Protestors and doctors’ union call on MPs to block new English health bill

Open Democracy July 14th 2021

The British Medical Association has come out in opposition to the Health and Care Bill, piling pressure on government

The British Medical Association (BMA) has “overwhelmingly” voted to oppose the Health and Care Bill ahead of its second reading today. The group, which is the main group representing doctors in the UK, called on MPs to block the bill, warning it poses “significant risks” to the NHS.

The news raised cheers from campaigners who gathered outside Parliament this afternoon to call on MPs to vote down the profound new reforms to the English NHS.

Speakers including Labour’s Jon Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said that the bill did nothing to integrate the NHS or improve provision. Instead, he said, it made it easier for NHS contracts to be awarded to private health firms without proper process or advertising.

Ashworth also said that the bill would also allow private firms to sit on new local boards that will decide what services are provided and whether they are privatised or even cut altogether – risking serious potential conflicts of interest.

The BMA’s intervention, coming in advance of today’s second reading, is particularly significant as the doctor’s union did not oppose the last major NHS reforms, in 2012, until much later in the process.

Tony O’Sullivan, co-chair of Keep Our NHS Public, also read out messages of solidarity from supporters and cross-party MPs.

Labour MP Margaret Greenwood warned: “This bill will lead to a postcode lottery, increased local rationing of healthcare and the deregulation of medical professions. It hands the NHS, our most treasured institution, over to big business and is a betrayal of our shared vision of the NHS as a comprehensive universal public service.”

‘Conflict of interest’

Philippa Whitford MP, Scottish National Party health spokesperson and a member of Parliament’s health and social care committee, warned that the bill retained “perverse incentives” and that “the presence of private companies on the [new] boards creates a real conflict of interest.

“It would instead, have been good to see the return of a publicly funded and publicly delivered NHS in England as we are lucky enough to still have in Scotland.”

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said: “The Health and Care Bill… risks handing out NHS contracts to private companies without tendering and more privatisation by stealth. We know beyond a doubt that this isn’t how to help our National Health Service recover from the effects of the pandemic.”

Jon Ashworth added: “This top-down reorganisation allows the private sector a direct say in the design and delivery of local health care. After a year in which cronyism and outsourcing has seen billions wasted on duff PPE and failing contact tracing, patients and staff know this is the last thing the NHS needs. Labour will be fighting NHS privatisation and urging MPs to vote against this bill.’

Campaigners also highlighted measures that weaken the NHS’s legal duty to provide healthcare to people in England – and that apply stringent new financial rules.

The British Medical Association – which represents doctors across the country – has rejected the government’s argument that the bill is necessary to help the NHS recover from COVID, while also stating it is “concerned about the wide-ranging excessive powers the bill would confer on the health secretary”.

Louise Irvine, a Lewisham GP and a member of the BMA’s ruling body, told openDemocracy (speaking in a personal capacity) that she was “delighted the BMA had come out in opposition to the bill early and can now have a real influence on the course of events” and that she hoped other unions representing health workers would join the campaign now.

The BMA today tweeted that the timing of the legislation is “particularly unwise… while we are still tackling #COVID19 and resulting backlog of care” and that “the Bill addresses none of the problems the NHS is currently facing”.

In a press statement, the BMA highlights “many concerns” about the plans, many of them covered by openDemocracy, noting that it “fails to address chronic workforce shortages or to protect the NHS from further outsourcing and encroachment of large corporate companies in healthcare, and significantly dilutes public accountability”.

The BMA also says that “despite its title, the bill does nothing to address the serious failings in social care that needs urgent attention”.

“The Bill addresses none of the problems the NHS is currently facing,” David Wrigley, deputy chair of the BMA, said in the statement.

“This is not the right time to be making such widespread changes to our health service,” he added. “What’s more, the bill addresses none of the problems the NHS is currently facing – too few resources, too little funding, a crisis in social care and a huge shortage of staff.”

Wrigley also says the bill fails to take into account the “exhausted and depleted” workforce which is now battling another COVID wave.

“Healthcare workers have led from the front throughout this pandemic” but their concerns had not been addressed, he said, noting that the bill “undercut” clinical voices and raised the “threat of private health providers having a formal seat on new decision-making boards, and wielding influence over commissioning decisions”.

