major problems with the existing codes, the Advertising Standards Authority has a duty to revisit the codes and take appropriate action. Furthermore, the Government introduced additional restrictions last year on alcohol advertising on on-demand programme services, through amendments to the Communications Act 2003.

Clause 129 and schedule 16 are aimed at reducing the exposure of children to less healthy food and drink advertising and the impact of such advertising on child obesity. Less healthy food and drink products—

Will the Minister give way?

I fear that I have only a few minutes left, and I have already taken a number of interventions on this. I want to conclude by covering the tobacco amendments as well, which I know that some colleagues are keen to see a response to. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Less healthy food and drink products are not age restricted at the point of purchase, unlike alcohol. Finally, the 2019 and 2020 consultations on advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink did not consult on alcohol within the restrictions, either online or on TV, so we cannot be sure of the impact these amendments would have on the industry more broadly.

Turning to tobacco in the time I have left, because I know the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) , has taken a close interest in the issue, I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who have tabled a number of amendments that seek to address the harm caused by smoking in this country. I reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham of the Government’s commitment to becoming smoke free by 2030.

We have successfully introduced many regulatory reforms over the past two decades, and the UK is a global leader in tobacco control. Our reforms include raising the age of sale from 16 to 18, the introduction of a tobacco display ban, standardised packaging and a ban on smoking in cars with children, which all place important barriers between young people and tobacco products. The Government are currently developing our new tobacco control plan, and I reassure the hon. Lady that that will reflect carefully on the APPG’s findings and report.

I am afraid I cannot be tempted to go further than the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), did in the recent Westminster Hall debate on this question, but I can reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham that we remain committed to bringing forward the tobacco control plan.

Forgive me; I only have a few minutes and I want to cover the amendments from the hon. Member for City of Durham. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) did manage dexterously to shoehorn air quality more broadly within the scope of these debates, and what he said will have been heard.

New clause 2, which seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of State to impose a requirement for tobacco manufacturers

“to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers”,

is intended, as I understand from the hon. Member for City of Durham, to further strengthen our current public health messaging and encourage smokers to quit. We strongly support measures to stop people smoking, to make smoking less attractive to young people and to educate smokers of its dangers, as we have done through graphic warnings on cigarette packs.

We would need to conduct further research and build a further robust evidence base in support of any such additional measures before bringing them forward. To date, no country has introduced such a measure, so there is currently limited evidence of its impact in supporting smokers to quit. If evidence showed that the requirement would not be effective, it would not be an appropriate power to have in place.

New clause 3, also tabled by the hon. Lady, seeks to provide a power for the Secretary of State to introduce a requirement for manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services into cigarette packaging. As I set out in Committee, we believe this power is unnecessary, since the Department could legislate to do that already under the Children and Families Act 2014; inserts could be required for public health messaging through amendments to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. We already have in place strong graphic images and warnings of the health harms of smoking on the outside of cigarette packs. As part of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, the address for the NHS website, which provides advice for people seeking to quit smoking, is also required on packaging.

The current SPoT regulations prohibit the use of inserts, as there was limited evidence that placing public health messaging inserts inside cigarette packages was more effective than messaging on the outside of packs. Further research would need to be undertaken to help to establish the public health benefit if we were to go further.

Turning briefly to new clause 4, I am grateful again to the hon. Lady for tabling this clause. The Government are clear that they only support the use of e-cigarettes as a tool for smokers who are trying to quit, and we strongly discourage non-smokers and young people from using them. We are committed to ensuring that our regulatory framework continues to protect young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes.

Current regulations include requirements on the packaging and labelling of e-cigarettes, along with restrictions on their marketing and the prohibiting of advertising on mainstream media such as TV and radio. While we strongly support measures to protect young people further from cigarettes, we believe the current regime remains appropriate and has the powers in place within it to make changes where required, although I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East may yet be proved right when he suggests that the other place may return to this at some point.

I have outlined the many steps this Government are taking to address some of the major lifestyle challenges to our health. The Bill represents another step in the direction of preventive healthcare and building a healthier society, an aim I know we all share. I hope the House will support the amendments we have tabled at this stage to strengthen those measures.

I also want to update the House at this point, in the context of the importance of an integrated approach and how it can improve public health measures, on two steps the Secretary of State has taken today that will put NHS staff and technology at the heart of our long-term planning and allow us to take forward the integrated approach that has proved so vital during this pandemic and is so vital to public health.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid I will not. I suspect that point will be pertinent to the debate on the first group of amendments tomorrow.

First, we intend to merge Health Education England with NHS England and NHS Improvement, putting education and training of our health workforce at the forefront of the NHS. By bringing this vital function inside the NHS, we can plan more effectively for the long term and have clear accountability for delivery.

Secondly, we also intend to take forward the recommendations of the Wade-Gery report, which included merging NHSX and NHS Digital with NHS England and NHS Improvement, building on the huge progress made on digital transformation during the pandemic and bringing together the digital leadership of the NHS in one place. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our colleagues at Health Education England, NHS Digital and NHSX for their exceptional work. These changes build on that contribution and allow us to drive forward further integration and changes that will put the NHS on a firmer footing.

I hope I have reassured hon. Members of the Government’s commitment to improving public health. I urge those who have tabled amendments to consider not pressing them to a Division.

I have listened carefully to the debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Packaging and labelling of nicotine products

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”—(Mary Kelly Foy.)

This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 33—Support provided by the NHS to victims of domestic abuse—

“(1) Each Integrated Care Board must—

(a) assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for support for victims of domestic abuse using their services;

(b) prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of such support in its area;

(c) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy;

(d) designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead; and

(e) publish an annual report on how it has discharged its duties relating to the provision of services to victims of domestic violence under the Care Act 2014.

(2) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section must, in carrying out its functions, give effect to the strategy.

(3) Before publishing a strategy under this section, an Integrated Care Board must consult—

(a) any local authority for an area within the relevant Integrated Care Board’s area;

(b) the domestic abuse local partnership board appointed by the local authority for an area within the relevant clinical commissioning group’s area under section 58 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and

(c) such other persons as the relevant local authority considers appropriate.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘local authority’ means—

(a) a county council or district council in England; or

(b) a London borough council.

(5) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section—

(a) must keep the strategy under review;

(b) may alter or replace the strategy; and

(c) must publish any altered or replacement strategy.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the preparation and publication of strategies under this section.

(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may, in particular, be exercised to make provision about—

(a) the procedure to be followed by an Integrated Care Board in preparing a strategy;

(b) matters to which an Integrated Care Board must have regard in preparing a strategy;

(c) how an Integrated Care Board must publish a strategy;

(d) the date by which an Integrated Care Board must first publish a strategy; and

(e) the frequency with which an Integrated Care Board must review its strategy or any effect of the strategy on the provision of other provision in its area.

(8) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) all Integrated Care Boards; and

(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would require Integrated Care Boards to publish a strategy for the provision of support for victims of domestic abuse using their services and designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead.

New clause 55—Guidance for babies, children and young people—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs of babies, children and young people aged 0-25.

(2) Integrated care systems must act in accordance with the guidance in subsection (1).”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs of babies, children and young people aged 0-25 and would require integrated care systems to act in accordance with the guidance.

New clause 57—NHS England’s duty as to reducing inequalities—

“Section 13G of the National Health Service Act (duty as to reducing inequalities), is amended by the addition of the following subsections—

‘(2) NHS England must publish guidance about the collection, analysis, reporting and publication of performance data by relevant NHS bodies with respect to factors or indicators relevant to health inequalities.

(3) Relevant NHS bodies must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under this section.

(4) In this section “relevant NHS bodies” means—

(a) NHS England,

(b) integrated care boards,

(c) integrated care partnerships established under section 116ZA of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007,

(d) NHS trusts established under section 25, and

(e) NHS foundation trusts.’”

Amendment 47, in clause 6,  page 4, line 11, at end insert—

“(5) In paragraph 1(a) ‘relevant public body’ means a public authority listed under the title ‘Health, social care and social security’ in Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 or an NHS Trust.”

This amendment provides that NHS England resources for supporting or assisting organisations that are providing or planning to provide health services may only be directed to public sector bodies.

Amendment 58, in clause 12, page 8, line 6, at end insert—

“(2) An integrated care board may not—

(a) delegate that function; and

(b) exercise that function to enter into an integrated care provider contract with any body other than a statutory NHS body.

(3) In paragraph (2)(b) an ‘integrated care provider contract’ has the same meaning as in Schedule 3A of the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2015.”

This amendment is designed to ensure that an organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf is a statutory NHS body.

Amendment 59, page 12, line 29 at end insert—

“(3A) Nothing in——

(a) the rules referred to in subsection (1),

(b) this Act, or

(c) any regulations made under this Act

(none) shall entitle any provider of health services to withhold provision of those services from any individual on the basis of the integrated care board to which that individual has been allocated.”

This amendment is to ensure that any providers of health services cannot withhold provision of those services from any individual because of the integrated care board that they have been allocated to.

Amendment 66, in clause 15, page 13, line 44, at end insert—

“(j) palliative care services.”

This amendment adds a requirement for the commissioning of palliative and end of life care services.

Amendment 21, page 14, line 43, at end insert—

“3AA Duty of integrated care boards to commission approved treatments

‘(1) This section applies where—

(a) a treatment has been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and

(b) an integrated care board has not arranged for the provision of that treatment under section 3 or 3A of this Act, and

(c) a clinician has recommended that treatment for a person for whom that integrated care board has responsibility.

(2) The integrated care board referred to in subsection (1) must arrange for the provision of that treatment to the person for whom it has responsibility.

(3) In subsection (1) “clinician” means a medical professional employed by or acting on behalf of an NHS Trust, NHS Foundation Trust or primary care service from whom the integrated care board has arranged for the provision of services.’”

This amendment would require an integrated care board to arrange for the provision of a NICE-approved treatment to any patient whose NHS clinician has recommended it, even if that treatment is not otherwise available to patients in that ICB area.

Amendment 48, in clause 19,  page 16, line 6, leave out “promotes” and insert

“secures the rights set out in”.

This amendment requires ICBs to act to ensure that health services are provided in a way which secures the rights set out in the NHS Constitution.

Amendment 99, page 16, line 34, at end insert—

“(2) In fulfilling their duties under this section, integrated care boards must have particular regard to the need to reduce inequalities between migrant and non-migrant users of health services.”

Amendment 49, page 16, line 37, leave out “promote” and insert “enable”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 50 provides that ICBs enable the involvement of patients, their paid and unpaid carers, and their representatives in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of illness, care or treatment, rather than promoting their involvement.

Amendment 50, page 16, line 37, after “their”, insert “paid and unpaid”.

This amendment, together with the Amendment 49, provides that ICBs enable the involvement of patients, their paid and unpaid carers, and their representatives in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of illness, care or treatment.

Amendment 22, page 17, line 4, at end insert—

“14Z37A Obligation on integrated care boards to ensure appropriate uptake of all NICE approved products according to population need

‘(1) Each integrated care board must promote uptake of all NICE approved medicines and medical devices in accordance with the need of the population it serves.

(2) An integrated care board must, in each financial year, prepare a report on the uptake of all NICE approved medicines and medical devices, including the number of patients that have accessed each product.’”

This amendment would require ICBs to ensure that all NICE approvals are available and promoted to their population, and report on this uptake annually.

Amendment 19, page 17, line 14, at end insert—

“14Z39A Duty to review latest innovations with a view to local commissioning

(1) Integrated care boards must review all new—

(a) medicines,

(b) medical devices, and

(c) other health care solutions that may benefit the local population.

(2) Integrated care boards must—

(d) appoint a dedicated innovation officer to their board, and

(e) develop and maintain a system to keep up to date with medicines and devices innovation and review suitability for patient usage, including engagement with the relevant—

(i) academic health science network, and

(ii) local pharmaceutical committee.”

This amendment would mandate integrated care boards to monitor and assess innovation for the benefit of the local population.

Amendment 16, page 17, line 19, at end insert—

“(2) Each integrated care board must each year prepare, consult on and adopt a research strategy for patient benefit which—

(a) meets local need;

(b) meets national research undertakings.

