Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Clause abolishes the requirement for ICBs and their partner local authorities to form an integrated care partnership. It also abolishes the related requirement for that partnership to prepare and publish an integrated care strategy.

These abolitions address the policy objectives of the 10-year health plan by streamlining the number of plans that must be created by local health systems and supporting key local stakeholders to work together more flexibly and effectively. The changes recognise that in many areas, integrated care partnerships have not had a positive impact on local health outcomes and have come with significant opportunity costs. Alternative planning approaches proposed elsewhere in the Bill and more broadly will enable local health bodies to plan for their patients in a way that is tailored to their strengths. However, I can reassure the Committee that where existing arrangements are working well, nothing in the Bill will prevent local areas from coming together to consider how best to integrate services and plan their approach to tackling the challenges they face. I commend the clause to the Committee.

In essence, the Clause abolishes integrated care partnerships and strategies, which are where ICBs come together with local authorities to discuss how they can make their services more integrated. We know that many of the challenges facing the NHS are caused by difficulties in social care provision and some of the difficulties in social care provision are caused by issues with health provision, and that if those commissioning services in those two areas work together, we can see an improvement in both.

The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 made changes to local government structures and enhanced public involvement in health services. Section 116 requires local authorities to produce joint strategic needs assessments for the local authority and its partner ICB. When preparing the assessment, the local authority and its partner ICB must

“co-operate with one another…have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State…involve the Local Healthwatch organisation”,

and involve local people and the relevant district councils. I note that later in the Bill we will also come to the abolition of Healthwatch.

Section 116 of the 2007 Act has been modified by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Health and Care Act 2022 to ensure that references match the current NHS structure. For instance, in 2008 there were primary care trusts, rather than ICBs. Section 116ZA of the 2007 Act requires ICBs and local authorities whose areas coincide or overlap to create integrated care partnerships, which consist of a member appointed by the ICB, one from each responsible local authority and any other members that they choose to add; to some extent, they can determine their own procedures.

Section 116ZB of the 2007 Act requires ICBs to prepare an integrated care strategy

“setting out how the assessed needs in relation to its area are to be met by the exercise of functions of…the integrated care board…NHS England, or…the responsible local authorities”.

When developing that integrated care strategy, the integrated care partnerships must have regard to NHS England’s mandate and any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Clearly, that would now apply only to guidance issued by the Secretary of the State, because NHS England is also being abolished. An integrated care partnership must publish its integrated care strategy and give it to each local authority and partner ICB. Integrated care partnerships must reconsider and, where necessary, revise the strategy each time they receive a new needs assessment.

Clause 23 deletes section 116(5A) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. That subsection required the local authorities to give a copy of the needs assessments to the ICBs, which is of course no longer necessary because they are being abolished. Clause 23 also deletes sections 116ZA and 116ZB of the same Act, which established ICBs and defined integrated care strategies respectively.

As Conservatives, we believe that streamlining bureaucracy is sensible, and I am sure that this is a well-intentioned reform. However, a survey conducted by the NHS Alliance in November indicated that a quarter of integrated care system leaders are likely to keep the integrated care partnerships anyway on a non-statutory basis, and 40% plan to fold them into health and wellbeing boards and working partnerships with the authorities. It is not really a ringing endorsement of the policy if a sizeable number of people intend to keep it anyway.

Like many other elements of the Bill, these changes are uncosted—if we read the impact assessment, it says “N/A” for the cost. Clearly, there will be a cost incurred by the abolition of the process, but there will also be an opportunity cost to services if ICBs and commissioners are not working together in the provision of social care as effectively as they were before. That will cost people in social care, and it will cost people in healthcare.

As recognised by the impact assessment that the Government have produced themselves, there is a risk of reduced focus on the wider determinants of health at system level. Committee members on both sides of the House have already stressed the impact that other health determinants can have on the health service and social care, and we have previously considered amendments to that effect.

Overall, it is regrettable that local government does not have the direct feed into ICBs that the design of those integrated care partnerships provided. Whether or not I agree, I can follow the theory or principle behind making the area covered more local, in line with the strategic authority. However, if the Government wanted to do that, I do not understand why they did not decide the mayoral areas first. At the moment, we do not know where the mayors will be, and where they are now is not where the ICBs are. The Government have decided to cut ICB budgets and force mergers before they have decided where the mayoral authorities will be in some cases. Even where there are mayoral authorities already, the Government have not mandated that the ICBs be coherent with them, and, therefore, in many cases, they are not. We have a very confusing pattern emerging, which may require further reorganisation of ICBs to line them up, with a further cost down the line.

Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, even if the Government get through the combined mayoral authorities they are trying to in this Parliament, there are still great swathes of England where there are no active plans for a mayoral authority at all. Even if the Government get their own way, some areas will not have a mayor for many years—if they get one at all.