Instead, Wrigley has called for the government to think again and “make the NHS the default option for NHS contracts and to only tender competitively where this is not possible”.

He said this was “vital” in avoiding contracts “without scrutiny to private providers at huge expense to the taxpayer, as was seen with the procurement of PPE and Test and Trace during the pandemic”.

Read more!

NHS campaigners to stage tug of war protest in Leamington against the Health and Care Bill

Leamington Courier July 16th 2021

NHS campaigners have claimed that the forthcoming Health and Care Bill will increase the private sector’s involvement in the NHS and have called for the new Health Secretary Sajid Javid to withdraw the legislation.

By Oliver Williams Friday, 16th July 2021, 3:49 pm

Campaigners are set to stage a mock tug of war outside the town hall in Leamington tomorrow (Saturday July 17) from noon in protest against the Health and Care Bill..

The campaigners are claiming that the forthcoming Health and Care Bill, which passed its second reading in the House of Commons this week (July 14), will increase the private sector’s involvement in the NHS and have called for the new Health Secretary Sajid Javid to withdraw the legislation.

As part of the tug of war protest, one team will be dressed as Virgin founder Richard Branson, Serco CEO Rupert Soames, Health Secretary Sajid Javid and Baroness Dido Harding.

The other will include patients, doctors and nurses.Among concerns raised by campaigners are the proposed changes to the rules for contracting NHS services.

Presently, Section 75 of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act requires a process of compulsory competitive tendering for NHS services.

The government’s new legislation would end this requirement, which campaigners claim would make it much easier for services to be contracted to the private sector without checks and balances.

Further concerns have been raised about proposals for new Integrated Care Systems (ICS) boards – new bodies within the NHS designed to bring together all bodies working within the health service to work on public health strategy.

However, campaigners have warned that the forthcoming Bill would allow private companies to sit on such decision making boards, arguing that this creates potential for conflict of interest.

Campaigner Anna Pollert, the secretary of South Warwickshire Keep Our NHS Public who organised the protest in Leamington said:

“I was shocked when I heard about the details of the government’s plans for our NHS. With the year we’ve had, our precious health service should be being invested in and cared for.

“Instead, the government is planning to open the NHS up to further privatisation, with profit hungry companies being given a seat at the decision making table.

“We’re campaigning to stop this outrageous attack on our health service. We want our NHS to be run for all of us, not in the interests of private companies.”

When the Health and Care Bill was discussed in Parliament on Wednesday, Sajid Javid said: “Whenever the NHS is subject to change, it is tempting for some, who should actually know better, to claim that it is the beginning of the end of public provision.

“We know that that is complete nonsense, and they know it is nonsense, but they say it anyway.

“So let me very clear: our integrated care boards will be made up of public sector bodies and those with a social purpose.

“They will not be driven by any private interests, and will constantly make use of the most innovative potential of non-NHS bodies.

“The spirit of this Bill is about holding on to what is best about the NHS and removing what is holding it back.”

Boris Johnson pursuing Covid policy of mass infection that poses ‘danger to the world’, scientists warn

Independent July 16 2021

Boris Johnson’s government has come under pressure to urgently reconsider its plan to end Covid restrictions in England on Monday, as international scientists warned that the move poses a “danger to the world”.

More than 1,200 scientists from around the globe have condemned the prime minister’s decision to forge ahead with so-called “freedom day” on 19 July, describing it as “unscientific and unethical”.

Some of the experts convened an emergency summit on Friday, warning that the UK government’s decision to lift its rules on social distancing and masks amounted to a “murderous” policy of “herd immunity by mass infection”.

The group of scientists – who all signed a recent letter to The Lancet warning against the plans – fear next week’s reopening in England will allow the Delta variant to spread rapidly around the world.

The warning comes as more than 50,000 cases were recorded on Friday, the highest figure since mid-January. A further 49 deaths within 28 days of a positive test were also reported – bringing the UK’s total death toll from the pandemic to 128,642.

The latest data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that 1 in 95 people in England had Covid last week, with 67.5 per cent of the adult population now fully vaccinated and 87.6 per cent having received their first jab.

