Cancer Outcomes in the UK
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(6 days, 23 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, sitting on the same side as the Minister does not mean that I am on her side. I thank all noble Lords taking part in the debate and look forward to their contributions. There is a formidable array of talent, so the Minister should get a good response. I thank her for making time to respond to the debate, although, at the end, she might wish that she had not done so.
No one can be in any doubt that poor outcomes for patients with cancer in the UK need urgent attention. Today is World Acute Myeloid Leukaemia Day, which observes a blood cancer with low survival rates, primarily because of late diagnosis. One in two people in the UK—
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
Is it possible for the noble Lord to speak a bit louder? We old, deaf people back here find it quite hard to hear him.
Lord Patel (CB)
Can everyone hear me now? Can the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, hear?
Lord Patel (CB)
Thank you. One in two people in the United Kingdom will develop cancer. Being born with cancer is rare, but a new cancer diagnosis is made every 75 seconds. The UK consistently ranks near the bottom of the table for survivals and deaths from cancers. That is despite several cancer plans and strategies for change, which are often heralded as world class. In 2011, we had Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer; in 2015, we had Achieving World Class Cancer Outcomes; and in 2019, we had a plan to make cancer a priority. None of those plans delivered the promises made. The result is that cancer outcomes have not improved much in England for nearly two decades.
Cancer care is a touchstone of the wider NHS, which itself is also delivering poor performances. It is in that environment that we will discuss the plan. We now have the Government’s National Cancer Plan for England: Delivering World Class Cancer Care. What is different about this plan? The Government say that
“it heralds a full modernisation of our approach to cancer care … fit for the future”.
The report is ambitious but lacks detail on implementation plans, which I hope the Minister will tell us about today.
What are the key commitments? The first is to improve five-year survival rates, so that, by 2035, three in four people with cancer will live more than five years, either cured or living well. The second is to restore performance in meeting cancer waiting-time standards by 2029. The third is to expand screening programmes, including lung cancer screening, by 2030. The fourth is to increase genomic and genetic testing, so that genetic tests are to be reported within 10 days for 96% of patients. The fifth is to accelerate the use of AI, robotics and modern imaging for early diagnosis. The sixth is to reduce variation in accessing new treatments and technologies and to address inequalities. The seventh is to strengthen cancer alliances among system leaders and to boost research and clinical trials.
I have mentioned but a few. All of that and more is being promised when cancer services are under immense pressure. Demand continues to rise, with a complex case mix. Most importantly, staff shortages persist, particularly in radiology, oncology, cellular pathology and cancer specialist nurses.
The shortfall in workforce in critical areas of cancer care is significant. In radiology, it will be 39% by 2029; in oncology, it will be 19%. For nursing and specialist nurses in cancer care, there is a 10% shortage in most trusts. There is a shortage of 4,000 specialist cancer nurses and 6,000 nurses in community diagnostic centres. In histopathology, only 3% of departments say that they have adequate staffing. The Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathologists say that, with the shortage, the workforce will not be able to deliver on the needs in the cancer plan. To do so, the workforce may need to grow by as much as 45% by 2035. In radiology alone, that may cost £1.5 billion a year. I ask the Minister when the Government will publish a fully funded workforce plan for cancer care. We look forward to that soon.
I will now pick up on some of the key commitments, as I do not have time to go through them all. On the commitment for three in four patients to survive five years by 2035, the current average survival for five years is 55% to 60%. Of course, it varies with cancer types: it is good for prostate and skin melanoma, but survival rates are much lower than in many other countries for equivalent cancers across the board. On restoring performance for standards of, for instance, early diagnosis at stages 1 and 2 in 80% of cases by 2029, that is improving: it has now improved to 72.8%. Sixty days from the first referral to treatment is a standard that has not been met since 2015. For treatment in 31 days from diagnosis, the target is 96%; currently, it is not doing badly at 93%.
On expanding screening programmes and eliminating cervical cancer by 2040, the increase in HPV vaccination and self-diagnosis HPV kits is the way that the Government hope to meet that target. The current uptake of the HPV vaccine is 75.5% in girls and 70.5% in boys, with huge regional variation: for instance, in London, it is only about 64%. What plans do the Government have to improve uptake of vaccination and how will the elimination target be met? As far as the HPV kits are concerned, what happens if a woman self-tests and finds that she is HPV positive? The services need to match up to what the patient might need.
