Puberty-suppressing Hormones

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I do not recognise the last point that the noble Baroness made about the time. The aim is to start recruiting participants in spring next year and, as I mentioned, the National Institute for Health and Care Research is working with NHS England to develop the clinical trials. They are the first in the world and I will be very pleased to provide further information as and when it is available.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I commend the Secretary of State—and, indeed, the Minister. I commend the Secretary of State for his very clear Statement and for his courage, because he has had to stand his ground. He kept his cool, despite receiving unpleasant smears and abuse not only online, but even, to a certain extent, from the Back Benches in the other place.

I am slightly confused about something. I think we can see now that puberty blockers are a medicalised euphemism for chemical castration. The same kinds of drugs, when given to Alan Turing, were used as punishment for being gay. I am still not convinced, and do not really understand why the Government still think it is appropriate to conduct a clinical trial on children with these drugs. The Minister emphasised “uncapped” as though that was positive, whereas I thought that was scary.

As this medical scandal unravels, more and more young people are de-transitioning, but the NHS has no services to deal with this. I wonder whether the Minister would agree, perhaps, to meet some of the charities that are doing this kind of thing—there is Genspect’s Beyond Trans and its special service providers—just to discuss what the NHS might need to look at, moving forward in a different way.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I very much welcome the generous and supportive comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in respect of the Secretary of State’s Statement. I am grateful for those. I note that she finds the reference to “uncapped” scary. I presented it as the way to gather the widest amount of relevant evidence, because that is a clinical trial; that is what is so important. The reason it is being done is that there is insufficient evidence and there has not been such a trial, and we need to do one for this particular situation.

In respect of meeting charities and others, the Secretary of State has been very keen to—what I would call—reset the relationship with various groups which all have different sets of thoughts on this. I have joined him in those meetings. He has also been meeting those with lived experience. We continue to do so. We have wanted to detoxify the debate, and those meetings have helped immensely. We will continue to have that listening ear.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is somewhat humbling and not a little intimidating to follow so many insightful speeches from those at the heart of the issue. For me, as a bit of an amateur outsider, I broadly welcome the Bill, with some reservations that I will pursue in Committee.

For Second Reading, I suggest that we should always remember the cultural and political context of our deliberations and indeed definitions—I will come back to that. We also need to remember the lessons of history: locking people up for mental illness has been mired in ethical and political scandal over many years. We all can cite the former Soviet Union, where political dissidents were labelled mentally ill, but even in democracies it was not until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association voted to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder—and let us not forget those unmarried mothers who were sectioned in the 20th century.

However, even with this misuse of psychiatric power, it is still possible to be a defender of liberty—such as myself, I hope—and yet acknowledge the need for some people to have their liberty restricted because of their mental health. Many years ago, when I worked for Mind, this was a very polarising debate; but I argued then, and continue to believe, that when someone is severely psychotic, manic or out of their mind, psychiatric coercion is not a violation of individual autonomy. That is because the subject at that point in time—“at that point in time” is key—is not autonomous in any moral sense.

However, is release not different? And that brings me to the issue of community treatment orders. Along with others, I too would like them to be abolished. The general problem of CTOs was well explained by Dr Ken McLaughlin is his pamphlet Escaping the Straitjacket of Mental Health. In it, he makes the point that, while the case for compulsion can be justified at the point of hospital admission, when the patient is likely to be in an acutely psychotic state, can compulsion be justified at the time of hospital discharge when the patient should have mental capacity restored? Prior to 2007 and CTOs, on leaving hospital, an ex-patient regained their full rights of citizenship, including the right to refuse medical treatment. The problem of being released with a CTO is that you return to the community as neither a patient nor a citizen. This hybrid state is troubling in terms of compromising civil liberties.

I tend to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and others: at the very least I question why the Bill will allow indefinite CTOs to occur. I agree with the Centre for Mental Health’s call for the safeguard of time limits, and then CTOs could be extended only if there was proof of proportionality for the individuals concerned.