(3) In developing a strategy under subsection (2), an integrated care board must engage with—

(a) the National Institute for Health Research,

(b) academic health science networks, and

(c) all other relevant regional and national health research organisations.”

This amendment would require ICBs to establish a research strategy and other connected measures.

Amendment 91, page 18, line 18, after first “the” insert “physical and mental”.

This amendment will require Integrated Care Boards to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness replicating the parity of esteem duty as introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Amendment 92, page 18, line 23, after first “of” insert “physical and mental”.

This amendment will require Integrated Care Boards to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness replicating the parity of esteem duty as introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Amendment 68, page 18, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) health inequalities.”

This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require integrated care boards to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.

Amendment 17, page 18, line 38, at end insert—

“14Z43A Duty on integrated care boards to consider requests to engage in clinical trials, and patient participation

(1) An integrated care board must consider any request from the organiser of an authorised clinical trial for the ICB to engage in that trial.

(2) If such a request is accepted, the integrated care board must offer the ability to participate in the trial to any patient within their area who is eligible to take part.”

This amendment would require integrated care boards to consider any requests to engage in clinical trials and offer patients the opportunity to participate.

Amendment 20, page 18, line 38, at end insert—

“14Z43A Duty to update formularies to include all NICE-approved products

(1) Within 28 days of any medicine or device receiving market authorisation from NICE, an integrated care board must update its formulary to include that medicine or device.

(2) On receipt of notice of the market authorisation by NICE of any medicine or device, an integrated care board must immediately instruct providers of health and care services commissioned by the board to update their formularies in such a way that all NICE-approved medicines and devices are available to patients on the recommendation of a healthcare practitioner within 28 days of market authorisation.

(3) An integrated care board must report annually all medicines and devices that have been added and removed from their formulary over the previous year.”

This amendment would mandate integrated care boards and healthcare providers (e.g. hospital trusts) to update their formularies to include all NICE-approved medicines or devices within 28 days of market authorisation to ensure they are available for healthcare practitioners (e.g. physician or prescribing pharmacist) to make available for suitable patients.

Amendment 102, page 21, line 25, at end insert—

“(c) set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).”

This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners to set out any steps it proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).

Amendment 51, page 22, line 23, leave out

“in a way that they consider to be significant.”

This amendment requires ICBs and partner NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts to consult on all revisions to their forward plans.

Amendment 52, page 23, line 42, at end add “on its website”.

This amendment is to require capital resource use plans to be made publicly available on the internet.

Amendment 53, page 24, line 22, leave out

“in a way that they consider to be significant”.

The purpose of this amendment is to require all revisions of capital resource use plans to be published.

Amendment 18, page 25, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) explain what research activity it undertook during the year, including

(i) research to meet local health issues, and

(ii) research to support national research projects.

‘(2A) The annual report prepared by the Secretary of State under section 247D of this Act must include a section which reproduces, and comments on, the sections of the annual reports of each integrated care board prepared under paragraph (1)(d).’”

This amendment would require integrated care boards to publish an account of their research activity, and require the report the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament under section 247D of the National Health Service Act 2006 to include a section which reproduces, and comments on, the research activity of all ICBs.

Amendment 23, page 25, line 14, at end insert—

“14Z56A Report on assessing and meeting parity of physical and mental health outcomes

(1) An integrated care board must annually set out in a report the steps it has taken to fulfil its obligations to deliver parity of esteem between physical and mental health to its local population.

‘(1) The report must set out—

(a) the number of patients presenting with mental health conditions,

(b) the number of patients presenting with physical health conditions,

(c) the number of mental health patients waiting for initial assessment,

(d) the number of physical health patients waiting for initial assessment,

(e) the number of mental health patients waiting for treatment,

(f) the number of physical health patients waiting for treatment,

(g) the number of mental health patients receiving treatment,

(h) the number of physical health patients receiving treatment,

(i) the number of patients readmitted to mental healthcare settings, and

(j) the number of patients readmitted to physical healthcare settings.

(2) The report must set out performance against nationally set standards in both physical and mental health.

(3) Each year the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a consolidated report of all the reports made by integrated care boards under this section, and make a statement to each House of Parliament on the report.’”

This amendment would require an ICB to report on assessing and meeting parity of physical and mental health outcomes.

Amendment 15, in clause 20,  page 29, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about representation of particular health, social care, and local interests, clinical fields, and types of health or care provision in the membership of integrated care partnerships.”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make provision about the membership of integrated care partnerships.

Amendment 100, page 29, line 22, at end insert—

“(4) A member of the Integrated Care Partnership may not work for, be the representative of or hold financial interest in any private company delivering or seeking to deliver health and care services or services supporting the health and care sector or producing or seeking to produce health and care products, with the exception of general practitioners.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that Integrated Care Partnerships are made up wholly of representatives from public sector organisations and that private companies are not represented on them.

Amendment 1, page 29, line 45, at end insert—

“(c) fully integrate the promotion of everyday wellbeing, self-care for minor ailments and the management of long-term conditions into local health systems.”

This amendment would ensure that everyday wellbeing, self-care for minor ailment and management of long term conditions are integrated and promoted into local health systems.

Amendment 2, page 30, line 3, after “services” insert

“including services provided by pharmacists for minor ailments”.

This amendment would ensure that integrated care partnerships include in a strategy its views on how health-related services, including provision for self-treatable conditions, are integrated into health and social care services in that area.

Amendment 69, in clause 23,  page 35, line 32, at end insert—

“(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the means by which an integrated care board, NHS trust or NHS foundation trust which believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety may object to the limit set.”

Amendment 114, in clause 25,  page 37, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) The priorities set by the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) must include priorities relating to leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of services.”

The Secretary of State has the function of setting priorities for the Care Quality Commission in carrying out assessments in relation to integrated care systems. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set priorities relating to certain matters.

Amendment 61, in clause 64, page 59, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 28.

This amendment is to ensure that a commissioner cannot also be a provider.

Amendment 62, in clause 69, page 63, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment makes it a requirement that regulations make provision in relation to the procurement by relevant authorities of (a) health care services for the purposes of the health service in England, and (b) other goods or services that are procured together with those health care services.

Amendment 63, page 63, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment makes it a requirement that regulations make provision in relation to (a) general objectives of procurement, and (b) procurement processes.

Amendment 64, page 63, line 39, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment along with Amendment 65 makes it a requirement that regulations make provision for the purposes of (a) ensuring transparency and fairness in relation to procurement, and (b) ensuring that compliance can be verified, or managing conflicts of interest.

Amendment 65, page 63, line 41, leave out “or” and insert “and”.

This amendment is to make it a requirement for regulations to make provision to ensure both transparency and fairness in relation to procurement.

Amendment 9, page 64, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations must provide that—

(a) there is a presumption—

(i) in favour of contracts being awarded to NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, and

(ii) that integrated care provider contracts will not be awarded to a body other than to an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust, except for under the provisions of paragraph (b);

(b) if an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust does not consider that it is able, or does not wish, to provide certain services under a contract, it must publish its reasons;

(c) if paragraph (b) applies, the integrated care board must consult the public if it proposes to award any contract for those services to any body other than an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust;

(d) a consultation under paragraph (c) must—

(i) set out the responses of the integrated care provider to the reasons given by the NHS trust or NHS foundation trust under paragraph (b),

(ii) specify the proposed parties to and the full terms and conditions of the proposed contract, and

(iii) specify that the terms and conditions for staff under the proposed contract must be at least equivalent to NHS terms and conditions.”

This amendment would make NHS trusts and foundation trusts the default providers of NHS services.

Amendment 72, page 64, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations must make provision in relation to the procurement of the services referred to in paragraph (1)(a) (other than primary medical services, primary dental services and primary ophthalmology services) that before any contract for a service with an annual value in excess of £5m may be awarded to an organisation that is not an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust—

(a) the business case for the award of the contract must be published;

(b) any responses to the proposal in the business case must be considered and published;

(c) the process for awarding the contract must be open and transparent and non-discriminatory at every stage, including (but not limited to)—

(i) procurement strategy and plan,

(ii) invitation to tender,

(iii) responses to invitations,

(iv) evaluation of tenders,

(v) decision to award, and

(vi) contract awarded;

(d) the process for awarding the contract must demonstrate due regard to the principles established in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (S.I.2015/102) or any regulations which may supersede them;

(e) in any case where it is claimed that an emergency justifies an award without the process being used then the responsible body must within 14 days publish the business case for the award of the contract and the record of the decision.”

Amendment 101, in schedule 2,  page 125, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) Members of an Integrated Care Board may not work for, be the representative of or hold financial interest in any private company delivering or seeking to deliver health and care services or services supporting the health and care sector or producing or seeking to produce health and care products, with the exception of general practitioners.”

This amendment 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 ICBs.

Government amendments 25 to 28.

Amendment 76, page 126, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) at least one member nominated by the mental health trust or trusts that provide mental health services within the integrated care board’s area;

(e) at least one member nominated by the Directors of Public Health that serve each local authority within the integrated care board’s area;

(f) at least one member nominated jointly by any NHS trust, NHS foundation trust and local authority that provides social care services within the integrated care board’s area;

(g) at least one member nominated by the trade unions representing the health and social care workforce that serves the integrated care board’s area;

(h) at least one member appointed to represent the voice of patients and carers in the integrated care board’s area.”

Amendment 77, page 126, line 26, at end insert—

“(2A) The constitution must prohibit representatives of GP practices with active Alternative Provider Medical Services contracts from becoming members.”

This amendment would mean that the only GPs able to participate in Integrated Care Boards would be those whose practices are on the standard General Medical Services (GMS) contract.

Amendment 78, page 126, line 26, at end insert—

“(2A) Representatives of private providers of healthcare services, other than general practitioners who hold a contract for the provision of primary medical services in the area, may not be appointed to NHS decision-making boards, integrated care boards, or any place-based committee or sub-committee of the boards.”

Amendment 81, in schedule 2,  page 130, line 14, at end insert—

“(7) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility and receive the income related to that agreement.

(8) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any proposed Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility.”

This amendment would enable integrated care boards to participate in existing and future LIFT schemes and to receive the income that would come to the local area from the local investment in such schemes.

Amendment 79, in schedule 3,  page 132, line 28, leave out “person” and insert

“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.

This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.

Amendment 80, page 132, line 32, leave out “person” and insert

“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.

This amendment would prevent NHS England from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.

Government amendments 29 and 30.

New clause 49 has attracted a slightly fuller House than my previous speech did. This additional clause relates to the cap on care costs for charging purposes.

On 7 September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the bold step of publishing “Build Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Adult Social Care”. Successive Governments over decades have failed to tackle the reform of social care. This Government are delivering a package—package is the key—of reforms that will not only tackle the wider challenges faced by the adult social care system but reform how social care is funded to ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live or their level of assets, is protected from catastrophic costs. Let me remove all doubt on this issue: no one will lose from these reforms, compared with the system we have now, and the overwhelming majority will win.

Underpinning the reforms set out in the plan is an additional £5.4 billion over the next three years. That funding will end wholly unpredictable care costs and include at least £500 million to support the adult social care workforce. The reforms will make a real difference to the frontline of adult social care, including care users and the dedicated care workforce who have performed heroics throughout the pandemic. A crucial element of the reforms in the plan are the proposals to reform the existing social care charging rules.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I am glad to hear him assert that no one will lose out and most people will win. Will he publish an impact assessment that will allow us to look at the detailed figures? As he will be aware, there is much commentary about the distribution of the possible losses, which seems to me to be an extremely important and sensitive issue for the Government to address.

My right hon. Friend has long taken a close interest in this issue. In a moment, I will come to some of the figures and changes; I hear what he says about giving the House and the other place the information that they need and the aim is to do exactly that.

I will make a little progress and then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).

Currently, one in seven adults over 65 faces care costs of more than £100,000 over their lifetime. We are capping the amount that anyone will be forced to spend on personal care costs in their lifetime at £86,000. That is a seismic and historic change in the way we pay for care in England.