Another target is increased genetic and genomic tests. The plan suggests that there might be value in testing whole-genome sequences, the so-called polygenic risk scores aligned with the lifestyle, but they are of no value because the risk is not yet identified or valued. It is different if you are testing for inherited genetic diseases, such as if a patient has a BRCA gene, as then you might follow up with others in families. But the value of whole-genome sequences as polygenic risk scores cannot be right.
Genome testing for mutations in cancer, of course, is important for personalised treatment, and the target is for 98% in 10 days. Currently, it meets this for 68% of patients, because of the workforce issues. What might be the implications if the treatment is delayed because these tests are not reported in time? For instance, a four-week delay in treatment increases risk of death by 6% to 8%, so it is important that these tests are reported quickly. These days, without genomic mutation testing, treatment cannot be started with cancers.
Another target is to accelerate use of AI, robotics and modern imaging for early detection. It is true that in the trials carried out using the triad—it is important to use the triad of AI, robotics and modern imaging—it is quicker to obtain a tissue sample, for instance, but these have to be done together and there are costs of equipment, training and robotics.
The Government hope in the report to increase the use of robotics from 70,000 currently to half a million by 2035. Small studies show benefits, because it fuses metabolic and structural data for better staging and treatment of cancers, but the digital pathology staff remain a key workforce required for this. Can this be standardised across the whole NHS rather than in specialist units alone?
The next issue is funding. Together with staffing, funding is a critical issue. The Government have made a commitment of about £6.5 billion, rising to £15 billion depending on progress. However, estimates from the Health Foundation suggest that, to roll out AI, robotics, modern imaging and digitisation across the NHS, we will need £14.5 billion to digitise the NHS, capital infrastructure worth £5 billion, one-off implementation costs of £2.5 billion and recurring costs of £1.5 billion. Does the Minister think that this is realistic and that the Government will be prepared to fund it?
The main other issue is reducing inequalities in cancer care. We must reduce inequalities in cancer outcomes for deprived populations. The biggest challenge is in the 20% of deprived people, because there is a 60% higher death rate in this population. Late diagnosis is more common in this population, there are low treatment rates, people are more likely to have cancer diagnosed in an emergency in the A&E department and there are low screening rates. Focusing on reducing inequalities in cancer care will be key to meeting the targets set in the plan.
Who is going to do this? The suggestion is that the cancer alliances will be responsible for planning and tracking the delivery of cancer services in deprived areas with an extra £200 million in funding. Is that likely to be adequate funding, knowing that it will require new staff to man these services? I ask the Minister, therefore, what the metrics for the improvement in care of the deprived population will look like.
The developments in technology, drugs and diagnostics in healthcare and cancer care come thick and fast. Many are mentioned in the report. Some of them are not even yet validated. Treatments are very expensive. For instance, CAR T-cell immunotherapy would cost in the region of £280,000 per treatment per patient. The technology is expensive. The current percentage of people getting chemotherapy, radiotherapy, cell and gene therapy and immunotherapy in England is lower than in countries with better cancer outcomes. Implementing what works and improves outcomes for the whole of the population—early diagnosis and prompt treatment, with the workforce to deliver that—will result in better outcomes. I repeat that, knowing what we know, early diagnosis and prompt treatment will improve outcomes well before we use these technologies. They are important, but we need to do that first. Patchy introduction of state-of-the-art technology, early-phase research into the practice of untested diagnostics, science fiction and a promise of personalised nirvana tomorrow will not be the answer.
The plan is thin on the prevention of cancers apart from on tobacco control, which I applaud—and we all applaud. Treatment using GLP-1 and GLP-2 blockers for obese people is not stopping obesity; it is treating obesity, at a cost. In the plan, there is nothing about what the Government will do to reduce obesity, or on the reduction of alcohol consumption, but we know that 40% of cancers are related to lifestyle issues. Can the Minister explain why the report is so thin on prevention?