The question of indefinite “coercive orders” inevitably reminds us of the plight of the almost 3,000 prisoners held indefinitely behind prison bars under the abolished and discredited IPP sentence. Many of these people are incarcerated in prisons precisely because their mental health has deteriorated as they have been refused release, even on licence; a sort of unacknowledged section is happening here. What is more, shockingly, a wide range of experts now blame this very sentencing regime as the cause of IPP prisoners’ mental distress. The hopelessness—“psychological terror”, as it has been described—of never-ending sentences has literally driven prisoners to lose their minds, and even their lives through suicide.

So, while I am delighted the Bill will remove prisons from the list of places of safety, how does it help IPP prisoners? They are deemed too mentally unwell to be released safely. Their illness is derived at least partly from a shameful state mistake, yet IPP prisoners are coercively detained indefinitely in institutions that the Bill would have the state now deem as unsafe for those with serious mental illness.

One case that has recently attracted headlines illustrates an IPP prisoner’s plight as it relates to the Bill. Forty year-old Thomas White has served 12 years as part of his indefinite IPP for a non-violent theft of a mobile phone in 2012. According to his psychiatrist, Thomas developed his religious hallucinations and psychosis as a direct result of being on an IPP sentence. His sister Clara has been campaigning for over a year to have Thomas transferred to a hospital, but his recent assessment appointment was cancelled due to staff shortages. Clara notes despairingly:

“We waited a long time to have Thomas assessed again by the psychiatrist. We more than likely won’t get the assessment again. The system is nothing but criminal—people like my brother are being seriously failed”.


James Frith, the Labour MP for Bury North, agrees. He said:

“Thomas’s indefinite imprisonment has had a hugely detrimental impact on his mental and physical wellbeing. Thomas should be a patient, not a prisoner”.


Hear, hear.

Things are little better for the general prison population. The annual report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons complains of high healthcare staff vacancy rates and chronic recruitment and retention issues. In that context, Richard Garside, the director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, concludes that the provision in Clause 35 to introduce a statutory target of 28 days for transfer from prison to hospital, while welcome, feels aspirational rather than practically implementable in the current system.

The broader crisis of staffing and resources and whether it will hinder the Bill, as we have seen in jails, is also mirrored outside the prison gates. Many briefings that we have all received for this Second Reading query whether the Bill will deliver its promises as a consequence of such problems.

I will now raise a related concern. I think that overstretched mental health services are not just a question of resources but rather a consequence of a recent cultural trend: the problematic medicalisation of more and more aspects of the human condition. Ever greater numbers of people are being encouraged—often by Government-backed policies—to view normal, if adverse or perhaps painful, life events through the prism of mental illness. As a consequence, a greater number of people now demand expert pharmacological or therapeutic intervention.

Over recent decades, this huge increase in classification in the psychological realm has moved the job of diagnosis far beyond the field of psychiatry. A veritable industry of counsellors, therapists and psychotherapeutic practitioners now label an ever-expanding set of behaviours as mental ill-health. As the number of labelled conditions has grown, those reporting that they suffer from such problems has risen exponentially. The stats bandied around are eye-watering. According to the psychologist Oliver James, a third of the adult population shows sign of “psychiatric morbidity”. The problems of worklessness and sick leave, which the Government are rightly tackling, seem dominated by those who have removed themselves from productive work because of mental health-related problems.

Student Minds reports that one in three students experiences clinical levels of psychological distress, but as it is now claimed that students might suffer PTSD if exposed to certain literary texts, it is difficult to assess the clinical authenticity of the so-called mental ill-health epidemic among the young.

The main thing is that the pathologising of ever more aspects of life has unintended consequences, some pertinent to the Bill. For example, we risk reducing the time and resources available to those who desperately need professional help if the system is clogged up with inappropriate referrals and arguably overdiagnosed conditions.

Finally, there is a danger of confusing public opinion if the true horrors and tragedy of serious psychotic illness are relativised and given the same mental health moniker as unpleasant but mundane psychological challenges.