The Government deserve credit for grasping this nettle, which has evaded Governments of both parties for too long, but he must understand that there is a real cause on the Government Benches in respect of the distribution of the relative losses and the worry that those who are less well off will be hit hardest by the Government’s new clause. Will he address that issue?

I understand where my hon. Friend and Members from both sides of the House are coming from. This is the first major step forward in the reform of social care that we have seen in decades and must be seen as part of an overall package of changes.

I would like to make a little progress, if I may.

The reforms will make the existing means test far more generous. We are increasing the upper capital limit from £23,250 to £100,000, which will make masses of people with moderate assets eligible for some state support towards the cost of care earlier, and the lower capital limit will also increase, from £14,250 to £20,000. Below that level, people will contribute only from their income, fully protecting their savings and assets below £20,000.

Over recent days, people have compared our policy proposals to previous, abandoned and never-enacted proposals for reform. I am clear that our proposals will deliver the changes needed where others have failed and see a significant improvement on the system that is in place today.

We have considered what help people want and when they want it.

My right hon. Friend rose earlier and I should have taken his intervention then; I hope he will forgive me.

I am grateful to the Minister. Will he confirm that the amount of tax that is going to be raised in the immediate future, in national insurance and then in a separate tax, will make up a relatively small minority of the total costs of public social care? Will he also confirm that none of these measures addresses the issue of the hotel costs that people need to pay when they go into care homes?

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight that this is talking about personal care costs, so he is right in his point on that.

Did I see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rise earlier?

The Minister did indeed. He is being very generous in giving way. A lot of research went into the work by Mr Dilnot some time ago and a very independent assessment was made. Can he explain why, in this clause, he is going away from those recommendations and taking a fresh look at it?

While the hon. Lady and I do not always agree on everything, she asks a perfectly a reasoned and measured question. I pay tribute to Andrew Dilnot’s work on his report. I just happen to think that, on this point, we diverged from what he proposed and we believe that what we are proposing is the right way forward. We 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. It will mean that people with fewer chargeable assets meter towards the cap more slowly, because they are paying much less each week than people who are entirely self-funding. This amendment will make it simpler to understand the amount that will go towards the cap and make it fairer.

If the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me, the hon. Lady has attempted on a number of occasions to get in, so it is only fair that I give way to her.

On the point the Minister is making about the Dilnot proposals and a comparison, let me tell him that the Alzheimer’s Society said that 15% of people with dementia in the north-west would reach the cap under the Government’s proposals, compared with 34% under Dilnot’s proposals. That is a massive amount, and those are the people, with their families, who are paying hundreds of thousands and pounds. That is the comparison.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I do not think that she posed a question, but she made her point clearly, as she always does.

If I may make a little progress, I will then give way to my former boss, the former Secretary of State, and then, if I have time, to my hon. Friend.

To reiterate, as my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, said on 7 September, nobody—nobody—will be “worse off” than under the current system. Currently, around half of all older adults in care receive some state support for their care costs. This will rise to roughly two thirds under these reforms. This clause would also make a number of minor technical amendments to other sections of the Care Act 2014.

Will the Minister give way?

Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, I will give way to the former Secretary of State.

Is not the right way to think about this change to consider the proposal in front of us and compare it with the current system? The reason that the Dilnot system, as previously proposed, was never put in place was that there was never a proposal to pay for it, whereas this package is paid for. That is why this Government have been able to deliver a package where no previous Government have been able to do so.

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State. He is absolutely right. We deal in the reality and we should compare the reality of the system that we have in place now with what we have proposed here, which not only moves us forward, but is funded and sustainable.

Can my hon. Friend help me on two short matters? Can he give us an assurance that there will be no adverse impact on local government financing in relation to this, and that he will talk to the Local Government Association, if necessary, in this regard? Secondly, he says that it is part of a package. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) referred to the impact assessment. Does he agree that it is only fair that, at the very least, we have an impact assessment before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses?

Yes, of course, as we move through this reform process, it is absolutely right and vital that we work with our partners in the Local Government Association and local authorities of all political complexions. In respect of the impact assessment, I do believe that it is important that we have an impact assessment before this legislation completes its passage through both Houses.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He is showing his typical courtesy in giving way. Many across the House are puzzled because we recall this document that the Government placed before the House when they asked the House to endorse the national insurance increase. Indeed, many Members did endorse that national insurance increase, even though they were breaking a manifesto commitment. This document actually says that it will introduce a care cap and

“deliver a core recommendation of the independent Dilnot Commission. It will be implemented using legislation already in place under the 2014 Care Act, which introduces the independent Dilnot Commission’s social care charging reform.”

It goes on to describe that as the “new cap”. Why have the Government moved away from the position of just a few months ago that they published ahead of a vote on increasing national insurance and moved to a policy now that disproportionately benefits those with greater assets, which surely cannot be fair?

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State who, while I do not necessarily agree with what he says, as ever puts it courteously. We hold true to what we put in that “Build Back Better” document. It is necessary for this one particular element to see further primary legislation, hence the amendment today.

I am afraid that I will not give way because I do need to make some progress.

I have been very generous with my time and to the shadow Front Bench, so forgive me, but no.

Forgive me, but no.

To reiterate, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 7 September nobody—nobody—will be “worse off” than under the current system. Currently around half of all older adults in care receive some state support. This will rise to roughly two thirds under these reforms. On the minor technical amendments that I made to other sections of the Care Act, I would not wish to belabour each one, but I can reassure the House that those changes will ensure that the legislation works as intended and that everyone who is eligible—

I will not give way. I want to make some more progress.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I want to make a little more progress. I will not give way to one of my hon. Friends or to the hon. Lady at this moment.

This will be done by amending the provisions to clearly describe the information that must be included in a personal budget so that individual contributions count towards the cap at the local authority determined rate, and to ensure that personal budgets and independent personal budgets work as they were originally intended when being used in conjunction with the cap.

Before turning to integrated care boards, let me put it on record that, once again, this must be regarded as part of a package of measures that improves significantly on the current provision in place for those funding care.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Before we leave the subject of the cap, can he just confirm that this proposal includes the costs of domiciliary care, which had not been included under the original Dilnot proposals that are exercising Labour Members?

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to highlight that this improves in this respect on the Dilnot proposals. I put on record my tribute to Andrew Dilnot for his work, but we believe that this is a better package, and, as he highlighted, a sustainable package from a financial perspective.

The hon. Lady implores me, saying that after six weeks of having to sit opposite me in Committee, the least I can do is allow her to intervene.

I did wonder whether I would regret that intervention. It was typically courteous, although I have to say that when a Member of the Opposition says that, “We’re here to help you”, I am not always sure. [Interruption.] Of course, when the hon. Lady does it, I know that she is sincere about it. The point I make is that this important change is necessary to deliver on the pledge we have made. It is being introduced on Report. While ICBs and integrated care systems, which we will speak about shortly, are hugely important, I suspect that this matter will dominate the debate in this group on Report. Equally, I suspect that it will be fully debated and scrutinised in the other place.

Does the Minister agree that we have been on a journey? The context of this needs to be considered. We are starting a conversation, but other things will come. There will be bumps in the road, but the context that we need to consider is that this is the first Government to tackle the issue of social care in decades. That is the right way to look at this piece of legislation. It should not be looked at in a short-term way.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for his intervention. He makes the point well that this is another step on the journey, but it is a journey that only this Government have actually got round to starting. Previous Governments have failed to make that progress. The previous Labour Government produced two Green Papers, one Royal Commission, and one spending review and nothing was done, so this Government are making significant progress.

Will the Minister give way?

I have already given way to the hon. Lady, so I will not do so again.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol South for her words, but the situation is not as she characterises it with my having been dealt a difficult or challenging hand this evening. I am proud to stand here and defend this Government as the first Government to make changes to tackle the social care challenges that this country faces.

Will the Minister give way?

I have given way a number of times and I want to make some progress. I will be winding up the debate, so hon. Members will have the opportunity to come back in then.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I will not give way now.

For Leicestershire!

I did give way to the right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Secretary of State, and he is my other constituency neighbour in Leicestershire.

Let me turn to integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. These bodies are critical for delivering the key aims of the legislation: reducing bureaucracy; supporting integration and collaboration; and improving accountability. At the heart of the legislation for these bodies is flexibility—giving systems the scope to shape structures according to their needs. This principle is widely supported across the NHS and local government, and we would not want to imperil that, which is why we will be resisting attempts this evening to constrain more tightly how ICBs and ICPs operate. However, we recognise that there are a number of points of clarification that would be helpful to include, and we have tabled a number of amendments to do just that.

Before we reach the meat of this section, there are a number of minor amendments to deal with. First, minor and technical Government amendment 29 will update a reference in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 to reflect the changes made to section 99 of the National Health Service Act 2006. Secondly, Government amendment 30 will designate integrated care boards as operators of essential services under the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. This will place requirements on ICBs to protect their network and information systems by managing risks to ensure service availability and prevent patient harm.

We expect ICBs to take decisions on IT investment, including on cyber-security, and owning systems—and the associated cyber-risk—that are critical to the provision of healthcare. This includes holding the shared care record. The loss or corruption of data from the shared care record could have clear implications for the delivery of care, and for wider public trust in the digitisation and data-sharing agenda. We must take this risk seriously, and assure ourselves that ICBs are doing so as well.

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

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

Will the Minister give way?

I would like to move on to ICBs and ICSs, but I suspect that, assuming there is time, my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Committee, may have the opportunity to intervene during my winding up, or to give a speech during the course of the debate.

Currently, the NIS regulations cover NHS providers in England, rather than commissioners. Government amendment 30 allows us to mitigate cyber-risk in a wider sense, making cyber-security a responsibility for organisations that have duties across the system, and to drive forward a shared and collaborative effort towards reducing the risk to patients. I hope that Government amendments 29 and 30 will be uncontentious and supported on both sides of the House.

Will the Minister give way?

On ICBs, which I have moved on to, but not on new clause 49.

Is the Minister absolutely sure about what he said in response to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—that everybody would be better off under new clause 49 than they are now? Is it not the case, as illustrated by the Health Foundation, that people with very modest homes, worth less than £106,000, will never hit the cap and therefore will not be better off under the Government’s proposed system than they are now?

I make the point to the hon. Lady that I made in my opening remarks; I said that no one would be worse off and the majority would be better off. That is the point that I make to her: people would not be worse off. If she looks at Hansard, she will see that those were my original remarks when I opened this debate.

Will the Minister give way?

On ICBs, but not on new clause 49. We have moved on and I need to make some progress, because I know that many Members want to speak.

I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. Does he agree that if true integration and genuine parity of esteem are to be achieved, it should be written into law that local authorities should have a seat on the ICB?

Local authorities will have a seat on ICBs and on ICPs. The approach set out in the legislation is appropriate. We have sought throughout for it to be permissive, not prescriptive, and that remains the right approach.

Will the Minister give way on ICBs?

May I make a little bit of progress? Depending on time, I may then give way to my right hon. Friend. I am conscious that hon. and right hon. Members want to speak—I suspect, primarily on new clause 49.

I turn to Government amendment 25. In doing so, I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), whose birthday it is today—I wish him a happy birthday; I am sure that he can think of nothing that he would prefer to be doing—and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for their discussions about this issue. I do not know what view they have reached, but I am grateful for the helpful spirit in which they approached those conversations.

Although service provision—I emphasise the word “provision”—by the independent and voluntary sectors has been an important and valuable feature of the system under successive Governments, it was never the intention for independent providers to sit on integrated care boards and it still is not. We were clear that the conflict of interests provisions addressed the issue, despite misleading and inaccurate claims by some campaigners. However, we are happy to put the matter even further beyond doubt.

Government amendment 25 makes it clear that no one may be appointed to an ICB who would undermine the independence of the NHS, either as a result of their interests in the private healthcare sector or otherwise. We expect this to prevent, for example, directors of private healthcare companies, significant stakeholders of private healthcare companies and lobbyists from sitting on the board of an ICB. It would also prevent anyone with an obvious ideological interest that clearly runs counter to the NHS’s independence from sitting on a board of an ICB.

Will the Minister give us a brief comment on the recruitment of chief executives and senior management to the boards? Will we be using people who already have senior NHS jobs, meaning that there will be no redundancy and transfer costs, or will there be quite a redundancy bill because we want to change personnel?