I will make a comparison to one country. Much of the cancer plan comes from learning from the Danish model. Denmark, some 25 years ago, had similarly poor outcomes for cancers. It embarked on an incremental cancer plan to the point that it is now recognised as the country with the best cancer outcomes. Its latest plan is to focus on helping people living with cancer and those in end-of-life and hospice care. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, wants to know when England will get such a plan. To invest in this, Denmark is to spend 690 million Danish kroner. It does not sound like big money, although its population is small.
The key feature of the Danish plan and the better results is political consensus. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, might remember that, in a debate that we had about the long-term sustainability of the NHS, I said that the NHS’s survival depends on a political consensus. The then opposition Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, laughed and said, “Dream on”. I guess that that is still the problem. If we do not have political consensus, we will just have more problems.
Funding was the other issue. All the five-yearly plans in Denmark were funded. Importantly, there was a promise to the people that the service would deliver early diagnosis within 14 days or less and that treatment would start within 14 days or less. The promise was that, if you did not get that, you could go to any other region in Denmark for your treatment or even another country. Would the Government make such a promise to the population of England?
The Government’s plans are ambitious, but will the Government maintain a consistent commitment to delivery no matter what it takes? Otherwise, in three to four years’ time, we will debate a new cancer plan that will be even better and world-class. However, I wish the plan well and I hope that we begin to get results quickly.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I, too, most warmly congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate. I always think health matters should be handled by a former president of a royal college, and it is excellent that we have another former president of a royal college with us today. This should be a criterion for joining the Lords, and we should have far more of them. I declare my interests. Many noble Lords know that I have been involved in the appointment of key leaders of eminent health and academic institutions for the past 26 years or so. I should also say that I am the mother of a gynaecologist and the grandmother of a medical student.
Cancer is one of those issues that tells us quickly and clearly whether a health system can turn scientific excellence into public benefit. The Government are right to call cancer performance a tide on which all ships rise. They are also right to say that science and innovation will be the engine of our reinvention. I thought the noble Baroness was going to talk about universities and academic research, which she would have had greater right to do.
These are not casual phrases; they are statements of national ambition and they are fully justified. England remains a country of distinguished scientific and clinical strength. We are capable of world-class discovery, trials and research leadership. The challenge now is whether that strength is translated reliably into public benefit—faster diagnosis, quicker access to treatment and more equal outcomes, as the noble Lord said, for patients across the country.
There is much in the national cancer plan that deserves genuine welcome. It is more serious than many previous strategies about research, clinical trials and innovation. It commits to research remaining
“an enabler for the lifetime of the plan”.
It promises annual progress reporting and sets out in-depth three-year reviews, which is the right direction. It also sharpens the real test before us: it is no longer simply whether England can produce excellent cancer research, which we can; the tough question is whether we are as good at adoption as we are at discovery. It is whether Ministers can show, in practical terms, who is responsible for each research priority, by when and by what measure of success they will be judged.
As noble Lords are aware, the central issue is translation. We know that this country can lead in genomics, diagnostics, cancer biology and trial design. The harder test is whether innovation travels quickly enough from the laboratory bench to the clinic, and then from the great research centres to the district hospitals and the patient, who is anxiously and often fearfully waiting. This is the point at which scientific strength either becomes public benefit or remains trapped as potential.
The Institute of Cancer Research puts this with admirable clarity. Professor Kristian Helin warns:
“Cancer research cannot succeed in isolation. It relies on a strong life sciences and higher education ecosystem, underpinned by world-class infrastructure, sustainable investment and access to the best skills and talent”.
Can the Minister say who, across government, is responsible for making sure that research, universities, immigration, infrastructure and NHS reform are pulling in the same direction? I quickly pay credit to the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who has been the most wonderful advocate and leader in this sector. Ministers of whichever department would pay respect to his contribution.
Cancer Research UK—I pay tribute to its chair, who will have much more to say on this, or he may talk about his experience as chief executive of the NHS—makes a similar point in more practical language. Will this plan be the turning point for cancer that patients deserve? It will require much faster progress. The next step must be translating it into delivery—a telling phrase: delivery, not declaration. Have we heard it before? We have, but this time it needs to happen. When will we see the full implementation architecture behind the research and innovation elements of the plan? In plain English, when will we know where responsibility sits, what resources are attached and what would count as success or failure by the midpoint of the plan?
We have been warned before that the problem is not only strategy but consistency. I was interested in what the noble Baroness said about Denmark. Summarising research from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Professor Ellen Nolte said that
“sustained and consistent strategic planning and investment are crucial”.
