Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [HL]

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Berridge]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Farmer, I pass on thanks to all noble Lords who contributed to the Bill and for the assistance of the House for making the passage of the Bill so efficient. I note that the Bill is based on the early years review from the Department for Health and Social Care, which indicates that, at such a stressful time, many parents could benefit from some form of legislation to ensure that they are aware of the help available to them from charitable and publicly funded sources. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who gave of their time and effort to make a valuable contribution to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer, whose efforts on the Bill, as well as on hospices, special needs schools, prison reform and many other areas, will pay dividends for future generations.

By providing parents with accessible and reliable updates on infant care, the Bill empowers families to make informed decisions, fostering stronger family units. This aligns with our principles of personal responsibility and informed choice, helping parents independently to support their child’s development. It equips parents with early-stage guidance to help address any issues at the onset, potentially reducing future reliance on public services, which will enhance efficient government spending, with early support minimising the need for costly interventions later in life.

By offering parents resources on key topics such as nutrition, health and time-tested milestones, the Bill promotes stable and forward-looking early childhood experiences. We value family stability as a cornerstone of society, and many on our Benches view this as a proactive step towards creating responsible, well-adjusted citizens.

Finally, by providing parents with essential information, the Bill aims to reduce unnecessary visits to healthcare outlets, enabling resources to be allocated to those with more urgent and complex needs. This aligns with His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s aims to relieve pressure on the NHS and optimise efforts on the long-term sustainability and success of public services.

Hospices: Funding

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for sharing his story so well.

How many times do noble Lords hear guests of the Palace of Westminster being told that no one can die here as it is a royal palace; people always legally die across the river at St Thomas’ Hospital. However, if you live in, or in the vicinity of, the Palace of Westminster and need end-of-life care, you are more likely than not to receive it from my local hospice, Royal Trinity Hospice in Clapham. The NHS contributes only 25% to 30% of its funding per year, but over half the people needing end-of-life care in the catchment area of south-west and central London use Royal Trinity Hospice. What is clearly an NHS service should be properly funded by the taxpayer. Whether in the vicinity of a palace or in social housing in the most deprived area of the country, there should be a national minimum standard of provision, as outlined in the excellent APPG report on hospice funding.

I also agree that ICBs should be made to look at a multiyear contractual term, as I often wonder how much charitable time, energy and money are spent bidding for money from the ICB. We know that the demographics show that there will be an increase in demand for hospice care over the coming years, so the sector should be free to plan to deliver more, not to fill in more bidding forms.

I am sure that no one would want the hospice movement to be solely government funded, as vital flexibilities and community relationships are built due to the inclusion of the charitable model of funding, raising about £1 billion a year. In fact, this is the perfect time to have this debate, as we are days away from the Budget. Although it focuses mainly on tax and spend, it is also normally the place where changes are outlined to any of the benefits for charitable giving. Legacies are a large proportion of hospice charitable funding, including around £2 million a year for Royal Trinity Hospice in Clapham. Many of these people will already be payers of inheritance tax, and if you leave 10% or more of the net value of your estate to charity, you can reduce the rate you pay from 40% to 36%.

Why are there not the same benefits for other estates that are smaller and that do not pay inheritance tax, and for whom the gift is often a greater sacrifice? If the policy is to look at income, capital and wealth on a more equal level, why is there no gift aid on small legacies? Also, why do you get more tax allowance if you are a higher-rate taxpayer and claim gift aid, but no benefit if you are a standard-rate taxpayer? I know the Minister cannot give detailed answers to those questions, but I hope she will agree with this focus: that if there is more wealth to tax, surely, we should also incentivise people further to give that wealth away.

Vaginal Mesh Implants: Compensation

Baroness Berridge Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate and the panel for its review and tenacious follow-up of remaining recommendations, particularly recommendations 3 and 4 on financial compensation.

I am a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Inquiries Act. With recent reports from statutory public inquiries on Grenfell and Covid-19, non-statutory inquiries such as this can be overlooked. While Grenfell and Covid-19 clearly needed the statutory model, it often comes with unhelpful TV images of banks of lawyers, looking like a courtroom. I do not want to pre-empt the publication of our report in the next few weeks, but it seems that both the noble Baroness and Bishop James Jones, who led the non-statutory Hillsborough review, managed to obtain the trust of victims’ groups, which is essential to that model. Along with my noble friend Lady Sugg, I too applaud those groups who were maturely able to see the advantages and merit of the non-statutory process and, I hope, found it less arduous than the courtroom-type hearings.

A number of recent inquiries—into the Post Office, Grenfell and infected blood—have led to the establishment of compensation schemes. Given the systemic failures outlined so clearly in this review and the avoidable harm caused, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline fully what distinguishes this request from those of the other schemes, if His Majesty’s Government’s position has changed since 4 July. Now that His Majesty’s Government are overseeing a number of these schemes, I hope there is co-ordination over the levels of compensation given, for instance over the costs of care in the home, so that there are comparable tariffs across the schemes. But the request for a redress agency, and the three separate schemes in advance of this, sits in a landscape of similar medical schemes—on variant CJD, vaccine damage and thalidomide, to name just a few. Why are these three schemes not just as worthy as those other medical schemes? I hope the Minister can justify this distinction.

In relation to vaginal mesh, will His Majesty’s Government not have had to consider how to justify on objective, reasonable grounds a decision that looks, prima facie, like indirect discrimination against women? I suspect that, more tellingly, the reason will be to do with the costs. As the review outlines, in other countries big pharmaceutical companies and the suppliers of devices contribute. Will the Minister undertake to meet these companies and ask them to bring a full assessment of the costs to them of litigation, both successful and unsuccessful? Could she also prepare a full assessment of the cost to the public purse of leaving this just to litigation?

By a full assessment I mean, inter alia, the legal costs and compensation paid out by NHS trusts in successful claims, the costs not recovered from the other side even in successful cases, the often unrecoverable lost time of medical staff having to attend court and prepare witness statements, and the costs of court time and of class actions being brought against the Secretary of State. Even if the HPT class action has been discontinued, what was the civil servant time, ministerial time, and Government Legal Department time involved in the case—and the cost to the public purse of debates and Questions in Parliament, including the private office time preparing the Minister and sitting in the Box? Could the companies and public purse assessments be compared to the costs of running a scheme similar to those I have outlined?

There are also non-financial costs borne by the victims and society. The awful testimonies of the debilitating effects of surgery are harrowing—I am so grateful that my loved ones have always had amazing NHS care. But perhaps there are women struggling with their disabilities who think, “If I had a bit extra to buy some help, I could get back to work, maybe just part-time”, or women who are managing their lives and thinking, “I could do some work, but now I have to take on litigation. That is really the final straw”.

The country needs as many people as possible in the workforce. Can the noble Baroness request any relevant information that the DWP holds in relation to these women? For instance, how many are in that situation? Would the noble Baroness be content for women who might be listening today to write to her to outline such situations—and, of course, add the civil servant cost of replying to that correspondence to the full assessment I outlined above?