Professor Michael Baker, a member of the New Zealand government’s Covid advisory group, said his colleagues were “amazed” and “astounded” that the UK had decided to lift curbs when transmission of the virus was rising so rapidly in the country.

Official advisers to the governments of New Zealand, Israel and Italy all expressed alarm at the UK government’s strategy.

Professor Baker claimed the UK had started the pandemic “with an approach of herd immunity … rapidly identified as unacceptable”. He added: “It seems now, strangely, that the UK is going back to that approach.”

To find out what others are saying and join the conversation scroll down for comments section or click here for our most commented-on articles 

Professor Stephen Duckett, Australia’s former health secretary, said the UK and other governments should make sure transmissions were under control and the population was protected through vaccination before lifting restrictions.

“If you open up when either one of those is not the case, you are doomed to an exponential rise in [Covid] cases,” Prof Duckett said, adding that it “defied logic” to open up when the virus was spreading rapidly.

Professor Jose M Martin-Moreno, from the University of Valencia in Spain, said: “UK policy affects not only UK citizens, it affects the world. We cannot understand why this [unlocking] is happening.”

The public-health professor claimed Spain had already made the mistake of allowing transmission to rise by ending compulsory face coverings. “Our prime minister in Spain decided to remove on 26 June the mandatory use of masks outdoors … It is an experiment in disaster to remove the tools to contain transmission.”

The international experts were joined by some of the scientists from the UK’s Independent Sage group, which has urged Downing Street to rethink the end of restrictions.


Professor Christina Pagel, a member of the group, said: “Because of our position as a global travel hub, any variant that becomes dominant in the UK will likely spread to the rest of the world.”

She added: “We saw it with the Alpha variant. I’m absolutely sure that we have contributed to the rise of the Delta variant in North America and Europe. UK [government] policy doesn’t just affect us – it affects everybody.”

Speaking at the online summit, she said: “What I’m most worried about is the potential for a new variant to emerge this summer. When you have incredibly high levels of Covid, which we have now in England – and it’s not going to go away any time soon – and a partially vaccinated population, any mutation that can infect vaccinated people better has a big selection advantage and can spread.”

William Haseltine, an eminent US scientist renowned for his work on HIV/Aids and cancer at Harvard University, said: “We have always looked to the UK for good, sensible policies. Unfortunately that has not been the case for the Covid pandemic.

“It is leading to disaster as we can see in the numbers. I follow the numbers daily in the UK and I am extremely dismayed to see the very rapid rate of increase in infections in a population which is vaccinated like we are.”

He added: “I believe that the strategy of herd immunity is actually murderous: I think that’s a word we should use, because that is what it is; it is knowledge that you are doing something that will result in thousands, and in some cases tens of thousands of people dying. It is a disastrous policy, it’s been clear that that’s been the case for some time, and to continue to espouse that policy is unconscionable.”

And Professor Walter Ricciardi, president of the World Federation of Public Health Associations, warned: “This is becoming international, because from England and the UK the virus is spreading all over the world: there are flights from London every day in Europe; we have already seen in the past that from the UK the virus spreads all over Europe.”

The warning comes as Professor Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, conceded that the number of people in hospital with Covid in the UK is currently doubling about every three weeks and could reach “quite scary numbers” soon.

Speaking on Thursday evening, Prof Whitty said: “I don’t think we should underestimate the fact that we could get into trouble again surprisingly fast.”

Prof Whitty has said there is “no clear evidence” that delaying the next step of England’s road map out lockdown would make a difference in reducing the spread of Covid transmission.

But Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton said Prof Whitty was “wilfully misrepresenting scientific opinion” with claims that there was widespread support for the prime minister’s approach.

The Integrator: New health bill “more combustible” than Lansley’s

Health Service Journal July 15th 2021

Insider tales and must-read analysis on how integration is reshaping health and care systems, NHS providers, primary care, and commissioning. This week by senior correspondent Sharon Brennan.

As expected, the Health and Care Bill passed its second reading this week by 356 votes to 219, with just three Conservative MPs voting against it: Philip Davies, Andrew Lewer and Esther McVey. Yet the debate showed that its passage through Parliament will be far from easy.