National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the comments of my noble friend Lady Taylor, who set out the government response very clearly in the last Question. I also share the view of my noble friend Lord Foulkes that it is important to be honest; I believe we have taken that on board as a new Government. That is why, for example, we commissioned the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, to find out the state of the NHS in order that we could move forward. What the noble Lord found did not make for pretty reading, and it is our job to put this mess into a rather better shape than it is now.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what has been described as “groans” might, in another language, be described as holding a Government to account. The Government are in charge now and have to answer the charges as put.

If the Minister is correct that the Treasury evaluated what the changes to employers’ national insurance contributions would be, the Government will have known that this was going to affect not just big nasty bosses but a wide range of employers—hospices, care homes and all sorts of charities. The hairdressing sector is being decimated as we speak. I just went and stood in the rain for two hours at the farmers’ demonstration, where tenant farmers pointed out that these national insurance changes will mean they will have to sack farm workers. This is having a wide decimating impact. If the Government are going to be honest, I hope they will talk to each and every one of the sectors and tell them that this is going to be resolved one way or another.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This Government are very committed and are indeed talking to all sectors, including in my own department. As to the point the noble Baroness rightly raises about holding Governments to account, I welcome that. It gives me and my noble friends an opportunity to set out the plans, responsibilities and concerns of this Government. We will take them seriously and continue to work to get consensus wherever we can.

NHS England: Ovarian Cancer

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the untangling of linguistic confusion and the implications for policy. However, when the Minister says, “When we say ‘woman’, we all know what we mean”, I am not convinced that that is true in policy circles. Increasingly, inclusive linguistic demands are that “women” includes men who self-identify as women, which means that by-women and for-women provision, such as rape crisis centres, domestic abuse support and so on, is actually not women-only at all. When the Minister says, “We all know what we mean by ‘woman’”, can he make it absolutely clear that he means “woman” as in “natal woman” and not those who identify as women?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I guess what I am trying to say here—again, always with my health hat firmly on—is that I want to make sure that when we describe something in a health sense, I want that person to know that we mean them because we are doing something which applies to them, often in the case of ovarian or cervical cancer. By saying “woman”, obviously in most cases that will make it very clear that it applies to them—particularly to those with English as a second language—and they know what that means. To make sure we are covering all the bases, I am very happy that we have that secondary descriptor of a “person with ovaries”. I am trying to cover all the bases in an inclusive way so that the health message gets through.

Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

I hope they do find time, because that allows for better scrutiny and better ability to amend, which we always claim to be our key role—to scrutinise and amend. It is a major piece of legislation to go through using SIs, and it is inappropriate to do so. Maybe we must consider how else we could do it in a way that maintains flexibility.

Moving on from that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, already mentioned, if this legislation is going to be the template for future legislation to regulate all health professionals, some issues will need to be discussed. This order does not require that health is considered as a category in the regulation of physician and anaesthesia associates. The statistics show that, when the GMC or, I presume, any other regulator investigates, it is a very stressful situation for the person involved. Some statistics suggest that one in three considers suicide; they are depressed by it. If the category of health is removed as a consideration when a person is investigated, as this order does, it is a backwards step. I need to ask the Minister why health has been removed as a consideration. If this is the template, I presume that this will also apply to other regulations in the future.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just said many very important things, with which I agree, far better than I would. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, because this debate has revealed the importance of this order: it is not a minor regulatory matter that can be put through by an SI, in a back room. That it has created so much debate outside the Chamber indicates why it is important that we discuss this and that it is not nodded through behind the public’s back. I am glad of that.

I have been embroiled in discussions about this for some time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made a good point when he said that the discussion has become quite toxic. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to be worried about PAs and AAs; I did not anticipate this kind of savage attack on them. There has been a real scapegoating of these individuals, which is not how we should resolve this issue. We should also remember that doctors can be guilty of clinical negligence. We do not want to wander around pointing the finger at who is more negligent.

