Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Watkins of Tavistock

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th November 2020 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I have received requests from three noble Lords to speak: the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am most grateful to be able to come in at the end of this important short debate. I particularly commend the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, for his outstanding and long history as a parliamentarian and, yet again, for his clarity and ethical approach to every subject that he addresses.

I am glad that the Minister has referred to the two studies from the NIHR and simply support the idea that we need to wait for those, although I draw attention to the fact that, in 2018, there was a Cochrane database review, which looked at the 16 double-blind randomised control trials that it could find. It found some support, but it was not terribly strong. One of the difficulties here is that pain is a symptom that occurs in an enormous range of disorders, but the fundamental cause of the pain will be very different in different people. To get a matched population where you can compare one with another is extremely difficult. I hope that the change that NICE is looking to in the evidence that it seeks, where it will also look at evidence in practice, will support the evidence coming through from large patient cohorts who can then be put into broader groups.

The other point about pain is that, as people get multiple pathologies, they often take several other medications as well, which can interfere with the ability to assess them. They are also often elderly. The evidence certainly needs to be accrued. I would say as a clinician that one worry was always whether there would be a leak of cannabis on to the streets. However, in practice, I think that the leakage has gone other way so that it comes from the streets into people’s homes. Clinicians have had to look at this with Nelson’s eye because they do not want to support clinical activity. In a study that I did, while we did not ask patients to tell us specifically where they were getting some things from, when we put together all the different types of alternative therapies being used by a group of people who were cancer patients, the numbers were huge. This supports many of the comments that have already been made. I am glad that the Government are looking at it and I expect that it will not be too long before we find that the ability to get the medication that is needed is made easier. I worry that it may be too late for some patients, but we are getting there.

Covid-19: Social Care Services

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Watkins of Tavistock

Thursday 23rd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for securing it. It is clear from yesterday’s NHS Providers briefing that the social care sectors, including hospices, care homes and domiciliary providers, are beginning to consider closing to new admissions or taking on new people for support in the community. This is due to worries about the need for PPE to protect residents and staff from cross-infection by Covid-19. As of 13 April, nearly one-sixth of care homes reported expected outbreaks of Covid-19. This means that many care homes do not have enough staff. Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently on this issue, but it means that it would be very difficult to discharge people from hospital care if either care homes cannot give short-term care or domiciliary care cannot be organised.

The shortage of PPE is more extensive, serious and difficult to overcome in some places than others. It appears that care homes which are members of large chains are beginning to find solutions to short-term procurement. However, even these larger companies are extremely concerned about the increased costs of PPE. It is therefore almost impossible for small domiciliary care providers supporting vulnerable children, people with mental health problems and older people in their own homes to purchase the necessary PPE in a timely and cost-effective manner. Can the Minister explain the Government’s approach to these providers, and how the Government intend to make access to PPE available through either national or local procurement and delivery in a cost-effective manner?

If social care is to be successful and sustainable in taking on new clients, as well as providing high-quality care to those who receive it, we must reduce the feelings of fear about employment and the right to remain among carers from overseas. The Government’s new post-Brexit immigration scheme is based on treating health and social care workers differently. The Home Office’s plan will enable doctors and nurses to apply for fast-track NHS visas, but care workers will have to apply to come under the points-based system. Nearly a fifth of all care workers in this country come from overseas. Many of them may choose to return home in the next year, yet the Home Secretary does not at the moment see a need to apply a fast-track system for care workers. Please can the Minister comment on this approach and inform the House whether it is to be reviewed?

I also have to ask, as other noble Lords have: will the Government consider scrapping the £400-a-year NHS surcharge for health and social care workers? If we are to recruit and retain our workers, doing so is vital at this point in our history.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, to stop sharing her screen by clicking the box with an arrow in the command bar, please. I call on the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, to speak next.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Watkins of Tavistock

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for adopting the principle of the amendment that we put forward on Report and for recognising its importance. I am glad to see that this will be in pre-authorisation reviews and to hear the assurances that it will act as a trigger for all types of reviews and will be put into the Bill when it goes to the other place.

I also recognise that the Minister has touched on staff induction, which will need to include training on liberty protection safeguards and cover when the review should trigger further action. However, I seek a categoric assurance from the Minister that the code of practice will state that staff will have the full protection of whistleblower legislation whenever they raise a concern, even if, for whatever reason, it does not proceed to initiating a review. I was grateful that during our meetings the Minister openly discussed the possibility of vexatious triggers, although I estimate that these would be very few and that triggers for reviews would involve legitimate concerns about a person’s welfare.