That is not a throwaway line; it is one of the clearest lessons from comparative success. Countries that improved did not merely publish attractive plans. They backed them, refreshed them and stayed with them. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that this cancer plan will be treated not as a launch but as a governing discipline? What protections are there against the familiar pattern in which bold strategic language is followed by uneven implementation and fading attention?
Clinical trials are crucial, and this is where it becomes real for patients. The plan says that
“every cancer patient gets the opportunity to access relevant clinical trials quickly, fairly and easily”.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy’s important review, which set out 27 recommendations and argued that the NHS should become
“the world’s leading platform for health and life sciences research”.
There has indeed been genuine progress, for which I pay tribute to the Government.
The Government report that the average set-up time for commercial, interventional, clinical trials has fallen from 169 to 122 days. That is dramatic. The latest UK clinical research delivery data shows that 71% of commercial contract CTIMPs applying between April and September 2025 recruited a first participant within 150 days. These are steps in the right direction.
The MHRA and the wider system also deserve credit. The Government say that trial applications received rose by 9% between January and November last year, compared with the previous year. Scientific advice meetings on clinical trials rose by 75%. This is real improvement and should be acknowledged, but of course speed is only one part of the story; fairness also matters. Who hears about the trial? Who lives near enough to join it? Who can manage the travel, time off work and family pressures that participation involves? Can the Minister commit to publishing participation data by geography, deprivation and ethnicity—the noble Lord made this point—so that the House can judge whether access is truly widening?
The question becomes sharper still. Cancer Research UK warns that around 90% of patients are recruited to non-commercial studies. The plan gives too little assurance that these trials will not be left behind. The ABPI’s latest report shows why that matters. The number of new industry trials initiated in the UK encouragingly rose last year.
I see that I need to speak faster. I want to say something about workforce, because the Minister has been asked very clearly about that. Obviously, it is a critical factor. I cite the Royal College of Physicians, the Society of Radiographers and many others. We need the people to make it happen. Were the Minister able to have another debate, I could give the rest of my speech.
England’s cancer challenge is less about what we can discover and more about what we can translate. We know that this requires the NHS, industry, academia and charities working together, and I believe that, with determination, we can see real progress.
GP Contract
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
When we develop digital approaches, I have to say again that the figures speak for themselves on, for example, patient satisfaction with general practice: people believe it is finally moving in the right direction. According to the Office for National Statistics, some 77% of people described contacting their GP as easy. That was in January this year, and it was up from just 60% in 2024. I think the public are giving their own view. On development of online access, we always ensure that patient safety is at its heart. I cannot give the commitment to publish that the noble Lord seeks, but I will be very happy to write to him and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House, giving all the detail about how patient safety is assured. That is core to all our work and developments.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, it is evident all over the country that there is an epidemic of sick notes. Is there anything that the Government are doing to strengthen the arm of GPs who try to resist giving a sick note on simple request?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
If I have understood the noble Baroness correctly—forgive me if I have not—the GP contract does not address that directly. That is obviously a more general but important point about GPs’ practices and how they deal with matters. GPs are given advice in their updated training on how to manage those situations, and I expect them to follow it.
NHS England Update
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her reflections on what has gone before and her welcome that the opposition parties can work with us to put this into a better place now. With respect to change and productivity, and a further extension to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about culture, I can say straightaway that the Government have a 2% productivity growth target in 2025-26. That is immediate. We are not waiting to make this change, because if we do not improve NHS productivity and efficiency, we will not be able to deliver the three shifts needed to future-proof the NHS and support the Government’s growth mission.
We have already invested more than £2 billion in NHS technology and digital in 2025-26, which will help with essential services and drive productivity in hospitals, such as the one that I know my noble friend serves very well. That will free up staff time, ensure that all trusts have electronic patient records, improve cybersecurity and enhance patient access through the NHS app. That is before we even make this change.
