Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, we originally put down Amendments 3 and 4 in Committee back in the autumn. It has to be said from the outset that this is actually still a very bad Bill. Since Committee, the context in which we are discussing this Bill has without doubt changed. It seems that it has no support from anywhere except in the Department of Health—and possibly not even from everybody there. It still has no mandate. Going back on previous commitments to, "““no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS””," the Prime Minister and his Health Ministers, including the noble Earl, have adopted what we on these Benches would like to term the ““Attlee defence””, in deference to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—and I mean the Government’s Earl Attlee, not ours, as it were. Last March, during a debate on the Building Regulations (Review) Bill, in trying to explain the Government’s position, the noble Earl came up with: "““I gently remind the Committee that I answer for Her Majesty's Government, not for the previous Opposition””.—[Official Report, 4/3/11; col. 1352.]" That is a remarkable statement. Perhaps the Minister could gently remind the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary of their coalition agreement. It is significant that the Prime Minister has had to come to the Bill’s rescue today, not least because a Downing Street source yesterday was reported to threaten the very life of the Secretary of State—I think that the words used were ““taken out and shot””—for his failure to communicate the Bill and the Bill’s policy. We in the Opposition have never advocated such a thing. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on this particular version of the Secretary of State’s ultimate responsibility in his job. The Prime Minister’s words were also revealing in that the Government intend to push this Bill through. I do not believe that that is a respectful way of referring to the remaining stages in your Lordships’ House. It begs a question that I should like to ask the Minister early in Report stage, which arises from what happened recently as regards the Welfare Reform Bill. Will he give the House notice now as to whether the Government intend to use the financial privilege mechanism to strike down any amendments that this House might agree during the remaining stages of this Bill? I have searched in vain for a precedent of legislation that is so unwelcomed by those who have to deliver it, so incomprehensible to those on whom its consequences will be wreaked and so difficult to explain in simple terms. But even the Minister, who is acknowledged by the whole House to be an outstanding performer and someone who can normally enlighten us about most matters in clear, plain English, has had to resort on many occasions to seeking to justify points of this Bill in the managerial jargon of his boss, Mr Lansley, which is as dense as the Bill itself. If any noble Lords doubt that, I suggest that they need only to peruse the record of the Committee stage. We do not work in a sealed bubble in this Chamber and I appreciate that the Government might prefer it if that were the case. But the public’s view of this Bill has shifted and hardened since we completed the Committee stage before Christmas. The views of those who have engaged with this Bill for more than a year have changed and we need to hear their voices throughout Report stage. As we all know, the discussions around the role of the Secretary of State have been of great significance. What has emerged is that the reasons for changing the role have never been made clear. As has been pointed out, there is a continuity around the role of the Secretary of State which goes way back to the founding of the NHS. I will not rehearse all the arguments that we heard in Committee and at Second Reading, and which some of us have been rehearsing during the months between those stages and up to last week. The reality is and always has been that the legal duty on the Secretary of State is to provide services. Even securing the provision of services has been delegated to organisations which deliver that duty on behalf of the public. Public accountability is and always has been vital to maintaining public confidence in the NHS. Ultimate political accountability exists in the person of the Secretary of State. In no way can the Secretary of State argue that any failure to provide necessary NHS services is not his or her responsibility. The argument that if there is an issue the Secretary of State must work through failure regimes, regulations and directions to others is not good enough. As the Health Select Committee and many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said in Committee, it would not be believed anyway. We will be moving to the alternative wording in the next debate. We on these Benches have supported the process that has led to that wording. However, I should like the Minister to explain—I would be very happy to hear that explanation when he responds to the next debate—the difference between these words and those that are before the House. I am giving the Minister notice that this remains a bit of a mystery. As with so much else in this unloved Bill, we are left with the question: why? Why on earth did the original Bill propose a radical change to the role of the Secretary of State? The Minister in the Commons, Simon Burns, was ready to die in a ditch for the wording. It was a liberation ideology for him. Why, throughout the scrutiny in the Commons, was the line rigidly held by coalition Ministers and MPs, and why is the Secretary of State—I really do think the House needs to know the answer to this question, but again I am quite happy to wait—now briefing royal colleges saying, ““Actually, the changes that noble Lords have agreed in their Chamber will make no difference to the Bill””? Our amendment and the others that deal with the role of the Secretary of State are important and we have undoubtedly prised improvement out of, if not a reluctant noble Earl in this Chamber, certainly out of a reluctant Government. Many of these issues are proxy arguments about what kind of NHS we want. During the rest of the Report stage we will focus our energies on the many other things that need to be changed, particularly in Part 3. These are part of the argument about why we do not want a full market, why we do not want regulation along the lines of that for the utilities or for the banks, and why we need to protect and preserve the tradition, well established and well understood, of the role of the Secretary of State. I will be withdrawing the amendment, as I promised the Minister I would, but I would like some answers to the questions that I have posed in these remarks. I beg to move.