I think my right hon. Friend is talking about executive posts. Yes, there will be processes in place to ensure that employment rights are respected. There will be some roles that are completely new and there will be a competition, but I would expect that those with a significant track record and experience would therefore find themselves in a strong position. I will not prejudge any of those individual decisions.

I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

I am not a right hon. Member, but I am very happy to take the promotion.

I have tabled a number of technical, totemic amendments on parity of esteem that appear on today’s amendment paper and tomorrow’s. They propose taking general references to “health” in the Bill and changing them to “physical and mental health”. I hope that the Minister will receive those amendments with his usual generosity and make the necessary changes over the next two days.

I take my hon. Friend’s amendments in the spirit in which they are of course intended. I recognise the importance and value that those on both sides of this House put on parity of esteem of mental and physical health. I suspect that we may debate the amendments in subsequent groupings and I look forward to responding then.

We have, in the process of drafting this amendment, heard suggestions that we should simply ban private company employees completely from the boards of ICBs. I am afraid that doing so is not so simple, nor would it achieve the desired result in all cases. In fact, our amendment goes further to underline the importance of NHS independence than would an amendment that focused purely on banning employees of private providers. There are clearly some candidates who would be suitable but may have minor interests in private healthcare. GPs, for example, do provide, and have provided, their excellent knowledge and experience of their patients in guiding commissioning decisions, and some may have private practices as well. Excluding them would be to lose their experience from the NHS, and therefore such an involvement with the private sector would clearly not risk undermining the independence of the NHS.

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor. A number of GPs have, in recent times, sought to group together into confederations of practices, which could create a bloc interest within a local board area. How will that potential conflict of interest in the commissioning and provision of services be addressed by the Government through legislation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows of what he speaks in terms of the operation of healthcare services. We would not wish to exclude GPs or groups of GPs from being able to participate in decision making. That expertise, as we have seen with clinical commissioning groups, can be hugely valuable. What we have sought to do, in an amendment that is technically worded, for want of a better way of putting it, is to strike the right balance while also ensuring that the additional measures on the constitutions of the ICBs and ICPs have to be approved by NHS England to avoid any obvious conflict of interest. But we are not seeking to avoid GPs being able to operate in that space and sitting on ICBs.

Will the Minister give way?

I would like to make a little progress and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been bobbing for some time.

We believe—this may not answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I will make a little progress and then if there is time—[Interruption.] Well, we will see. Hope springs eternal. A blanket ban on employees of private companies would also, we fear, be arbitrary. It would not cover the full range of people involved in non-NHS providers, some of whom may not be suitable candidates to sit on ICBs because of their involvement, but not employment, within the private healthcare sector. With the complex corporate structures that providers may have established, a narrow definition in the Bill could be unhelpful and risk not capturing the people we wish to capture.

I support what my hon. Friend is saying. It would be crazy to exclude primary care because it is effectively a private healthcare business, and therefore what he is saying is enormously important. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), I believe it would be absolutely wrong, looking at my own county, if the mental health trust did not have a presence in the governorship of the ICB. I hope that the Minister will ensure a presence not only for the conventional trusts in hospitals and in primary care but for the mental health trusts, because their role is vital and the integration of services is essential to the delivery of good mental health care.

My right hon. Friend makes a point that came out in some of the oral evidence sessions on the Bill. Our aim was to create a minimum membership for the ICBs and ICPs, but it is not prescriptive—it can go beyond that—so there is scope for mental health trusts or other health trusts to have seats on those boards. Indeed, Dame Gill Morgan, who runs the integrated care system in Gloucestershire, said that that is exactly what she has done and that she would be surprised if any ICB did not wish to do it. But we wanted to set a de minimis membership to allow for local flexibility.

We have GP practices that are being privatised now—they are being bought up by private companies, with some foreign interests as well. If the Minister is saying that those companies can have representation on ICBs, we have already seen circumstances where people have tried to redact minutes of meetings, so does this not open up the possibility of private interests being served at these meetings but not being accountable through public scrutiny?

I entirely understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. I think he was careful, shall we say, given some litigation that may be going on, not to mention anything specific, but I know what he is talking about. We believe that our amendment will prevent private companies—whatever services they were providing for the NHS—with a significant private interest in this, or their lobbyists, from being able to sit on ICBs. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) raised the need for transparency in Committee a number of times, and I suspect we may return to that point. We believe that the current transparency requirements on CCGs that will be carried across are sufficient to ensure transparency and public access to the information they need.

I am afraid I am about to conclude. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will come back in with a speech and I will endeavour to pick up on that in the wind-ups.

There are a number of similar amendments, such as amendment 101 in the names of the hon. Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I hope they might feel, to some degree, reassured by our amendment and the intent behind it, but that is obviously for them to say. We believe that the Government’s amendment puts beyond doubt what we believe was already entirely clear but were determined to put beyond doubt—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. These principles, I believe, irrespective of other debates we may have this evening, command respect from both sides of this place. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.

A wide range of issues that are part of this group of amendments demonstrate the cold reality of this Bill. It is a jumble sale of bits and pieces. Of course a Bill can be wide-ranging, but having breadth is not the same as having coherence, or indeed clarity. Such are the issues within scope in this grouping that I will not comment directly on every new clause and amendment but hope to have time to say at least a few words on those emanating from the Opposition Front-Bench team, as well as on any Government new clauses or amendments that we oppose. Some amendments refer to matters that have been dealt with in Committee where we have expressed our views and put forward amendments that failed to persuade the Government. Sadly, we have insufficient time to go over the same ground again, particularly given the rapid shifting of the goalposts we have seen in the past week.

I turn first to integrated care boards, or ICBs, and, more widely, the issue of governance. The question of governance and accountability remains an important matter to us and needs greater clarity than currently appears in the Bill. For Members who may not be familiar with the detail, the Bill proposes yet another reorganisation of the NHS, creating 42 new integrated care systems where decisions on how NHS and care spending will be made. The decision-making bodies within these systems are the ICBs, replacing the CCGs, which fall away into the annals of history alongside the primary care groups, the primary care trusts and all the other permutations that we have seen.

Our discussions on these matters in Committee showed that our disagreements tended to centre around an intention by Government to limit what is in statute and to leave maximum flexibility at local level, as opposed to our desire to ensure that safeguards and protections were in place for those matters we felt were too important to be left out. It is wholly ironic, therefore, that the Bill proclaims, on the one hand, local freedoms and flexibilities, yet on the other proposes sweeping top-down powers for NHS England and the Secretary of State. Our view remains that some flexibility is fine to allow shaping to local needs, but that some key principles need to be put into the Bill to ensure that there are no misunderstandings or unintended consequences.

We know that the genesis of this Bill has been the realisation that increasingly large parts of the NHS were ignoring the 2012 Lansley Act. Along with changes to procurement and pricing, this grouping deals with the main elements of reversing parts of that Act. We could spend all our time referring to what we said 10 years ago, and how the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has proved to be the disaster that we said it would be, but we will spare the Government the “We told you so” lectures, because even those on the Government Benches are now aware that the 2012 Act has been among the worst policy mistakes in the history of the NHS. Whether that damage was worse than the damage done by a decade of austerity remains to be seen, but repairing the damage done by austerity is not for today, as there is little in the Bill to address the ongoing consequences of a decade of underfunding, particularly the wholly appalling waiting times that we now see across the board.

Perhaps my hon. Friend can illuminate me. I was going to ask the Minister who owns the assets of the ICBs. Can the ICBs sell some of those assets and rent them back as a service? What constraints are there to stop people on the board enabling that, because they have some strange link to the people buying the assets?

At the moment, ICBs are not a legal entity, so they do not own anything. When the Bill comes into force, they will effectively take over mainly administrative buildings from the CCGs, and the trust will hold ownership of most of the assets. We hope that there will not be the risks that my hon. Friend outlines, although it is not impossible for ICBs to set up their own trusts at some point in the future.

We do not believe that the question of private providers sitting on the place-based boards can be left open in this way, because this is really about who runs the NHS. There is a complete and utter incompatibility between the aims of private companies and what we say should be the aims of the NHS and the ICBs. I can do no better than refer to the evidence of Dr Chaand Nagpaul from the Bill Committee. He identified the concern perfectly:

“We forget at our peril the added value, the accountability, the loyalty and the good will that the NHS provides. We really do…I am saying that it does matter. Your local acute trust is not there on a 10-year contract, willing to walk away after two years. It is there for your population; it cannot walk away.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 90, Q113.]

Those final words sum it up perfectly. Put a company on the board, and its interest lasts as long as the contract, and those interests will of course not be the same as the NHS’s anyway. A company’s primary concern is the shareholders, not the patients. With that clear and unanswerable concern about conflicts of interest, we invite the Government to withdraw their amendment and support ours.

We have already had some discussion of who goes on the ICB. Apparently, the answer is not the most appropriate people chosen by an independent external process or individuals directly accountable to the public; the answer is left to guidance that leaves open the risk that voices we think need to be heard will slip through the net. Our amendment 76 deals with that by setting out the requirements for ICB membership. Allocating scarce NHS resources should be robustly debated and will always be political. Tough choices have to be made, so we need people on the ICB who will be there to cover all the necessary interests for the wider good.

If Members look at what amendment 76 suggests, I hope nobody would argue that those interests do not have to have some voice. The public, patients, staff, social care, public health and mental health—which of those can be safely ignored and which has no part to play? As I have already mentioned, there is a major area of uncertainty because of the complete absence of anything that sets out how the much-vaunted place-based commissioning will work. Who will sit at the place-based table is, I am afraid, still completely opaque.

The next major area covered in the Bill is a further deconstruction of Lansley with the removal of compulsory competitive tendering for clinical services. We have seen the NHS proposals for a provider selection regime to replace the regulations under section 75 of the 2012 Act. That is to be regarded as a work in progress, so our amendment 72 covers the issue and would reintroduce some safeguards into how our money is spent. Since its inception, the NHS has always relied on some non-NHS providers, with the model developed for GPs being an obvious example. However, in recent decades there has been an increase in the use of private providers of acute care, most notably in diagnostics and surgery.

To be clear, we on the Opposition Benches believe that the NHS should be the default provider of clinical services. If it is not the only provider, it should be the predominant provider in geographical and services terms. Where a service cannot be provided by a public body because the capability or capacity is not there, there is still the option to go beyond the NHS itself, but that should be a last resort and never a permanent solution. Amendment 72 therefore sets out a clear framework for how we could achieve that. We hope that extra transparency and extra rigour would mean we avoid buying stuff that is unsuitable and sits in container mountains, stuff that does not meet specifications, and stuff made by companies that have no experience, but are owned by friends and family. In short, we would stop the covid crony gravy train.

The use of private sector capacity in the covid emergency turned out to be a farcical failure. It became very clear, very quickly that it was not there to support the NHS; it was there just to make profits. Use of private providers through dodgy deals during the PPE scandal has highlighted the need for greater transparency and greater capacity in the NHS. We can never allow a repeat of what we have seen there. We need the rigour set out in the amendment to be put into legislation, rather than left to guidance. We need to be able to challenge NHS bodies that do not comply, as well as Ministers who try to flout the rules.

I will now deal with new clause 49, saving the best—or more accurately, the worst—until last. Because of how Report stage works, it has fallen to me to express our opposition to this measure, rather than my expert colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who shares my dismay at what has been produced and how it has been presented to us. Starting with the process, it is wholly wrong to bring such a fundamental change forward as a last-minute addition to this Bill. That means it cannot be debated properly today. There is no impact assessment and, as we have already heard, this change was not discussed in Committee at all. In fact, in 22 Committee sessions spanning some 50 hours, we never once heard mention of this amendment coming forward or discussion on the care cap. Indeed, when this Chamber was busy debating the social care levy, we were beavering away in Committee on the Bill, oblivious to the fact this measure was coming down the track. If the Government cannot even get their decision-making processes integrated, what hope is there for integrating health and social care?