We have already achieved a lot in the past eight months, but that is why we have to continue with this reform. We have delivered the 2 million extra appointments that we promised, months ahead of schedule, we have cut waiting lists by 193,000, and, as I said earlier, we have committed to 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments, just to name some. We know about the importance of change, which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked me about, and that my noble friend calls for. That is why we will always continue to take bold steps where we have to, and not shy away.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, the point is well made about duplication, bureaucracy and excessive cost. Can the Minister give us an assurance, though, that we will not move from excessive bureaucratic centralisation to political centralisation? There are few politicians who are clinicians, sophisticated managers or financiers. This is the largest employer in the world, with extraordinarily dedicated and talented individuals concerned. They will not be happy to think that they will be organised on the whim of whoever is the latest Minister.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London used to be the Chief Nursing Officer—there are many people who have worked at high levels in the NHS. We need to be confident that there will be an evidence-based, rational system at some distance from party-political considerations, because the viciousness of health debates about hospital closures, boundaries and other matters knows no bounds. We do not want by-elections to become involved in non-party-political matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and even the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I, were very happy with an NHS executive which was part of the department. However, the role of the chief executive was not the same as the role of the Secretary of State. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very pleased to give the reassurance that the noble Baroness seeks. When we reflect, the disastrous 2012 top-down reorganisation certainly did not depoliticise the NHS—it made it less efficient and less able to treat patients on time.
This is not about politicisation; this is about responsible government. I add—without embarrassing anybody—that a number of former Conservative Health Ministers have said to me, and to my colleague Ministers and the Secretary of State, how much they welcome this and how they wish that they had taken this step. That, for me, as well as the tone of the contributions from the Front Benches today, provides the reassurance the noble Baroness seeks.
Cass Review
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, this is a deplorable situation. It is a formidably good report and I commend the Government on their firm action following its publication. I question why it took the NHS quite so long to stop the routine prescription of puberty blockers to children under 18—that seems rather slow off the mark.
However, I have a more important point. I fear that one of the great damages from all this is to one of our national and international centres of excellence. The Tavistock clinic has been in existence for over 100 years. It was started by Hugh Crichton-Miller for the treatment of soldiers with shellshock. It has been the home of John Bowlby, Lily Pincus and RD Laing. It has done incredibly important work in terms of mental distress, mental health and emotional well-being. It is a national and international centre of training, with about 2,000 students a year. If I may take up the Minister, for whom, as he knows, I have an inordinate regard, I think he said that the Tavistock clinic had closed. It has not closed; the gender reassignment clinic has closed for ever. I ask the Minister and everyone in this House to try to help reclaim the reputation and the respect that the Tavistock clinic rightly deserves.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, absolutely, and I thank my noble friend for correcting me and giving me the opportunity to correct that. Again being very honest, this shows that part of the challenge in setting up the new services is that this has become such a difficult, toxic space, and finding and recruiting staff who want to work in this area is a real challenge as well.
Sodium Valproate
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct. Everyone taking sodium valproate who is of childbearing age should be on a pregnancy prevention programme to make sure that those sorts of incidents do not happen. It is vital, when it is necessary for people to take it, that they really understand the risks and do everything to avoid pregnancy.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, mention has been made of the reduction in the prescription of sodium valproate but can my noble friend clarify that with a few more figures? In the report by my distinguished noble friend, which has done so much, mention was made of a redress scheme. In December the Select Committee tasked Dr Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, to bring forward proposals of what that might look like. Can he inform the House of progress there?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. Yes, the number of cases of people of childbearing age—this is a key criterion—taking sodium valproate has reduced by 33% over the past five years. The number of pregnancies has reduced by 73% but clearly that is not zero so more work needs to be done. I was speaking to Minister Caulfield this morning about the Patient Safety Commissioner. We are expecting her report shortly and from there we hope and believe that there will be a lot more we can do on regulation.
NHS GP Surgeries: Purchase by US Companies
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham (Con)
I am not aware of any correlation between the type of ownership and the quality of the services from it. If there is one, then we can look at that, but we are focusing resources on the areas where they make most difference, and the focus is: what is the performance of that clinic? That is what we should all care about. How are the doctors there performing in terms of appointment times and everything else? I will not put a false target on who owns it and the structure of it, because that is not relevant. What is relevant is the quality.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
Is it not the case that the former chief executive of the NHS brought some extremely valuable experience back from America, from UnitedHealth? I remember long ago in the distant past, when the Labour Party was last in power, that Kaiser Permanente was constantly being consulted. Surely it is an arrogance to have a xenophobic approach to where we take advice and where we learn from other people’s experiences?