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. The mayors are also not all responsible for health and social care—the local authorities are, in most cases. There could therefore be a mayor directing proceedings with the ICB who is a political opponent of those actually democratically elected to look after social care. ICBs are supposed to be apolitical commissioners accountable to the Secretary of State, but now, instead of working with social care directors, they will work with an elected mayor instead.

I can see a positive to that in terms of democratic accountability, but what happens if they all disagree? There is some incoherence about who is in charge. We have the local authority tasked with delivering social care, which may be led by one political party; the mayor directing the ICB, who may be of a different political party; and the Secretary of State who can also direct the ICB, who may again be of a different political persuasion. How does it work if they disagree? Does the mayor actually have authority, given that the Secretary of State can override them anyway? How does the Minister see that working in practice? It feels like some people will be in power without responsibility and others will have responsibility without the power to exercise it.

I will raise some similar concerns about the abolition of integrated care partnerships and integrated care strategies, which Clause 23 brings about. Before I do, I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The removal of integrated care partnerships, as well as the extension of ICBs to cover multiple local authorities, raises unanswered questions about the future of social care planning, which is very important to the Liberal Democrats, as the Minister knows. We feel that it removes the voice of charities and others in the voluntary sector who are crucial to meeting the range of needs in health and social care.

Throughout the Bill there is a theme of separating social care and the NHS, at a time when greater integration and closer working are clearly needed. We heard Sir Andrew Dilnot say in evidence that we cannot deal with some of the challenges that arise in the NHS—particularly around flow through hospitals and long waits in corridor care in accident and emergency—without improving the discharge of patients into social care. Separating the organisations that deliver those things is clearly problematic. If we think about it, as the Shadow Minister just outlined, we have lost the local authority representative on ICBs. The Bill also changes the way the better care fund is administered. With those changes, we are really concerned about the separation of these two responsibilities.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an example in Shropshire. Shropshire council spends almost 80% of its budget on social care. It is an extremely challenged council because of those funding pressures. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICB has also been one of the most financially challenged ICBs. That is partly because of its small scale and its merging with Staffordshire—which, for the record, is unlikely to be the combined mayoral authority that Shropshire ends up in, as is my current understanding, although we are a long way off resolving that problem.

The impact of those two organisations having challenged budgets is that the delivery of continuing care causes real conflict; both of those organisations are trying to manage demand downwards because it affects their budgets so profoundly. The conflicts between the two organisations are only going to get worse if they do not have a mechanism for working closely together and resolving them.

I am concerned about this clause and the general move in the Bill to separate the two organisations. I hope the Minister will be able to describe to us how she will ensure that social care is not lost from ICB planning. Local authorities do not have a big enough say, and the decision to split Healthwatch’s local functions between ICBs and local authorities continues that theme. A lot of people who report concerns to Healthwatch are stuck in the hand-off between the NHS and social care provision from the local authority, and as the Bill envisages it, they will not even have one body to report those concerns back to. That separation of social care planning is a theme of the Bill.

Does the hon. Member share my concern that what often gets billed as simply streamlining or efficiencies is in fact slimming down, decoupling and weakening?

We cannot see the resources allocated, so we cannot confirm that, but it is clearly a concern. We are not yet discussing the part of the Bill that deals with Healthwatch, so I should keep my powder dry, but we know that local authorities will get some additional funding to deal with their elements of Healthwatch, while ICBs will not. There is a concern that that streamlining is, in fact, slimming down.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to pick up where the Shadow Minister left off. Essentially, she said that the cart is being put before the horse in terms of mayoral authorities.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East outlined, many areas have no plans for a mayoral authority; our area of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is some way down the track. As I expressed last week in Committee, we have a strange anomaly in the new Surrey and Sussex ICB, because Sussex will get a mayor and Surrey will not, so Sussex residents will have representation on the ICB whereas Surrey residents will not. I hope that the Minister has had a chance to reflect on that strange paradox over the weekend and that she will now be able to answer specifically, as she did not last week, how that lack of representation for Surrey residents will work locally.

The abolition of the integrated care partnerships and their allied strategies continues a theme whereby the Government, under the veneer of slimming down, are actually decoupling—or weakening or whatever terminology Members wish to use—health and social care. For many years, all parties have regarded the bringing together of health and social care as essential, but the Bill not only looks like it is not trying to encourage that bringing together, but in fact is doing the opposite of that—it seems to be looking to pull them apart and decouple them. That is strange, because it does not appear to be the expressed policy of the Government, but it is the only logical explanation for many parts of the Bill, including the abolition in Clause 23.