However, if there are preventable never events as a consequence of people not being fully equipped for the roles that they are asked to do—by the way, they are being asked, very often told, what to do when they are not really up to it, through no fault of their own—it is a matter for public concern. That is the way that accountability works and why we need to be very clear and have no muddle over what somebody is supposed to be doing, what they are not supposed to be doing, and what they can and cannot do.

There were a couple of things that confused me in the arguments made in the briefings we received. I lost the will to live in the rows going on about the differences between physician associates and physician assistants, as though “associate” or “assistant” was the key difference. I think the difficulty is when people think that any of them are physicians, because that means that they think they are doctors. That is the confusing bit and it shows that people can get lost in the midst of this.

It is also worth bearing in mind some context when it comes to the public. Most patients would prefer to see anyone at a doctor’s practice than wait for two weeks in pain. That makes the public vulnerable to having a lesser service. I understand that. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was absolutely right about a big team: when you are in hospital, you are surrounded by people wearing a million badges, different colours and lanyards. They all introduce themselves to you in great detail, but you do not care because you are ill. You want to lie back and trust them, and assume that a division of labour is going on.

Sometimes, when I was reading the briefings, it felt as though there might be a bit of vested interest about who was regulating who and what numbers were on the badges. This seemed to miss the point of the real concerns, which are whether there is sufficient clarity about the scope of PAs or AAs, or whatever we call them; that there is not too much mission creep; and that we have a clearly defined set of protocols and specific tasks allocated. I think it important that PAs in GP surgeries have a different set of protocols and scope than in hospitals—they are not the same, even though in both instances they are called PAs.

Covid Pandemic: Testing of Care Home Residents

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, what is so devastating in reading the Telegraph’s WhatsApp lockdown file is that it has confirmed that the most susceptible to Covid were victims of a lack of targeted testing in care homes, while the least at risk were hectored and frightened into getting tested to reach one government Minister’s self-set arbitrary targets. Will the Minister take back that we urgently need this public inquiry? Will it scrutinise the process of target-setting that lost sight of its original aim? Also, after the revelations that Minister Helen Whately raised concerns about the inhumane policies of separating people in care from their families—so lonely and distraught that they gave up—will the Minister support the Rights for Residents campaign to enshrine in law the right to maintain family contact in all care settings? It was not just the lack of testing that killed people but some of the policies too.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We all agree that visiting should be allowed as much as possible. I know that the policy is that people can receive at least one visitor, but I know that there are also examples where that is not happening enough. It is very clear, from our side, that it is a priority that everyone should have visitation rights, because they are vital. Can we say that that will always be the case in every circumstance in the future? Well, clearly no one foresaw the pandemic, so this is one of those situations where we can never say so definitively, but we all firmly agree that visitation is a key part of people’s care and well-being.

NHS: Access to Treatments

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

A number of noble Lords have already asked that question. I will take it back to department and get an answer.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, could I ask the Minister to read and circulate an article from Saturday’s Guardian by Merope Mills, a devastating account of the preventable death of the journalist’s 14 year-old daughter, Martha? Would the Minister note that Ms Mills, an erstwhile, uncritical NHS cheerleader, stressed that this

“had nothing to do with insufficient resources or overstretched doctors and nurses … austerity or cuts, or a health service under strain”?

Can the Government recognise that this crisis goes far deeper than simply listing numbers, money or technical solutions?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is not just about money, although money does play an important role; it is also about processes and efficiency. In my conversations with people who have been in the NHS or medical services for years, many have commented that we still have the same old model: you go to see a GP, you hope to see them for five or 10 minutes and then you are referred to someone in secondary care. There is a much more efficient way of doing that in this day and age. We have to look at the whole model of both health and social care and modernise it.