Lord Markham (Con)
I totally agree with my noble friend. I like to think that we will take advice from whoever is best placed to give it, whether they are public sector, private sector, UK or international.
Recovering Access to Primary Care
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I commend this plan most warmly. It has long been said that family doctors are the jewel in the NHS crown, but of course there has been a total transformation in the primary care team: it is not simply family doctors but a much more complex team, and the frustration so many of them feel is that they work to the minimum of their ability rather than the maximum. As I understand this, it will enable people to work to the maximum of their skills and use their training to extremely good effect.
The other great difficulty is that patients want to be treated like partners—they want information, they want contact—so opening up the opportunity to use pharmacies far more is going to be extraordinarily important. Will my noble friend say a little more about the contribution of the NHS app? Obviously, it will take time for people to be really comfortable with it, but it seems to me that this could be a transformational component in releasing family services and making them more available.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her comments and completely agree that this plan is all about making sure that we are using our most skilled practitioners in the most effective way. We want to make sure that those people who really need to see a doctor get to see one when they need to, but that patients in need of other treatments that can be delivered by a community pharmacist, a nurse or some other medic, such as a physio, are seen by the right people. Fundamental to the navigation of all that is the use of technology and the NHS app, as my noble friend mentioned.
What I see is the app really helping inform people—giving them their patient records so they can do their own research and understand and take ownership of their own health. We all know that, just as we have seen in the space of banking and other areas, giving people ownership, so they can take control of their health, is fundamental. Once they are armed with that information, they can be helped to navigate to the point of most use. That is where I see fundamental change: it is an area where we will see such change in the way we all address our NHS services and look after our own health. I truly believe that it will be one of the most fundamental changes we will ever see in this space.
Junior Doctors’ Strikes
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. As I mentioned, we felt we had put a fair offer on the table—something that was recommended by the trade union leaders themselves. I think we need to see the overall verdict come out across the board on all this. I note that less than a third of the membership of the RCN actually turned it down in the end, so we have to see what the overall outcome is. There is an absolute commitment on our side to continue meeting constructively with the RCN and to use all means possible to get to a solution.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, those who have awarded degrees to doctors and heard them take the Hippocratic oath that they shall do no harm can scarcely be impressed by action being taken in which the public—patients—are suffering and in which enormous pressure is put on other colleagues in the health service. I, for one, think this is a very miserable occasion, and I hope to goodness that all those in the health service involved in action will think again.
I would like my noble friend to remind us about the importance of the pay review bodies, which were fought for long and hard. If we jeopardise or undermine them, that will be a long-term legacy that not only this Government but a Government of any other persuasion may pay the price for. Can he also say a little more about junior doctors and the steps being taken to increase their remuneration and deal with their working patterns?
All will agree that the health service today is extraordinarily complex. When I was Secretary of State, we spent 5% of GDP on health. That figure is now 12%, and there is not an infinite pit. I hope that reason will prevail.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her questions and the wise points borne out by her own experience. The impact this is having on patients is a regret to us all. On derogations, the history has been that the unions have sat down and made sure that life is protected. It is a regret that the BMA junior doctors have not done that in this instance, and that the RCN is saying right now that it is not considering derogations in its new strike. I hope that this position will change. I do not think anyone in this Chamber would want to see life threatened in this way. I know that we are doing everything we can on our end—as I say, offering more than devolved Governments—to solve this situation. I ask for good will on all sides so that we can protect patients first.
Ockenden Report
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, this is a deeply shocking report, and I applaud the Minister for the way in which he has responded. Above all, I of course applaud Donna Ockenden for the formidable clarity of the way in which she has taken the evidence and, without emotion but with great empathy, set out the 84 recommendations and the 15 “Immediate and Essential Actions”. Of course, some of this is about resources, and the Minister has made some statements about this and the fact that, however much we have, we will always want more, but I welcome the resources invested in this.
More important to me is the issue that the Minister touched on about multidisciplinary training. Midwifery has often been an area where there is almost tribal warfare between the midwives and the obstetricians and gynaecologists. Passing a patient on to a gynaecologist has almost been seen as an act of failure. Time and again, we see delays and this ludicrous target of a low caesarean rate. There has been a phenomenal fall in maternal and perinatal mortality over 100 years, but, at the same time, women now have babies when they are older, and babies are larger. There surely must be the interdisciplinary training that the Minister has referred to and that is so important—and the working group with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives.