As we know, the aim of the new clause is to remove means-tested benefits from the costs that count towards the care cap. As has been pointed out far and wide by Members from all parts of the House, that change adversely impacts some more than others. It is a wholly regressive measure, to say the least, to give support through means-testing, but then to penalise people later for receiving it in the first place. We will vote against this iniquity, and I hope many Conservative Members will vote with us. They should be used to the Prime Minister’s broken promises by now; this is their chance to make the point that he should stand by what he says.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is Robin Hood in reverse? I encourage Conservative Members who wax lyrical about levelling up, particularly in the north, to do the right thing.

My hon. Friend must have sneaked a look at my speech, because I will say later that it is Robin Hood in reverse.

The proposal is grossly unfair. I gave the example earlier that in our region, 15% of people with dementia will reach the cap, whereas 34% would have under the Dilnot proposals. The cap also does not protect working-age adults who are accessing social care, or people with a disability, but Sir Andrew Dilnot’s proposals would have done. It is the second major area in which the proposal is grossly unfair.

Again, my hon. Friend must have read my speech because I will make that point later. The proposal shows that the Bill is not a plan to fix social care but a very thin attempt to change parts of the system. There are many other elements that clearly need dealing with.

In case Conservative Members need reminding, in the Prime Minister’s first speech on taking office, he promised to,

“fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan that we have prepared”.

We are still to see that plan. What we have is a new tax and a broken promise.

My hon. Friend and neighbour is making an excellent speech. We should be talking about a plan for social care, but we are actually talking about a tax on the people who have lost out over the past decade and more from the excessive house price growth in the south compared with other parts of the country. This is a tax that doubles down on inequality, rather than addressing it.

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour—I am getting all my neighbours in tonight. She makes a brilliant point: the proposal exacerbates regional inequalities through an unfair tax and is certainly not a plan to fix social care. Hon. Members should look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West has said about what needs to be done to tackle the social care crisis in this country; it is an awful lot more than putting in place a cap that benefits only some people in certain parts of the country.

Not only will the proposal not stop people having to sell their home to pay for their costs, but it will bake in unfairness for a generation. It does nothing for working adults with long-term care needs, who seem to have been completely missed out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said. It is not what was promised, but hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let us listen to the experts. Age UK says:

“The change the Government has announced makes the overall scheme a lot less helpful to older people with modest assets than anyone had expected. It waters down Sir Andrew Dilnot’s original proposal to save the Government some money, but at the cost of protecting the finances of older home owners…This feels like completely the wrong policy choice and we are extremely disappointed that the Government has made it”.

The King’s Fund says of people with more modest assets that,

“the Prime Minister’s promise that no one need sell their house to pay for care…doesn’t seem to apply to them.”

Instead, it will only “benefit wealthier people”.

My hon. Friend referenced the Prime Minister’s statement that nobody would have to sell their house to pay for social care. I know that my hon. Friend would never seek to call the Prime Minister a liar in this Chamber, but does he wonder, as many hon. Members do, why the Bill appears to be turning the Prime Minister’s words into a lie?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—I think. What I can say here and what I might say outside are not the same, and I do have to finish my speech, so I will leave it there. I am sure that the public will make up their own minds about the veracity or otherwise of comments made by the Prime Minister.

Sir Andrew Dilnot said that the proposals will create a north-south divide, that those with assets of £106,000 will be hardest hit and that anyone with assets under £186,000 will be worse off than under his proposals. According to the Health Foundation, assuming care costs of about £500 a week, those with assets of £150,000 will take a year and a half longer to reach the cap than they would have under the Dilnot proposals, those with assets of £125,000 will take four and a half years longer, and those with assets of under £106,000 will never reach the care cap. Contrary to what the Minister has said, people with assets of £106,000 or less will not benefit from the proposal at all.

Order. It will be obvious to Members that a large number of colleagues want to contribute to the debate. I urge brevity, so that others can participate. I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think on this occasion I can oblige you, because I will be very brief. I wish to speak to amendment 114, which may seem a rather technical amendment—as is evidenced by the fact that, out of 650 colleagues, only one has actually signed it, and that is me—but it makes up in quality for what it does not have in quantity. It is about making sure that the new integrated care boards focus their energy on the safety and quality of care of patients. That is very important, because the new integrated care boards will have enormous power. In effect, they will be the local governing bodies of our NHS.

Although the statutory structures matter, what the people running those care boards focus their attention on is incredibly important to all our constituents. The amendment will make sure that when care boards consider their priorities, the things that matter to patients—the safety and quality of care—are put at the very top of their list. We know the way the NHS works. It is the fifth-largest bureaucracy in the world, and there is a plethora of internal NHS—

I see the Minister wants me to give way. May I make my argument for one moment, and then give way?

There is a plethora of internal NHS targets, there are operational targets and there are financial targets. They often have an excellent purpose, but, as in the case of Mid Staffs and other cases where things went badly wrong, being under a lot of pressure to meet those targets means corners can be cut, and the quality of care experienced by patients can be really damaged. The amendment would make sure that there was discipline in the system, so that whatever pressure NHS managers were under, they were always focused on safety and quality of care.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for what he did as Secretary of State to stress the importance of this crucial work, and he is not on his own: I support him.

Before I come to the Minister, I want to say—and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who gave me consistent support on this agenda when I was Health Secretary—that, in the public sector, the one system that has seemed to make sure we focus public bodies on our constituents’ priorities is the Ofsted system in schools. We have rolled that out, I think reasonably successfully, to hospitals, GP surgeries and care homes, and this amendment makes that possible for the new integrated care boards. I want to give the Minister a chance to intervene to tell us his reflections on whether this system could work.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is not just my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who supports him on this; I and the Government do, and we are delighted to accept his amendment.

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

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

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

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

I initially want to touch on new clause 49. Like other members of the Bill Committee, I sat through hours and hours from September to November, and the Government have suddenly pounced on us with this at the last minute. It is such a complicated new clause, but it has not been interrogated.

It is quite clear that the Government’s original spin that no one would pay more than £86,000 for social care and no one would have to sell their house is completely misleading. All the accommodation costs are on top of this. As has been highlighted in the media and by Members in the Chamber, those with assets of about £100,000 will not see any real gain from this policy, while those sitting on assets of £500,000 or more will keep a lot of their wealth. That means it exacerbates the differences, and penalises those in the north of England and areas where house values are not so high. Basically, it is feeding the frenzy down here of people sitting on over-inflated house prices. As has been said, this is not levelling up, just doubling down.

The cap applies only to personal care, which means things like washing and dressing. That has been provided free in Scotland both within the care home and in home care since 2002. It was expanded in 2011 to provide more hours so that people with greater need could stay at home longer, and it was extended to those under 65 with care needs in April 2019. Scotland is the only UK nation that provides free personal care, and we see it as an investment. It is an investment that we spend 43% more per head on social care in Scotland, but it is an investment in people’s independence and their inclusion in society. The problem is that we spend far too much time talking about social care just as a burden, instead of actually seeing it from the point of view of the user.

The Scottish Government have already added an extra penny on taxation for medium and high earners to cover things such as our wellbeing policies, health or social care, but this Government’s plan to increase national insurance contributions will disproportionately hit low-paid workers and young workers. I would say that the biggest weakness of all, as we know from the original debate on the national insurance change, is that the funding is not going to go to social care initially; it is going to go to the NHS, yet it is social care that is in crisis. This is what is causing the pressure in accident and emergency, because people who are ready to be discharged simply cannot be, as the care support is not there. I do not think that this fixes the problem. There will actually be very little money, because a lot of it is going to go on capping the overall payment. I do not see social care benefiting from this at all, yet it is social care that needs investment more than anything else.

Turning to the main substance of the Bill, which is meant to some extent to unpick the damage and fragmentation of the Health and Social Care Act less than a decade on, I wish to express support for amendments 9 and 72. Many in the NHS, including me, will be glad to see the back of section 75 enforced tendering. Others in the Chamber know that it was the Health and Social Care Act that brought me into politics, as I just could not believe anybody thought what they were doing was a good idea. It is still clear from the pandemic that this Government are absolutely wedded to outsourcing services to private companies, and to the flawed notion that financial competition somehow drives up clinical quality. I am sorry, but that simply is not the case. As the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee has highlighted, we have to focus on safety, on clinical audit, and on peer review if we want to drive up care quality for patients, not just on the money in the system.

The Government appear to have conceded that integrated care boards should be statutory bodies, as health boards have always been in Scotland, but partnership boards can include private providers, such as with Virgin Care in Bath. As the partnership boards will be involved in devising the local strategy for health services, that is likely to lead to a blatant conflict of interest, and I do not see a resolution to that. The NHS simply should be the presumed provider of health services. That is not just, as the shadow Health Minister said, because the NHS is in it for the long term, or for a quick contract, but because the NHS provides the training to nurses and doctors who are the vital workforce of the future. Private providers do not do that; private providers largely live off the NHS. As well as not training staff, where there are major problems or complications, patients inevitably end up in the intensive care unit of an NHS hospital.

In conclusion, for all the size of the Bill, and the scale that the reorganisation will involve for staff in the NHS, who we all know are frankly exhausted, the Government have failed to take the opportunity to repair fully the damage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and to recreate in England a unified public health system, such as the one we are lucky enough still to have in Scotland.

I thank the Minister for the time he gave me to consider my amendments, which we discussed in some detail, and I thank Her Majesty’s Opposition who, very kindly, took some of my amendments through Committee, sadly unsuccessfully. Tonight I hope to have the opportunity myself to explain why these amendments are so important. Before the House thinks, “Oh my goodness, how can we possibly deal with that many clauses and amendments?” let me say that I will endeavour to be brief. I rise to speak to new clause 33, and amendments 21, 22, 19, 16, 17, 20, 18 and 23—but I will be brief.

Let me divide my remarks into four topic areas: domestic abuse, mental health, access to medicines, and research. New clause 33 deals with domestic abuse. That is a horrific crime. It is insidious, it is hidden, and it is on the rise, and during the pandemic it has, sadly, grown from strength to strength. I say, pointedly, that this is a hidden crime, and at the moment, all the teeth are with the police. However, the police can deal only with very evident crime.

Where does domestic abuse first appear? It is in a doctor’s surgery, or at accident and emergency. To date, however, there is no obligation on clinical commissioning groups, integrated care boards or hospitals to come up with a strategy to address that horrific ill. New clause 33 would place a new obligation on ICBs to put in place a proactive strategy to properly manage that issue, and to introduce the education and training that GPs and those in hospitals and A&E need. We must ensure that we no longer find, as in the Safelives report, that those experiencing domestic abuse will have experienced it for three years before it is picked up, despite having already been to visit their GPs almost five times. I do not believe that that is acceptable in a civilised society such as the one we have today.

Five and a half per cent. of adults between 16 and 74 experience such abuse, and the Home Office has determined that the cost of that was £66 billion in 2016-17. Of that, £2.3 billion was the cost to the health service. We know that 23% of those who are at risk attend A&E, and yet nothing happens. I am fortunate that in Devon we have a pilot. My CCG is the only one in the country to have a dedicated individual on the board who specifically oversees and sets a dedicated strategy on this issue. The estimate from the pilot so far reckons that if we spent £450,000 a year on our GPs in Devon, we would get a return of £7 million. But this is not about money; this is about what is the right thing to do. Until this measure is on the statute book, and until there is an obligation to put in place a strategy, this will not change, and I cannot sit here and accept that.

Let me turn to mental health. For many years and in many documents, we have seen a commitment to parity of esteem, but I have been through every statute on the book and at no point is there any reference to the words “parity of esteem for mental health”. If parity of esteem for mental health is not on the statute book, how can we say we believe in it? If it is not on the statute book, how can we possibly measure it? Currently, there are very few measures of inputs or outputs—or, worse, of outcomes —for those going through the mental health system. There are some, but they are minuscule compared with what we have for physical health.

Amendment 23 to clause 19 would require each ICB to compare the inputs and outputs on physical health and mental health. Each ICB would be required to set out: the number of patients presenting with physical symptoms and with mental symptoms; the waiting times for initial assessment in physical health and in mental health; the waiting times for treatment in physical health and in mental health; the number of patients actually receiving treatment in physical health and in mental health; and, finally, reports on readmissions. I know that Ministers do not like that level of detail, but how important is this? Without some very specific measures, it will not happen. What gets measured generally gets done.