Coronavirus: New Cases

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

We rely on data from the UK Health Security Agency. It monitors this, and looks at ONS data, data on hospitalisations and the capacity of the NHS to absorb the increase in patient numbers if there is one. That is where we take our advice from and that is what would trigger future action, should it be needed.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I confirm that there is anxiety about the rise in Covid cases, but less about the virus itself than a worry that politicians might reintroduce some of the over-the-top restrictions that led to such collateral damage during the past two years. Hindsight or not, I make the point that people are nervous. Very specifically, will the Minister comment on the fact that, for example, some care homes are using the rise in Covid cases to lock down homes and carry on restricting visits with relatives—which we now know is damaging the mental and physical health of so many elderly care home residents, who suffered so inhumanely, not from Covid but from our response to it? Will he encourage those care homes to open up and be a bit more confident?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the noble Baroness for her championing of civil liberties issues and making sure there was a debate on them. I will, with pleasure, take back her point on care homes to my ministerial colleagues who are in charge of social care.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 183 in my name, if accepted, would maintain the existing provision of at-home early medical abortion following a telephone or video consultation with a clinician. It is very late in the evening, but this is an important issue which will impact hundreds of thousands of women. The existing provisions, which the amendment simply transcribes into the Bill, were adopted in March 2020. It is a straightforward and narrow amendment with the sole purpose of retaining a service that has been in place for the last two years.

Early medical abortion, which can take place up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, involves two medications. Previous government policy in England was that only the second pill could be taken at home, with women having to attend an abortion provider in person to take the first pill. The approval that was put in place simply enables women to take both pills at home. This was a pandemic-led shift to telemedicine, but the clinical benefits of telemedical service were known even before Covid-19, with NICE recommending it in September 2019. Sadly, following a government announcement a few weeks ago, this approval is currently set to be removed in August this year.

At this point, we should briefly be clear on what removing the existing provision would affect. It would have no impact on the requirement for face-to-face consultation, for face-to-face safeguarding, for ultrasound scans or to be seen in person by both doctors. Any of those changes would require amending existing regulations and that is not what we are debating tonight. The only thing impacted by this amendment is the requirement for women to visit a clinic and then leave again. I hope noble Lords agree that we can focus on just that.

There is no medical reason why telemedicine, alongside interpersonal appointments, should not remain a permanent option. There is overwhelming evidence that allowing women the option to access early medical abortion at home, where clinically appropriate, has created a safer and more effective service. During the pandemic, the largest ever study of UK abortion care, published by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, found that this service shortened waiting times and enabled women to receive care much earlier in their pregnancy. Some 150,000 women have received telemedical abortions since March 2020 and the data on the number of women presenting to NHS services with complications has shown a decrease. Renowned medical bodies support its use, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and many more. Just last week, the World Health Organization made it a key part of its global guidance on abortion care.

It is not just the medical experts who want to see this service made permanent—women do too. A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that 89% of women who have used a remote abortion consultation would choose to have treatment at home. It helps women who may struggle to find the time and travel the distance to an abortion provider. This includes those who have childcare or caring responsibilities, who struggle to take time off work, who live in remote or rural areas with little transport and many other logistical, social and economic reasons. Importantly, it can also be a lifeline for women in vulnerable situations. Maintaining the service is fully supported by women’s groups, including Women’s Aid, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Rape Crisis, which say that it enables women in controlling and abusive relationships to access essential medical care. Removal of telemedical abortion provisions would almost certainly lead to a resurgence in women seeking to access unregulated pills bought online. Without telemedicine, waiting times will rise and current staffing levels would be insufficient.

There is a serious risk that some women would, as a result, be unable to access legal abortion care, either because the providers do not have the capacity or because increased waiting times push some women over the legal limit. Of course, face-to-face services must still be provided for all women who require or request it. However, to take away from women a service that has proven safe, accessible and compassionate, and which enables women to deal with a difficult situation in the comfort and privacy of their own homes, is not the right way forward.

This amendment follows the guidance of medical professionals and would deliver on the Government’s aim to listen to women and put them at the heart of the women’s health strategy. I believe the case is clear and hope that the Government will accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I apologise for not having spoken in Committee. I want to do so because I have received hundreds of emails urging me to vote against this amendment. I want to explain why I will vote for it—if there is a vote—and why the people who emailed me are worrying about the wrong thing. I emphasise that this is not about changing the law.