The shadow Minister pointed out that a number of areas will keep the ICPs in some form or other. I ask the Minister, does the Government support that feature? Was it the Government’s intention to remove the statutory footing of the ICPs and strategies in the hope and expectation that they would continue on a non-statutory footing? If so, we come to the paradox: if the Government support local authorities and health services continuing to work together in informal ICPs, why is the Minister trying to get rid of them? If they do not support that, is it now stated Government policy to separate social care and health services?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. There is a consensus—not just in this room, but within Parliament and going back several decades—that we want more integration and partnership working, particularly to bring together health and social care services, but this Clause drives a coach and horses through that, and does so in a way that weakens rather than strengthens the Government’s plans to replace the system.

Local authorities bear responsibility for social care and public health in their areas, but they will no longer have a direct voice when it comes to integrated care boards. What we have seen to date is not an ideal system, or even a system that works particularly well, so I understand that the Government want to strengthen it, but we should not do that by removing the local government voice or making it indirect via a mayor who does not have the direct responsibility for delivering social care locally. Mayors may have some strategic oversight, but that is different.

Just last week, the Minister of State for Care appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee and was questioned on this very issue by me and others. His view was that the mayoral strategic partnership would be more than sufficient to make up for the local authorities losing their seat, but he faced particular scrutiny from Ben Coleman, who made some excellent points, which I will not repeat or paraphrase as they are on public record.

The gist of his argument was that local authorities have been ignored for too long when it comes to joining up health and social care services. This measure puts local authorities in an even weaker position and threatens what the Government are trying to achieve with social care, particularly for areas such as mine that have an older population and a relatively small unitary authority with so much responsibility to deliver on.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon has already said, the combined area of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—or the Solent, as the Government like to call the Isle of Wight, despite the fact that fish cannot vote—is not set to get a mayor for a couple of years, but it will be at the vanguard of the Government’s plans. What about those areas for which there is no date, or even no plan for a mayor at all? It seems extraordinary that the Government would do away with the current set-up, imperfect as it is, and replace it with something that does not yet exist.

The Government have time deal with this problem. I am sure they quietly understand that there could be a problem. It is now on their shoulders to deal with it. I welcome the Minister’s reflections.

There has been a wide-ranging discussion on this Clause. I remind Members that the abolition of ICPs is about reducing that complex legal framework, allowing for local decisions and putting partnership work in place in the most effective way. That is what the measure seeks to do. I do not think anyone has disagreed with the notion that the landscape is complex, and that people are producing a lot of reports. In future, health and wellbeing boards will be the focal point for the collaboration between ICBs and local authorities. They are statutory committees that bring together the NHS, local government and relevant community partners; set the strategic direction for health and care services; and oversee joint working in their area, which we are of course committed to making work in local areas. I do not think many people will disagree with that; I hope that is clear.

There is also an enhanced role, not only for the health and wellbeing boards—as I said last week, I think they have been underutilised in most areas; again, I do not think people generally disagree with that point—but for health scrutiny. Again, across the country, that has not been pursued to the greatest extent to create links with elected councillors in local areas.

We are clear that the role of local authorities is crucial at a local level—as the name describes—and particularly in working on our commitment for neighbourhood partnerships and developing the neighbourhood plan; most of that was covered in our sittings last week. I accept that there are a number of concerns about how that will work in different geographies. I think the Opposition said last week that a survey suggested a quarter of areas will keep those partnerships, which is absolutely fine. That is up to them.

On the one hand, the Opposition say that there is centralisation and a power grab in this Bill; on the other, they complain—I should not say complain, because it is their right and their job to do so—about the move to devolution and the freedom to allow, or indeed encourage, local leaders to work together across authorities on behalf of the populations they serve, even where some of them are politically divided, because the populations they serve voted for different people. It is incumbent on all of us as individual elected politicians to work with people—whoever the population around us voted for. These provisions provide for that.

Can the Minister set out how she envisages health scrutiny committees having genuine teeth? Our cross-party health scrutiny committee in Leicestershire universally condemned a decision by the ICB—totally disagreed with it—and the ICB basically said, “Thank you; noted,” and carried on anyway.

We all have examples of decisions that are made in our constituencies that we do not like. Again, that is part of the democratic process, but I go back to my earlier point: either there is a centralised unaccountable body like NHS England making decisions, or the Secretary of State devolves those responsibilities.

It is incumbent on people and elected leaders locally, and the ICB, which is not elected, to work with local leaders on these decisions. ICBs will be held accountable through mechanisms in the Department of Health and Social Care. There will be decisions that people do not like—that is a consequence of some of these things—but the Clause simplifies the landscape.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not; we need to move on from this point. Of course, if people want to keep the partnerships, they are totally able to do so. That will be up to local leaders to decide.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.