I also seek assurance that in its inspections the Care Quality Commission will be asked specifically to check that all staff know that they can request a review to be triggered and that they know that they will be protected. In addition, the responsible body, whenever asked to undertake a review, will need to keep a register of all such requests so that an emerging pattern of several requests coming from an institution will trigger a more major review into the type of care provided for everyone there.

One of the difficulties I anticipate arising at the interface between the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act is over the principle of objection. Among this cohort of people, objection may not be active; it may be passive. Sitting quietly, being withdrawn and being unhappy should be enough objection for people to consider whether the person should have been placed somewhere different or whether the conditions of their liberty protection safeguards should be altered. I have the impression that the type of objection envisaged in the Mental Health Act review was much more active than this type of passive objection, which could be interpreted as consent.

The other worrying aspect relating to this Bill and to the entire mental health review is the acute shortage of accommodation for people, both in the short and long terms. There is a shortage of suitable accommodation for people in crisis and of long-term accommodation that can meet people’s needs. Some are therefore accommodated in places not really adequate for their needs, but there seems to be no other option.

I repeat my gratitude to the Minister for having listened and brought forward this government amendment, and for all the other amendments that have gone into the Bill and brought about substantive changes. I look forward to hearing those reassurances in his response.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I concur with what other noble Lords have said and ask the Government to take one more look at the remaining conflict of interest relating to independent hospitals. It appears they will be able to employ their own AMCPs and, as the responsible body, authorise the deprivation of liberty of people in the hospital. This could pose a huge conflict of interest. The team has taken a great deal of trouble to remove this in the care home setting, and it seems it would be relatively straightforward to do so for independent hospitals. I fully support the amendments outlined today.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Watkins of Tavistock

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments and I am delighted that the Minister has had his mind changed. Not using this phrase will change how people feel about their relatives who may be suffering from mental disorders. I am also optimistic that, in the longer term, using such modern nomenclature will make mental health professions more attractive to young people.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, I also welcome these amendments; removing “unsound mind” is a major step forward. I have a couple of questions for the Minister and I hope he can clarify. I may have misheard him but I understood him to talk about head injury. It would be helpful if he could clarify that he was referring to acute head injury—or acute brain impairment of any sort—as opposed to long-term damage such as frontal-lobe damage, which can happen when you have had a major brain injury. This can result in very long-term problems and difficult behaviours, which may mean that people currently need to be assessed as subject to deprivation of liberty. Could he clarify that we are not discounting a whole group of people who, it is generally felt, benefit from being properly assessed and safeguarded?

I would also like confirmation from him on another group. In January 2015, the then Mental Capacity Act deprivation of liberty safeguards policy lead in the Department of Health wrote out quite widely. There had been a concern about people who were nearing the end of life, including palliative care patients and patients in hospices. It was made clear in this letter that if somebody had consented to a care package and then went on—as part of their disease process when they were dying—to need some restrictions, and possibly to be moved to another place of care, that would not fulfil the acid test as such; neither would it in the case of people who were being nursed in a side room who were not under continuous supervision and control. The reason was that, in palliative care cases, there is often a time when the family cannot cope as the patient becomes unconscious, is moved to a hospice or develops another condition that had not been anticipated. It would be an inadvertent consequence if this letter from January 2015 no longer stood. It has been important and has made care easier. It was following this letter that we were able to change the regulations for what had to be referred to a coroner. That made a major difference, because families found it terribly traumatic to find a relative subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguard having to be referred to a coroner. I simply seek clarification on those two issues, but I in no way question the importance of removing “unsound mind” from the Bill. I hope this is the beginning of us seeing the end of that term, which is stigmatising.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Watkins of Tavistock

Committee: 3rd sitting - (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

It strikes me that Amendment 87E would apply not only to this Bill but to other Acts. Does it fit here? I understand the principle of what my noble friend is saying.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

It could have wide-reaching consequences, but a lot of people who have lost capacity and are in a state of high dependency are already in nursing homes, so they are already being cared for in the system and may be subject to deprivation of liberty. Some of them have long-term continuing funding for their care, but they have been there for a long time and the donee, who is managing all their affairs and advocating on their behalf, is very concerned about their welfare in the event of them failing.