I will not make a long speech because the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, explained the amendment brilliantly and thoroughly. I will make just a couple of points. Over the past two years, the Department of Health, the Government and SAGE—everyone—have told us to follow the evidence. The truth is that this telemedicine, pills-by-post approach to termination pre 10 weeks’ gestation is simply a medical practice innovation that is safe, effective and follows the best clinical practice. So I want to follow the evidence.

About the only positive outcome of the pandemic I can see is that an enforced pilot scheme has given us evidence of the efficacy of this. We also know, as has been mentioned, that many women appreciate this option because there is no clinical need for them to attend a clinic for this procedure. I really cannot see why the Government cannot see that women who do not need hospital care or in-clinic services to access a procedure should not be forced to take up valuable appointment slots and staff time and unnecessarily squander resources that would be better used to intervene in genuine medical emergencies.

Despite all this, I understand that, for many people, the issue of abortion cannot be reduced to evidence or medical practice because they have moral concerns. I assure them that nothing in this amendment, which is literally about the location where a woman swallows a pill, touches on moral values. This is not a law change. Who can and cannot have an abortion remains exactly the same. The grounds on which abortion is legal remain exactly the same. It is common sense and pragmatic as a matter for women but, if you are morally opposed to abortion, you will still be morally opposed to abortion because nothing in this amendment will change your moral objection. Be reassured: you must have a different fight but not on this amendment, which is total common sense. The Government should accept it.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her tireless work on gender equality and areas of international development. We have often been collaborators on such matters. I also apologise to the noble Baroness if she has personally received any hurtful comments on this; some of the things I have seen were shameful. She should not have been abused in this way. Nevertheless, I will oppose her amendment; I hope she understands that this in no way lessens the way in which I honour her for her work.

I declare at the outset that the Church of England’s position on abortion is principled opposition, with a recognition that there are strictly limited conditions under which it may be preferable to any available alternative. My opposition to the amendment is based on that in part but also because I believe that the amendment is functionally inadequate in providing the necessary protections. This was a temporary measure introduced during the pandemic to allow continued access to abortion services, simply to meet a need in extraordinary circumstances. I support the Government’s decision to return to the pre-pandemic system for early medical abortions from August, which was supported by many in the public consultation response.

Vaccination: Condition of Deployment

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The Government continue to review the data, as other countries do. Clearly, we have vaccinated vulnerable children, and there have been moves, particularly with omicron, to look at vaccinating children. We have reduced the age, but we still need more data. Once we have that data, if it is more appropriate, we will vaccinate children, but we have to make sure we have the data because children respond differently.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have always been opposed to this discriminatory policy on principle, so I welcome the Statement, even if it rather defensive. Will the Minister commit to dumping jabs for jobs and not sacking front-line workers? Will the Opposition roll back on the divisive rhetoric, categorising workers under moralistic labels of vaccinated equals virtuous, and traducing the unvaccinated as selfish or neglecting their professional duty? This seems unhelpful, especially as many of the NHS100k campaign are fully vaccinated, vaccine enthusiasts working in the health service, but who believe in choice and freedom of conscience. Is there any likelihood of the estimated 40,000 care workers who have been driven out of their jobs being compensated for the income lost, never mind being reinstated?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I begin by agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness that we should not necessarily be labelling people who decide not to take the vaccine. We should understand individual choice, but with freedom comes responsibility, and we always have to get that balance right. At the same time, I do not think that some of the characterisations that have been given are helpful. Having said that, if people have stopped other people being vaccinated, they should be dealt with by the law. The noble Baroness and I agree on individual choice, but, clearly, this was an emergency and people were dying and it was important that patients going into hospitals and care homes felt confident that they were being treated by staff who would not pass the virus on to them. There is always a difficult balance between liberty and responsibility.