Lastly, I come to this deplorable culture where doctors bury their mistakes. It has always been the case in the medical profession that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge failures and problems, saying, “There’s been a problem. Let’s put it aside. Don’t trouble the families with the truth; it’ll upset them more”. This culture of concealment is totally destructive. There are many other professions where mistakes and errors—goodness knows, much of this happens in the heat of the moment—are used as examples from which others can learn, not with a blame culture but with a culture of learning and progress.
I very much congratulate the Government on their approach. This has been a terrible example of groupthink and lack of action, and all of us must be vigilant over whatever institutions we are working with in whatever part of the health service.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her points. I will take this opportunity to elaborate a bit on multidisciplinary training in the maternity workforce. Some £26.5 million of the £95 million invested in maternity services last year will allow training aimed at how multidisciplinary teams work together. There is a new core curriculum for professionals working in maternity and neonatal services—this is being developed by the maternity transformation programme, in partnership with professional organisations, clinicians and service users, to address variations in safety training and competence assurance across England. A single core curriculum will enable the workforce to bring a consistent set of updated safety skills and continue to learn. It is important that we have collaboration and close working relationships between midwives and obstetricians because that obviously benefits the mothers and babies within their collective care. The noble Baroness has already said that this has to be mother-centred and patient-centred.
I also thank my noble friend for highlighting the fact that the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have been clear that the professions must work together collaboratively. We expect all maternity services to act on the recommendations.
We also have to make sure that staff feel able to and confident about speaking up, as my noble friend said. The Government have taken this issue seriously. In response to a recommendation from Sir Robert Francis’s Freedom to Speak Up review, we established the independent national guardian, to help drive positive cultural change across the NHS and, in addition, to provide support to a network of local freedom speak-up guardians. We will have to see how that works, what can be done better and how we can improve it. Putting in one measure will not solve all these problems. There is no silver bullet, but one of the reasons to put this in at local level is to see where it works and where it does not, and what we can learn from that.
Women’s Health Outcomes
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an important and timely debate and I give full congratulations to my noble friend Lady Jenkin on introducing it. I start by echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the requirement for urgent action following my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s report. It is harder being a Health Minister in the Lords because there are so many experts. I chose my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and we worked together harmoniously. It is time we had a patient safety commissioner. That is part of the recommendations, only one of which has been properly implemented. We need a register of doctors’ interests.
My real purpose in speaking is to relate my experience at the University of Hull. Only one in four medical deans is female. At Hull, Professor Una Macleod is a general practitioner who still works in east Hull. She shapes and fashions the medical school so that it is relevant to the disadvantaged and underprivileged. Many in the House will know that my first job was working for the noble Lord, Lord Field. He went to the University of Hull and, for 16 years, I have been proud to be its chancellor. It is trying to reach out to the disadvantaged and neglected, who I call the inarticulate needy, not the articulate greedy, to whom I was so used in my former constituency.
I applaud much of the research, often by nurses and the professor of nursing, because nurses listen and are where the patients are. We have talked about underrepresentation in surveys, and Professor Lesley Smith has done some magnificent work on why younger women in lower socioeconomic groups are less likely to take part in population surveys. She has fashioned a tool to reach out to underprivileged, disadvantaged, less-connected and younger women so that we can understand what they need and want.
Dr Roger Sturmey talks of one in four women suffering from a miscarriage, but of only 2% of research going into miscarriage. A nursing professor of perinatal mental health said that women’s health outcomes and that of their babies are not good enough. He has designed a new measure, a revised birth satisfaction scale.
Over the years, there has been a dramatic improvement in women’s health. When William Wilberforce lived in Hull, women lived to 44. Now, the overall life expectancy is 82.7 years for women and 78.7 years for men but, as noble Lords have said, this conceals areas of neglect and suffering. It is not the extra years only, but the quality of them. I believe that, by looking more deeply and working with professions other than the traditional medical professions and by focusing our research, we can do more to meet the unmet need that so many in this House are so knowledgeable about and have contributed so strongly on.