Amendment 23 would also require the ICBs to report against the very few national standards that there are. At least then we would see what they were; we would shine a bright light on the fact that there are so few for mental health while there are numerous for physical health. The Secretary of State would be required to consolidate those reports into a national report, which would have to be presented to Parliament—to both the Commons and the Lords. What is there for Ministers not to like about that amendment? What is there for those on the Opposition Benches not to like about it?

We like it!

Then I would like to see you wishing to press it to a vote and putting your vote—and your feet—where your mouth is. [Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is not your mouth. I was carried away by an overwhelming desire to get my point across, and I apologise most profoundly.

I turn to access to medicines. Most Members believe, do they not, that medicines that have been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are available to all our constituents? The reality is that they are not. A medicine may have gone through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and been proved to be safe, and through NICE and been said to be cost-effective, but each CCG—each ICB, as they will be—and hospital trust, and every other NHS body responsible for prescribing, sets its own formulary, and those formularies do not include all NICE drugs. If a medicine is not on the formulary, then no consultant or GP will be able to get reimbursement, so they will not be allowed to prescribe it.

In my constituency, a number of individuals have come to me because they cannot get access to a particular medicine, yet people in another constituency can. I do not believe that a postcode lottery is right. We all talk about the NHS, and health and care, being free at the point of delivery, and we all assume that we can get access, whether to GPs or to hospitals, but I do not think it occurs to most of us—it had not occurred to me—that we cannot necessarily get access to medicines.

My amendment 21 to clause 15 would effectively oblige every ICB, where any individual patient has the advice of their clinician that they should have a particular medicine and it has been approved by NICE, to make provision to ensure that that medicine is provided—perhaps from a neighbouring ICB, taking advantage of the duty to collaborate across ICBs. That would ensure that even if a medicine was not on the formulary in the area of an individual ICB, it could be obtained from another area. Bear in mind that there is no financial loss in doing that, because all NICE-approved drugs are subject to a voluntary pricing agreement between the pharmaceutical companies and NHS England. Under that agreement, x number of drugs will be provided at an agreed cost. Anything above that will be reimbursed by the drug company, so the Government and the NHS will not be out of pocket. Why would that not be a good clause? To provide belt and braces, under amendments 20 and 22, all NICE treatments would automatically be added to all formularies within 28 days of market authorisation and every ICB would be obligated to report.

My last area—I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—is research, which is so important, as we discovered during the pandemic. I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the challenges. Some of the anti-viral solutions to coronavirus were late to market because we could not get the clinical trials. Why? Because we could not get access to the records of the patients who had had covid or been diagnosed with covid so that we then had the appropriate cohort to be able to test the anti-virals. It therefore seems very clear that research must be taken on board across every hospital trust and across every ICB. If every ICB and hospital trust had in place a system to ensure research was part of their DNA—that they had to report on what research they were undertaking and had an obligation, if they were asked and had the appropriate cohort, to recruit the patient base so that particular clinical trials could take place—we would get more medicines faster to market. I think most people would say that that was a win.

I declare an interest in that my partner is a clinical research nurse—working in cardiac research—so I completely appreciate and understand exactly where the hon. Lady is coming from. Does she agree that to find patients for studies, often tens of thousands of pounds is spent on radio and online adverts? If her amendment 17 is successful, it could be revolutionary for research in this country.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. If we could have this new system, so there was a research strategy and an obligation to consider clinical trial requests and then report, we would be in a very different place.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been incredibly indulgent and so have all hon. Members. On that note, having had my time for my four areas, I thank the House for its indulgence and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

Order. We will not get anywhere if people shout. This is supposed to be a reasonable discussion.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

A further point that is being ignored by those who are trying to make a meal of this new clause is that the cutting of the daily cost offset is much more valuable to those on low incomes than any change in the cap, because the cap, by its nature, is there to protect assets, and those who do not have many assets gain far more benefit from the cut in the daily cost that would otherwise clock up their contributions to the cap much more slowly.

Taken together, these elements make up a package that is beneficial to those on low incomes. It helps to make the system fairer.

My final point on new clause 49 is this. For years and years—including the years when I was Secretary of State, and including the entire 13 years when Labour was in power—nobody fixed the problem of social care. This Government have come forward with a package, and if we pull apart one part of the package, there is a risk to the package as a whole. As Sir Andrew Dilnot said on the radio this morning,

“the whole package is a significant step forward”.

It is always easy in politics, and in life, to say, “I just accept the bits of the package that I like”—and, in the case of the Labour party, to say, “I accept the bits that are very expensive for taxpayers.” Instead, we must look at the package as a whole, which is funded, and which can be delivered, for the first time in several decades, because it hangs together. The Government have presented a whole package, and it is the best possible option in the fiscally constrained times in which we live.

I am sorry to be unhelpful to my right hon. Friend, but if this element is so integral to the overall package, why was it not brought forward right at the beginning?

This part of the package was described in September, because it was made clear in September that the £86,000 cap was a cap on individual costs. It did not say then that that included the costs that local government may make on someone’s behalf. I think it is a strong Conservative principle that, when we say we are capping the costs that an individual pays, we do not include the costs that another part of the state should pay. I think that that was clear, and more details have now been set out. Most importantly, this is a package that takes things forward in a way that has not been achieved for decades.

I do not think anyone across the House would argue that the measures that have been put forward are a significant step forward from where we are. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) mentioned earlier, they are not necessarily what we might have been led to expect. Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on that?

I will happily comment on that. In the debate over the past few days, many people have been comparing the package put forward by the Government with the proposals from Sir Andrew Dilnot in 2014-15, but there is a reason those proposals were never enacted and never came into force. It is because they had a huge price tag, and there was no successful debate on how to pay for them. It has been easy to ask for social care reform for the past three decades, but until this Government did it, nobody had come forward with a plan for how to pay for it. We simply cannot magic things out of thin air. If we are a grown-up Government, we have to come forward with a grown-up package, which includes saying how it will be paid for. That is what has happened, and that is why this package hangs together. We should support this new clause, because it is part of that overall funded package.

I want to turn briefly to the measures on integrated care systems. The purpose of the ICSs is to have a more preventive, more flexible and less siloed approach than we have under the current clinical commissioning groups, without removing the grit in the oyster that is the purchaser-provider split and without upsetting the 1948 settlement involving local authorities doing social care and having a national NHS. Amendment 76 in particular contains a lot of suggestions that might seem tempting. There are people who have an important voice in the debate. The problem, as we have seen with existing legislation, is that if we put too much into statute, it is far harder to deliver high-quality services that are integrated on the ground. That is why the Government are right to resist putting too much detail into legislation. However, I do support the change proposed by the Government, which makes it clear that the purpose of ICSs is not to have private providers on the board. I can confirm that, as the Minister said, it never was. Mischievous rumours were put about, some of which have been repeated today, that that was the intention, and I am glad that the Government’s amendment puts that matter beyond doubt.

I am attracted to amendments 89 and 90 and, in another group, amendments 91 to 98 and amendment 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I was going to say this before I knew that I would be sitting next to him in the debate today, and I hope that the Government will look on these amendments kindly. The parity of esteem between mental and physical health is incredibly important, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a lot of people wish to speak and that there are a lot of amendments still to be spoken to. We have only an hour left, so I am going to impose a time limit of four minutes immediately. I apologise to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for not giving him notice that he would have only four minutes, but I am sure that he will manage.

My amendments 1 and 2 primarily relate to self-care. I acknowledge that self-care is recognised by care professionals as part of the healthcare process, but, like prevention, it should not be an afterthought—a concept that we think invaluable but that we never get around to fully including in our health ecosystem in the way we ought to.

I rise to speak on new clause 49. For 40 years, successive Governments have tried desperately to address this issue, and successive Governments have put it in the “too difficult” pile. It is incredibly expensive, it is hellishly complicated and, to put it simply, there is no silver bullet to address all the concerns surrounding it. That is why I am so proud that this Government have made an attempt to grip this issue.

The fact is that what happens to us in old age is entirely random, and whether we incur catastrophic care costs that wipe out everything we have worked for in our lives is often down to luck. The current system is complex, it is unfair, many people simply do not understand it, and that has been compounded by the fact that successive Governments—nobody is blameless—have used unhelpful language such as “death tax” and “dementia tax”, which have made people terrified of the issue and blown any Government’s attempts to try to solve it out of the water.

Such language strikes fear into people’s hearts about what will happen to us when we are elderly, when we are vulnerable, when we cannot look after ourselves any more. As humans, this is something we do not want to talk about. We do not want to consider it or think about it happening to us; not for us the slow decay, the hellishly expensive degeneration, which affects perhaps four in 10, with the catastrophic amounts of money involved affecting perhaps one in seven. That is why insurance models have never really worked.

The new clause looks to amend the cap on care, basically, where the local authority costs should contribute to the metering towards the cap. I have to be honest: I thought really hard about whether I could support this. Many people, including the brilliant Andrew Dilnot, have pointed out the financial inequalities and some of the geographical inequalities of removing the local authority contribution. As local authority contributions differ by area already—they are much higher in better-off areas—there is already a postcode lottery of care depending on where someone lives. We have to address that. The key thing here is not the cap, but the floor. Those with lower property values will be protected by the floor, not the cap. The reforms increase the threshold above which people must meet the full cost of their care from £23,000 to £100,000—more than four times the limit. The daily living costs limit of £200 per week means that more people will keep more of their income and assets and the package includes domiciliary care, which many others have not done. It is not perfect—it is far from perfect—but everyone who is contributing towards their social care today, and those of us who face the uncertainty of this possible spectre in our future, will be better off than they are now. That is why we have to move forward in a way that is deliverable and that we can finally, for once, get over the finishing line, after 40 years of trying.

There are details that need to be fleshed out. The White Paper just cannot come soon enough and I wish to mention two burning issues in particular. The first is how we support working-age adults, who make up more than half of those who need adult social care. Some people need that care throughout their lives; for others it happens to them unexpectedly. How do we support the people of working age for whom care costs are not paid out of a nest egg, which they might have been able to build up over decades of work? Finally, the biggest issue facing adult social care is the workforce. This job is significantly undervalued. It is too often described as “unskilled”. That drives me mad. These people have unbelievable skills. They have experience and passion, and we entrust our most valuable and precious family members into their care and their hands. Frequently, they just make more money in hospitality or retail. How do the Government create a society that values these heroes for what they are? I look forward to reading the White Paper and seeing how the Government will tackle some of these thorny issues, the most intransigent challenges facing our adult social care system, because for those money alone will not be enough.

I would like to start by talking about social care. The Liberal Democrats have long called for reform to properly integrate health and social care services, but this Bill does not do that. As others have mentioned, it seeks to reorganise parts of the NHS, but it pays lip service only to social care. That is why the Lib Dems think that the Bill should be put on hold until the proper social care reforms are brought forward.

As others have mentioned, it has been months since the Prime Minister announced his plan to fix social care. It is unforgivable that this new clause was sneaked out during the sleaze row last week, in a move that changed the goalposts. The Minister would do well to listen to the unease among his Back Benchers as well as among Opposition Members.

Struggling families now face being hammered by a double whammy of unfair tax rises and the prospect of losing their homes to fund care costs. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) is no longer in his place, but I noted that he selectively quoted Andrew Dilnot. He did not quote Andrew Dilnot’s comments on new clause 49. Andrew Dilnot said that that proposal was not welcome. He said that he was very disappointed and that this represented “a big change” that

“finds savings exclusively from the less well-off”.

That is two promises from this Tory Government now broken.

There is also no mention in this Bill of the millions of people who are unpaid carers in the UK, even though we know that carers are twice as likely to experience ill health as a result of caring. That is why I have tabled new clause 63 for debate tomorrow. It is supported by Carers UK and it calls for the NHS to ensure that the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers is taken into account when decisions are made concerning the health and care of the person for whom they care. I hope the Government will support it. I know it is grouped for debate tomorrow, but I reference it now to highlight again the fact that the Bill does not present a comprehensive plan to reform social care.

