Health and Social Care Bill

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 203D, 216ZAZA, and 216ZAZB. This is all about strengthening the relationship between health and well-being boards and clinical commissioning groups. These relationships will be key. Unless they are right and work properly, we will not get the system that patients deserve. Partnership is key. Amendment 203D puts a new duty on clinical commissioning groups to ensure that their communication plans address the priorities of health and well-being board strategies. Amendments 216ZAZA and 216ZAZB work together, and are about strengthening language. We go from a fairly weak, "““The clinical commissioning group must involve each relevant Health and Wellbeing Board in preparing or revising the plan.””" to a stronger, "““Clinical commissioning groups must ensure each relevant Health and Wellbeing Board is a key partner in preparing or revising the plan.””" It puts the onus on clinical commissioning groups to ensure that health and well-being board plans are involved. The aim of the amendments is to give health and well-being boards more teeth in expecting commissioners, including councils, to do their bit to deliver the agreed priorities of the health and well-being board as expressed in the joint strategy. Health and well-being boards are intended to bring a strong sense of place, local priorities, and democratic accountability. Advised by the director of public health, they will have population accountability for the whole area, and this is likely to be expressed as local priorities for action to address inequalities of outcome or access within the area. As the Bill stands, the onus is on the commissioners to have regard to population outcomes and local priorities, consider joint commissioning, and to involve health and well-being boards throughout the preparation of their commissioning plans. This will, at best, create locally flavoured service accountability. There is no weight in the legislation.