The Department of Health and Social Care’s own parliamentary engagement team are “struggling to succinctly explain the bill and its benefit for patients” to MPs, one source close to the Conservative party has told HSJ. The source said it would be “monumentally difficult” to argue the bill was addressing the most important issues facing the NHS during thethird reading of the bill this autumn just as the service is dealing with a huge waiting list, a winter crisis in the NHS and the resurgence of flu and possibly another covid wave.

Indeed, during his introduction to the second reading debate, the health and social care secretary Sajid Javid did not attempt to explain how the legislation will make a difference to rising waiting lists, increased demand on cancer and mental health services, exhausted staff and a social care crisis.

Nor did the biggest piece of health legislation for a decade get a mention when Mr Javid laid out his health priorities during a speech in the Commons held on the very same day he later introduced the bill to Parliament. Instead he said his three priorities as health secretary were “busting the backlog”, getting out of the pandemic and stabilising social care. 

One source close to the legislative process said: “This is a more combustible situation than the Lansley bill [was in]. The health secretary doesn’t seem to support it and I am not sure how that will play out. This bill is so big it’s going to get bogged down. It is not a stable situation that this bill has been launched into.

“The big issue is I don’t think there are any Conservatives that actually want this bill to happen. Most of the back benchers won’t yet know what it is and the first they’ll hear will be concerns about it. It must also be the first instance of a health bill introduced without the health secretary’s support.”

”We could see a world in six months’ time of lots of rows over this without it doing anything to help with waiting times, and MPs asking why are we doing this?”

Labour MPs stuck to the party line of “the wrong bill, at the wrong time” (although The Integrator has to ask if there is ever a right time for a wrong bill?), and the timing issue may be the one criticism that will strike home. The increased powers for the health secretary as expected caused much concern in the Commons debate too with Munira Wilson MP, the Lib Dem health and care spokesperson, saying that after the failures around PPE and Test and Trace, “handing back power to the government is the opposite of what we need to do”.

On the local reconfigurations power grab, Labour shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth landed a punch when he asked Mr Javid “Does he really want these powers?” The answer is no and they are likely to be traded out or watered down as the bill progresses to win over worried MPs and get the health secretary out of a tight spot not of his own making.

If I was a betting woman, I would also guess that the growing row over redrawing boundaries of ICSs will also be one that Mr Javid has no interest in pursuing. At least three Conservative MPs raised concerns with him during the Commons debate about their desire for their local ICSs to be left as they are, while Mr Javid repeated the line from Ed Argar in an adjournment debate earlier this month that nothing has been decided on this issue.

Perhaps one of the biggest missteps is that the huge expansion of the health bill under Matt Hancock has left MPs feeling like it is a free-for-all on what also should be included in the bill. The strongest argument by far was made by Jeremy Hunt, chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, who pushed again for independent annual reviews of the workforce, saying a plan for future staffing is the “very least we owe…. [our] exhausted staff”.

His argument gained cross-party support and it’s pertinent to remember that Hunt raised this issue in the Commons despite being personally told by Mr Javid on 6 July that the health secretary was not pursing this health committee recommendation.

HSJ’s Conservative party source said the “confusion” around integrated care boards, integrated care partnerships and the accountability mechanism behind each needs to be “explained so quickly to Parliament and the public so there is buy-in for the changes. It would be easier if we gave ourselves 18 months to do that”. They said the new health secretary’s team remains “lukewarm on the timing”. They added: ”Different people in Number 10 have very different views on whether this [bill] is a good idea or not. Its health team are not united in advocating for this.”

….and, of course, the Bill is likely to come back from the House of Lord’s Christmas-treed with amendments and scarred by suggested deletions.

Whether all this controversy will actually endanger the plan of getting royal assent for the bill in time for integrated care systems to become a statutory body by April 2022 is very hard to determine. The government has certainly got the votes to force it through, but how much political capital will it have to – or want to – spend in doing so?

 Mr Javid, of course, wrote to Boris Johnson to recommend delaying the bill, only to see his opinion overruled.

Of all the uncertainties which could affect the bill, covid is the greatest. Next week’s experiment on public unmasking goes could be the biggest decider of all on how the bill progresses.