The Bill also represents a massive and unnecessary power grab by the Secretary of State. It is simply wrong for the Government to have the power to abolish arm’s length bodies and approve or reject the chairs of integrated care systems. The public have been rightly outraged at political meddling in covid contracts, and the Government should learn their lesson. We should all be seeking to protect the independence of the NHS.

Vacancies in the NHS and social care are utterly staggering. We know the numbers: 100,000 vacancies in the NHS and more than 120,000 in social care; and 1.5 million people missing out on the care they need. We simply cannot go on like this, with the Government setting their own sporadic targets and constantly missing them. NHS waiting lists are at a record high. Ambulance services received a record number of calls in October. Major A&Es treated more than 1.4 million people in October—the third highest monthly figure on record.

The Bill will do nothing to get those waiting lists down, nothing to recruit the workforce we need, nothing to help people get seen faster and nothing for the millions of unpaid carers. The Government should delay the Bill for a few months and look properly at reforming social care, rather than doing a half-baked job now. But I do not think they will, and that is why the Lib Dems will vote against it.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health earlier as he introduced new clause 49 because the funding of social care has been a huge concern for too many years. The people we represent deserve far more certainty about how their old age will be funded if they require social care.

We have a pension system and a system to support disabled people, but the funding of social care is a real uncertainty. I pay tribute to the Minister for bringing forward these costed proposals to provide some certainty for the future for more people. He is to be commended for being clear that no one will lose out under the proposals and that the majority will be better off because of the issues that we have already gone through—particularly because the means-test threshold is being significantly raised. He can say that with some force because of the more than £5 billion extra being put forward by the Government to fund social care in a sustainable way for the future.

However, there is still clearly some concern, as the Minister can hear from the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said, no solution will be perfect, so I was particularly pleased to hear of the Minister’s plans to publish an impact assessment, which will clearly set out the impact of these measures across the board. That is important.

Finally, I want to speak in support of my amendment 102. We all know that the quality of support that we give victims of domestic and sexual abuse is a marker for the health of our society, and it is not just a matter for the NHS. However, the NHS plays a vital part in that support. Amendment 102 requires the joint forward plan for integrated care boards and their partners to properly set out the steps they propose to take to address the needs of victims of domestic abuse—whether domestic violence or sexual abuse, and whether it involves children or adults.

Amendment 102 does not limit the plan to addressing only the victims of domestic abuse; many other types of abuse are equally devastating, and it is permissive enough to allow innovation and improved ways of working to be developed in guidance. I hope that it can be used as a basis for guidance to integrated care boards as part of their general powers.

Amendment 102 is just part of the greater whole. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in particular will require action across Government, but the amendment will help to ensure that every part of the state is pulling in the same direction when it comes to issues of domestic and sexual abuse. My amendment is similar to new clause 33, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) outlined earlier, but my amendment is more permissive and less prescriptive, so I hope the Government will find it acceptable.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the case she is making. I should also put on the record my gratitude for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) has done in this policy space and for her proposal. Her Majesty’s Government are happy to accept my right hon. Friend’s amendment 102 on support for victims of domestic abuse.

I thank the Minister for his acceptance of my amendment. Many people in all parts of the House will see it as a continuation of this Government’s commitment to tackling the issues of domestic abuse and sexual abuse. I thank him for such a positive acceptance.

I rise to speak against the Bill overall but in favour of new clauses 56 and 57, tabled in my name, and those amendments and new clauses tabled by any Member who has sought to change the pernicious outcomes of the Bill.

Our NHS is really one of the best things about this country, but the Bill is the biggest threat to it yet. It rolls out the red carpet for private companies, ramps up the Government’s long-standing attempts to privatise the NHS, and makes easier what we have witnessed over the past 18 months: the awarding of contract after contract without a competitive process, and the rewarding of failing companies with new contracts again and again.

The Bill will be the destruction of our NHS as we know it, and will widen the inequalities that the pandemic has exacerbated. We now have more than 5.7 million people on NHS waiting lists. Of course, that is not solely because of the pandemic—far from it. After the Government won the 2010 election, around 500,000 to 750,000 people were on NHS waiting lists, and the number rose every year before the pandemic, so the waiting lists are the long-term effect of the Conservative policies of underfunding and privatisation.

Waiting lists have now doubled, and our NHS is in danger of toppling over. All the while, health inequality is rising. That is why, with the support of the Health Foundation, I tabled new clause 57, which would compel the NHS to set out data-collection guidelines on health inequalities. We know that health inequalities exist and have seen them play out with the worst consequences, from postcode lotteries to racial disparities, and it is time that we accepted that, collected the proper data—it is a farce that we do not already do so—and set out to make real change.

Since 2010, improvements in life expectancy in England have slowed more than in any other country in Europe, and the gap between rich and poor in respect of the number of years people can expect to live in good health has widened even further. During the pandemic, that was shown by the higher death rates among people who live in more deprived areas and among certain populations, most notably disabled people and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Among people younger than 65, the covid-19 mortality rate was almost four times higher for the 10% living in the most-deprived areas than for those living in the least-deprived areas. This is nothing new; the Marmot reviews have covered that many times.

Earlier this year, the King’s Fund found for the NHS Race and Health Observatory that any success we have in tackling health inequalities is always drowned out by other strains, such as waiting times and other clinical priorities. Put quite simply, we cannot tackle inequalities because this Government have never put equality at the front and centre of their policy making. That makes their so-called levelling-up agenda meaningless.

The Bill will enshrine in law the new so-called triple aim to promote various different factors, but the Government are so short-sighted that they have declined to incorporate health inequalities into the triple aim. What a complete missed opportunity that is—or a clear indication that the Government really could not care less. Before anybody says any different, and that the NHS has other means of doing that, we need to look at the state of the outcomes, because what is happening is clearly not working.

The Government continuously and repeatedly fail to accept examples of institutional discrimination, let alone meet their duties under equalities law. We recently heard about how the issues in respect of oximeters and dark skin will have contributed to worse outcomes. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has called for a review of gender and race bias in medical equipment; quite frankly, that is groundbreaking—all we seem to do is have reviews. We would already have these types of policies had we just heeded past Government reviews and looked at the equality impact assessments. There is no excuse for the Government to keep ignoring the requirement that is already set out in law for them to meet their equalities duties to people right across this country.

I caught your eye half a minute ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you indicated to me with that look that I was next. My heart rate quickened. I am always nervous when I speak in this place because we do really important stuff here—all of us do—and this is an important Bill.

Before the Health and Social Care Bill became an Act in 2012, it was amended by the Conservative Government. It was amended in pursuit of parity of esteem. The Coalition Government changed general references to health to “physical health and mental health”, which was not a courageous thing to do—it was entirely the right thing to do.

I have tabled a series of amendments—10, if I have counted them correctly—for debate over the next two days. They ask the Government to change all general references to health to “mental health and physical health”. It is a call to arms. These changes are not just totemic, but hugely important. Over the next few years, we need to recruit 9,000 more mental health nurses to look after our constituents and more than 800 new psychiatrists, and we need to give all organisations charged with delivering healthcare that nudge, that push, that call to arms that they need to make these important things happen. We also need to send another message from this place—on top of all the other messages that we have sent over the past nine years—that we believe that there is no physical health without good mental health, and that good mental health means good physical health.

I am looking at the Minister because he has made a couple of staggering interventions on colleagues tonight. Colleagues in full flow, prostrating themselves at the feet of Government, have suddenly been rewarded with his stylish, charming intervention of, “The Government have heard your cries, and they shall act on them.” I looked at the joy that spread across the face of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and across the face of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the former Secretary of State, who spoke before me. I look at the support I have from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), the most recent former Secretary of State—there are a few of them—and from a former Prime Minister. May I ask the Minister to make one of those generous interventions on me this evening? I am still here. I want to sit down, but if he is not going to make that generous intervention right now, I shall be back tomorrow. I shall also be travelling up to the other place and knocking on its door to make sure that these amendments are tabled there, so that, eventually, we get our way.

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am married to an NHS doctor, who is employed by a hospital trust that serves my constituency.

Let me turn first to new clause 49. Those of us who have been in the world of local government for a long time will have seen the attempts by Governments of various parties to address the financial settlement around social care. I chaired a social services committee that pushed through the charging policies introduced by the last Labour Government in an attempt to address these costs. I also chaired a social services committee that had to balance the demands of the fair access criteria, and saw the last Labour Government drive a coach and horses through a lot of local provision.

I recognise that we should all seek to ask questions of Governments about how we address in particular the impact on working-age adults. In response to the people asking whether we are proud of what we are here to do tonight, I would say that we should be proud of the fact that we are willing to take what are sometimes difficult decisions to ensure that we balance the books and have a sustainable financial settlement that supports social care for our constituents. It is too late for my two grandparents, who went through the process and saw very modest assets consumed by the cost of long-term care, but I welcome the fact that my constituents, and people up and down the country, will benefit from what this Government are seeking to achieve.

I will move on, briefly, to new clause 55, which addresses the responsibilities for ICSs regarding the provision of services and planning for services for our youngest children. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) made a helpful intervention, in which he pointed out the effectiveness of Ofsted-style regulation in ensuring the quality of provision at a local level.

We had an excellent debate in the Chamber just a few weeks ago, discussing the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), which was reflected in the budgetary decisions that were brought forward previously. Having had that debate, it seems clear to me that in tabling an amendment supported by more than 70 organisations in the field of children’s care, we have an opportunity—one which was debated and touched on through various assurances from Ministers in Committee. It is an opportunity to ensure the right level of rigour and accountability in what we ask of ICSs, so that we can make sure that our youngest children, babies, neonatal care, and indeed young people up to the age of 25 who are already covered by statutory provisions in respect of special educational needs and care leaving, are appropriately covered.

I am going to reduce the time limit to three minutes in the hope that as many people as possible can get in.

The Health and Care Bill is deeply problematic. I want to focus on two issues that, when combined, mean that it is a complete disaster. It not only makes it easier for private health giants to profit from the national health service; it also makes a charter for corruption because it opens the door to even greater private sector involvement in our NHS. That is why this Bill should really be called the NHS corporate takeover Bill. For example, it allows private corporations to sit on health boards, which make critical decisions about NHS budgets and services, and the Government’s amendment 25 does not go nearly far enough.

Even before this Bill, an unbelievable £100 billion has gone to non-NHS providers of healthcare over the past decade alone, and earlier this year half a million patients have had their GP services quietly passed into the hands of a US health insurance giant. This Bill would lock in yet more privatisation in future, with even less scrutiny, because it means less transparency. It means private health giants getting an even bigger slice of the action with less scrutiny.

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor. On the issue of private healthcare provision, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that GPs are in fact small businesses in their own right, and some of them quite large businesses. How does he equate the role of the GP as a small business in the context of his concerns about private healthcare?

We are not seeking to wage war on GPs; we want to support GPs and properly resource them. We see so many GPs retiring and not being replaced. It is this Government who are waging war on our NHS with this further Americanisation of our NHS. It is a dangerous cocktail where the dodgy contracts we have seen throughout covid risk becoming the norm. The billions squandered on test and trace should serve as a warning of what the Government could do to the whole of our NHS.

There is a sleight of hand going on with this Bill. It is true that under the Bill NHS bodies will no longer have to put services out to competitive tender to the private sector. Such tendering to the private sector was made a requirement under section 75 of the coalition Government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012. It was a shameful Act and its scrapping has long been demanded by those opposed to privatisation of our national health service. However, the change in this Bill does not reverse privatisation, because without making the NHS the default provider, that simply means that contracts can not only still go to private healthcare corporations but can do so without other bids having to have been considered.

To prevent all this, I tabled amendment 9, which I want to put to a vote—unless of course the Government accept it—because it establishes the NHS as the default option. [Interruption.] Conservative Members groan, but the only reason for people not to support my amendment is if they do not believe in the NHS not moving to a privatised insurance model. Why else would people object to the NHS being the default provider of healthcare? The British Medical Association supports it, so the Tory groans are groans against the position of the British Medical Association. Unison supports it, so the Tory groans are groans against the voices of those who work in the NHS—for most of whom, if they need to have more than one job, it is because they do not get paid enough, not because they are trying to get their own snouts in the trough. I will be voting against the whole Bill, but if the Government refuse to accept amendment 9 to make the NHS the default provider, that shows what the Government of the party that objected to the foundation of the NHS in the first place are really up to, despite all the warm words.