One hospital chief executive said to our editor Alastair McLellan about the current situation facing the NHS, “the only one thing I can tell you for sure, is covid’s in charge”.

Source

House of Commons debate, HSJ interviews

Source Date

16 July 2021; July 2021 

SWKONP Press Release July 3rd 2021 on Leamington Mega-Lab

South Warwickshire Keep our NHS Public Held a successful rally to celebrate the NHS’s 73rd Birthday on Saturday 3rd July, and to protest at the Privatised Mega-Lab and the stealthy GP Data-Grab.

On Saturday morning June 3rd, South Warwickshire Keep our NHS Public held a rally outside Leamington Town Hall to celebrate the NHS 73rd Birthday, campaign for decent pay for health workers and protest at ongoing creeping privatisation.

Locally, the spotlight was on the privatised Leamington Mega-Lab. Anna Pollert, Secretary of SWKONP, says,

Contrary to claims by now disgraced Health and Social Care Secretary, Matt Hancock, that the Mega-Lab is publicly owned and operated, the it is run by multinational Impellam Group, chaired by former Conservative Party deputy chair and tax exile Lord Ashcroft. It’s in ‘partnership‘ with ‘Test and Trace’, the notorious waste of £37 billion of public money, which the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said made no “measurable difference” to stopping the spread of Covid.

MP Matt Western, who was dismissed by Matt Hancock for asking questions about it that it “doesn’t deserve an answer” joined the protest.

SWKONP has major concerns about the safety and lack of regulation at the not-yet-opened Mega-Lab.  Anna Pollert said:

Owner Impellam has no expertise in medical science or laboratories and the lab doesn’t refer to professional approval by the Institute of Biomedical Sciences or United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

SWKONP has mounted an online petition calling on the government to handover the Mega-Lab to NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Pathology Services, and to give these public labs the investment required to expand Covid-19 and other diagnostic services.

See Change Org: https://tinyurl.com/pahcyym5.

The SWKONP Birthday event also drew attention to the forthcoming central collection by NHS Digital of confidential GP patients’, which is happening by stealth. Few people know it’s happening. We don’t know what ‘third parties’ will have access to it. Privacy campaigners and some MPs have argued that the public should be consulted first. The data extraction has been delayed but will still happen on September 1st.  The public has until August 25th to opt out. SWKONP supports the use of medical data for public NHS research, but opposes its use by private companies for profit. Passers-by took forms on opting out from the SWKONP stall. They can be obtained from GPs and there’s more information by MedConfidential https://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/

Integrated care systems to set own constitution and pay

Health Service Journal July 7th 2021

  • New bill sets out how ICSs will be formed and what new statutory duties they must abide by
  • New constitution for each ICS will give significant local freedoms on how they will work but ICSs must abide by mandated new duties
  • Spending rules to change too, with FTs prevented from spending their capital if it will breach ICS limits
The new health bill will allow integrated care systems to set their own constitution, determine staff pay and raise ‘additional income’ but the health secretary will have the power to approve ICS chairs.

The legislation, published on Tuesday, confirms ICSs will have both “statutory integrated care boards [previously referred to as an NHS ICS board] and statutory integrated care partnerships [previously referred to as a health and care partnership board]”.

It said the ICB will take on the “commissioning function” of clinical commissioning groups as well “as some of NHS England’s commissioning functions”.

The explanatory notes accompanying the legislation state each ICB “will have the ability to exercise its functions through place-based committees (while remaining accountable for them) and it will also be directly accountable for NHS spend and performance within the system”.

It may do this through the creation of committees or subcommittees to allow the “exercising [of] budgets and functions” at place-level, generally seen as the size of a local authority. A mandated ICS constitution must detail how these committees will be held accountable.

The notes add: “The ICP will be tasked with developing a strategy to address the health, social care and public health needs of its system. The ICB and local authorities will have to have regard to that plan when making decisions.” It does not specify who should sit on the ICP board, however, or what “have regard to” means in practice.

The legislation sets out a new “triple aim” duty for ICSs to ensure each one has “regard to all likely effects” of their decisions on health and wellbeing of England’s population, patients’ quality of care and the sustainable use of NHS resources, including how their decisions may impact on other care costs within the system. This has been introduced partly to ensure trusts, which will remain operationally independent, have a duty to consider the quality outcomes and financial envelope of the whole ICS.