I rise to speak to new clause 49. In doing so, and whatever its merits or otherwise, it is worth reflecting on the comments made by the Minister that we are at least here this evening looking at a part of a process that will lead to some progress in meeting social care costs going forward and removing the catastrophic risk that has hung above the heads of all our constituents up and down the country: that their healthcare costs may end up costing them all of their assets. We are also here having taken the tough decisions around having raised taxes to fund those arrangements.

I have problems with new clause 49. It seems to me that to make good law in this place, first, we need time to consider the matters put before us and secondly, we need the appropriate information upon which to take those decisions. On both those points, I have real concerns about how new clause 49 has been brought forward. The first we heard of it was not in Committee or in September when the general measures were put forward, including the taxation measures on which we all divided and voted, but on Wednesday evening, when the amendment was tabled.

It was fortuitous that the Treasury Committee happened to have Sir Andrew Dilnot before us the very next day. We were able to discuss many of the issues inherent in new clause 49. A number of issues were raised, to which only the Government have the answers. One of them has been put forward powerfully by speaker after speaker tonight, which is: what are the impact assessments associated with these measures? I wrote to the Chancellor immediately after that session and asked him for some impact assessments, including geographical impact assessments, of which we have had none.

It seems that the only information we have had was released by the Department of Health and Social Care on Friday night, in a document called “Adult social care charging reform: analysis”. I am very short of time, which is a shame, but there is, for example, a chart of a 10-year care journey that looks at individuals with different asset levels. While it is true, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that these arrangements, even with new clause 49, are better for almost every level of wealth than under the status quo, it is not the case that everybody is better off compared with the measures brought forward in September.

The right hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the matter, which is what people will get, compared with what they were promised. Is that not the heart of this matter?

I think the heart of the matter is that we have to be clear and wide-eyed about what this change will do. Yes, it is true that it will leave us in a better position than the status quo, but it is not the case that it will leave those who are less well-off in a better position than if new clause 49 were not passed by the House. For those with assets of about £106,000, by my read of this graph, about 59% of their assets would be lost on average under the original proposals. Under the amended proposals, that figure would rise to 70%. When it comes to those who would be better off as a consequence of new clause 49, many are the better off, because they benefit from the changes being made to daily living costs, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.

I am out of time, but I believe that these measures should have been better ventilated in this House—certainly in Committee, if not earlier. We would then have had better information and more time in which to make these important judgments.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 15, which focuses on the membership of integrated care partnerships—the bodies that will be responsible for developing plans to address the health and care needs of local populations. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make specific provisions ensuring the representation of particular areas of healthcare on ICPs via secondary legislation.

In particular, I am concerned about having a strong voice for women’s health in ICPs. I also mention in passing the need for other groups to be represented, such as carers, in an ICP area. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health, I have seen how the experience of women in relation to their healthcare is often an afterthought in a fragmented health system, as in the case of the vaginal mesh scandal; the recent debate about pain during the insertion of intrauterine devices, a form of contraception; maternity provision; and cuts to contraceptive services.

The amendment would ensure that the issue of representation was considered by the Government. It has strong support from the medical bodies in this area, including the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as in other areas of healthcare, such as childhood cancer, and, as previously mentioned, carers groups.

It is important to protect the independence of ICPs and ensure that they can set a strategy that effectively meets local needs, but there is also a need to ensure that women’s voices are not left behind in the decision making. Without this amendment, it cannot be assumed that those voices will be heard on all ICPs. I hope that the Government will consider the purpose of the amendment, which is to strengthen the Bill.

There is much to be positive about in relation to the recent history of the national health service. NHS England research indicates that the outcomes for most major conditions are significantly better than they were 10 years ago, and the NHS is seeing more patients and delivering more tests, treatments and operations than at any time in its 73-year history—millions more than 10 years ago when the Conservatives returned to power.

To reassure those concerned by some of the campaigns around the Bill, I emphasise that this Conservative Government are committed to NHS values. We are delivering the biggest ever cash increase in NHS funding. It is just plain wrong to accuse the Government of trying to privatise the NHS. In fact, it was the last Labour Government who pushed competition and private sector involvement, including many private finance initiative contracts that proved to be unwise and massively expensive. If anything, the Bill takes the NHS in the other direction by reducing the role for competition and increasing the scope for co-operation.

At the Bill’s core are the integrated care systems considered by this group of amendments. Its provisions on ICSs enjoy considerable support from within the NHS and build on the NHS’s own proposals for reform to make it less bureaucratic and more accountable and to enable it to be more integrated with other local service providers, such as councils.

I will not be backing the amendments in this group except those tabled by the Government. I welcome Government amendment 25 for the clarity that it provides to ensure that appointments to ICBs will not in any way jeopardise their independence. By dismantling elements of the complex system for compulsory tendering of services, we will free up time and resources in the NHS and remove barriers to local co-operation so that we can improve patient care.

We all recognise that ever-increasing healthcare needs place great pressure on the NHS, which will rise in years to come as more of us become frail and need extra care. I ask the Minister, in his response, to emphasise how we will train, recruit and retain the professionals we need to deliver NHS services. Record numbers of doctors and nurses are working in our NHS, and I pay tribute to each and every one, but it is crucial to step up the numbers, especially of GPs. GPs in my constituency are overstretched and we need more of them. That needs to be a priority for the Government.

Members will appreciate that I have had to give precedence to people who have amendments in their names on the Order Paper, so not everyone else will have a chance to speak this evening.

In the interests of time, I will just speak to my amendment 99 and new clause 57 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).

The Government often talk the talk on health inequalities but fail to walk the walk. New clause 57 sets out a requirement that NHS England must publish guidance in relation to health inequalities, which I wholeheartedly support. My amendment 99 seeks to put in provisions to reduce inequalities between non-migrant and migrant users of health services. Campaigners and experts have argued that the pandemic has shown more tangible action is needed to tackle health inequalities. The increased risks of those on lower incomes and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities catching and dying from covid-19 have been well documented, yet the provisions outlined in the Bill will likely make the situation much worse.

This Bill can really help support giving every baby the best start for life.

First, new clause 55, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs specifically of babies. “The Best Start for Life” report, published in March, calls for every local area to publish a seamless start for life offer for every new family. That must include midwifery, health visiting, mental health support and targeted services such as couple counselling, debt advice and smoking cessation. Each of these services is currently provided from silos within the public, private and civic sectors, so properly integrating them is no small task. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure there is very clear guidance to every local area on how it should co-ordinate its support for babies.

I also want to support amendments 91 and 92, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), which call for parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Mental health support for families who are struggling in that critical early period is vital. The London School of Economics has assessed that perinatal depression, anxiety and psychosis carry a total long-term cost to society of about £8.1 billion for each one-year cohort of births in the UK. Prevention is not only kinder but so much cheaper than cure.

Finally, I would like to support amendment 102, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), which calls for integrated care boards to provide clarity about their plans to tackle domestic violence. I am delighted that the Minister has already agreed to accept it. Analysis by the WAVE Trust indicates that up to 30% of domestic violence begins during pregnancy. The WAVE Trust highlights the crucial nature of experiences in the period of conception to the age of three in the formation of seriously violent personalities, largely because of the sensitive nature of the infant brain in those formative years. Domestic violence within a family is incredibly damaging to the emotional development of a baby, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that plans for tackling domestic violence cover not just relations between partners, but reducing the impact on babies.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have heard me speak in this place before about giving every baby the best start for life, and I keep doing so because I am convinced that, if we invest in the 1,001 critical days, we really will transform our society for the better. It is in the period from conception to the age of two that the building blocks for lifelong physical and emotional health are laid down.

I was not expecting to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here we are. I want to tell a little story about my dad. My dad often rings me and tells me the things I should say in Parliament—I am not entirely sure any of you are quite ready for it, but I want to tell a story about my dad. He was born in the war, and they were given a council house by the Attlee Government—my dad could lecture us on it for weeks! He was given a council house, which his very Conservative parents bought in the 1980s. My granny, unbelievably—a lovely, generous woman—was a massive Thatcherite. She bought her council house in the 1980s, and that council house stands in my constituency. It is worth around £120,000.

My dad went on to get an education—a free education—and he moved into an area of Birmingham that was not very trendy at the time. He stayed there, I was born there, and my brothers lived there. All through our lives we watched that area get a little bit trendier, and the price of my dad’s house, which he bought for £30,000, went up and up and up. He didn’t particularly do much work—he likes to woodwork in his garage, but he has not done much. His house is probably worth around £700,000 now, and it was £30,000 when he bought it.

If my dad were here today, what he would say to hon. Members, and what he will almost certainly say to me, because he watches it all, lurking on Twitter, is that he does not deserve to keep his wealth for his children at any greater rate than the people who live in the council house that his parents bought on Frodesley Road in Sheldon. Yet today, the people who live in my constituency and the council house that my granny bought, to try to get a better life, will subsidise the care of my father, who has a £700,000 house that I do not need to inherit. I’m all right. I’ve got quite a good job. It is totally unacceptable that that is the situation we are putting almost all my constituents in, compared with constituents in Chipping Norton, for example, or the constituents of other hon. Members who have stood up and spoken. My constituents will largely be left with nothing. They will not be grateful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the Minister give way?

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid I will not, because I have only a couple of minutes in which to try to address these points, and I did give way a dozen or so times in my opening remarks.

Equally, I recognise, as always in this House, the strength and genuine sincerity of the views and the points put by hon. Members on both sides, genuinely highlighting and wishing to explore certain aspects of new clause 49 to understand exactly what it does and how it works. I have complete respect for the strength of those views.

I believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) set out very clearly, this is a significant step forward. It will make a huge difference, and it must be treated as part of a package of measures rather than in isolation. As he quite rightly highlighted, we must look at the floors as well as the cap, at the support that is available, and at the increases in those floors from £14,250 to £20,000 and up to £100,000.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid I will not, because I literally have only one minute, and I did give way multiple times in my opening remarks.

I believe that the measures in this Bill, which we have debated with these amendments today, give the NHS what it needs to further integrate to deliver the local services it needs and, crucially, move us a huge step forward in tackling the challenge posed by social care for future generations.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Amendment 102 has been selected for separate decision. I call Mrs Maria Miller to move the amendment formally.

The right hon. Lady is not here, but I understand that the Minister can move the amendment formally.

Clause 19

General functions

Amendment made: 102, in page 21, line 25, at end insert—

“(c) set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).”—(Edward Argar.)

This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners to set out any steps it proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).

There is great excitement on the other side of the House, but there is no doubt about the procedure. As the Minister had already indicated his intention to accept amendment 102, it was perfectly in order for him to move it.



Clause 25

Care Quality Commission reviews etc of integrated care system

Amendment made: 114, page 37, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) The priorities set by the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) must include priorities relating to leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of services.”—(Jeremy Hunt.)

The Secretary of State has the function of setting priorities for the Care Quality Commission in carrying out assessments in relation to integrated care systems. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set priorities relating to certain matters.

Clause 69

Procurement regulations

Amendment proposed: 72, in page 64, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) The regulations must make provision in relation to the procurement of the services referred to in paragraph (1)(a) (other than primary medical services, primary dental services and primary ophthalmology services) that before any contract for a service with an annual value in excess of £5m may be awarded to an organisation that is not an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust—

(a) the business case for the award of the contract must be published;

(b) any responses to the proposal in the business case must be considered and published;

(c) the process for awarding the contract must be open and transparent and non-discriminatory at every stage, including (but not limited to)—

(i) procurement strategy and plan,

(ii) invitation to tender,

(iii) responses to invitations,

(iv) evaluation of tenders,

(v) decision to award, and

(vi) contract awarded;

(d) the process for awarding the contract must demonstrate due regard to the principles established in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (S.I.2015/102) or any regulations which may supersede them;

(e) in any case where it is claimed that an emergency justifies an award without the process being used then the responsible body must within 14 days publish the business case for the award of the contract and the record of the decision.”—(Justin Madders.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.