It also places a duty on ICB to “have regard” to any guidance NHSE publishes on ICSs.The legislation also states that:ICSs must publish their own constitution, with NHSE to issue a “model constitution” to help areas develop their own. The constitution must set out how much board members will be paid, length of tenure, and eligibility for reappointment.

The ICS board can also determine their own employment terms and conditions for its staff, including pay, pensions and allowances;
Each board will have a duty to ensure “continuous improvement in the quality of services” it provides, as well as a duty to enable patient choice “by commissioning so as to allow patients a choice of treatments, or a choice of providers, for a particular treatment”.
It will also have formal a duty to promote innovation within its ICS;
ICSs will be allowed to “raise additional income for improving the health service, provided that this does not significantly interfere with the integrated care board’s ability to perform its function”;ICSs must compile a “register of interests” of all its board and committee members, plus its employees, and lay out in its constitution how it intends to manage conflict of interests;
ICB boards must include a member “jointly nominated” by trusts in the area, as well as a member each, also jointly nominated, from primary care and local authorities in the ICS. It does not stipulate a CFO, medical or nurse director on the board as NHSE guidance has recently asked for;
Each ICS chair will be “appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the secretary of state”. Only NHSE will be able to remove the chair from office but this is also subject to sign off by the health secretary.
ICSs must take on NHSE commissioning roles such as in primary care or dentistry, even where the ICS has “not reached agreement” with NHSE to do so. The accompanying legislative notes said: “The intention is that [ICBs] will hold the majority of these functions at an agreed point in the future” with NHSE having a “limited” oversight role; 
NHS bodies must also abide by a new duty to co-operate with local authorities, with DHSC to issue guidance to “clarity” on what this duty means in practice. 

New spending rules

The bill also provides a new power to allow NHSE to set capital spending limits for foundation trusts. The foundation trust limit would be set on an individual basis for each affected trust and will most likely last for a financial year.The legislative notes said: “The power is intended to only be used on a foundation trust where there is a clear risk of an ICS breaching its system capital envelope as a result of non-cooperation by a foundation trust, and other ways of resolution have been unsuccessful.

”The bill also replaces the national tariff with the NHS payment scheme, which places a duty on NHSE to publish pricing rules for commissioned services.

The secretary of state will also be obliged to make an annual payment to NHSE for the Better Care Fund, used to pool funding between local authorities and the NHS, and can mandate NHSE, who can then in turn mandate ICSs, to use a specific amount on “service integration”.

Source Health and Care BillHealth and Care Bill explanatory notesSource Date6 June 2021


Health campaigners hold rally in Leamington to shine a light on the town’s controversial ‘Mega-Lab’

Leamington Courier July 5th 2021

Their concerns are that the lab will be privately run by businesses with no medical expertise, despite claims from the Government that it will be publicly-operated NHS centre.

By News ReporterMonday, 5th July 2021, 12:48 pmUpdatedMonday, 5th July 2021, 12:50 pm

Health campaigners held a rally in Leamington – both to celebrate the NHS’s 73rd birthday and to protest against the lack of answers over the town’s proposed ‘Mega-Lab’.

Health campaigners held a rally in Leamington – both to celebrate the NHS’s 73rd birthday and to protest against the lack of answers over the town’s proposed ‘Mega-Lab’.

The South Warwickshire Keep our NHS Public (SWKNP) group met on Saturday morning (July 3) to make their voices heard.

They were joined by Warwick and Leamington MP Matt Western, who – along with SWKNP – has been shining a light on the problems with the Mega-Lab.

Their concerns are that the lab will be privately run by businesses with no medical expertise, despite claims from the Government that it will be publicly-operated NHS centre.

Anna Pollert, secretary of SWKONP, said: “SWKONP has mounted an online petition calling on the government to hand over the Mega-Lab to NHS Coventry and Warwickshire Pathology Services, and to give these public labs the investment required to expand Covid-19 and other diagnostic services. Visit https://tinyurl.com/pahcyym5

Click here to read our previous story on the Mga-Lab – Why the secrecy over who will be running Leamington’s Covid ‘Mega-Lab’?