Health Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nargund (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lady Royall. I support Amendment 18 from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to publish a cross-governmental strategy to reduce health inequalities in England. This debate has been extremely humanitarian because addressing health inequalities is a matter of social justice and human dignity.

Health is not created in hospitals or GP clinics; it is created in homes, workplaces and our communities. Health is so fundamental, as Martin Luther King said:

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and the most inhuman”.


That is what we are talking about—addressing something of a humanitarian nature by addressing health inequalities around our country.

The noble Baroness said about the NHS being criticised. It has often been criticised as not being a national health service but a national sickness service. If we really want to transform our NHS to become a national health service, we have to address health inequalities. These do not lie within hospitals or clinics but in our society and the social determinants of health.

I declare an interest as a founder and trustee of the charity the Health Equality Foundation which works in this area. I also have had the honour of working with Sir Michael Marmot in helping to address the social determinants of health. One of the greatest challenges we face is this nearly 20-year gap in healthy life expectancy, and this cannot be addressed by one department alone nor simply by hospitals. Like the child poverty strategy, we need a whole-government approach to tackling the wider determinants of health—where we are born, how we live and the conditions in which we grow up—which account for 80% of health outcomes.

After having served in the NHS for nearly 40 years, with over 30 years as an NHS consultant, I have treated the consequences of inequality, but I was not able to address the causes of inequality. We have a huge opportunity to address that. I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment that my noble friend Lady Royall mentioned and the 10-year plan commitment to address health inequalities and the wider determinants of health around our country. The commitment to address health inequalities—not that I know previous Health Bills well—has never been stronger.

The economic case is as compelling as the moral one. If the north of England achieved the same health outcomes as the rest of the country, it could add £18.4 billion to our economy each year. Poor health reduces productivity, increases welfare spending and constrains growth. We know if we want good growth in every postcode, we need good health in every postcode, not just good healthcare in every postcode, which we all know is also essential.

I support this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, because of the need for a cross-government strategy. I have previously spoken in this Chamber about the need for a cross-government taskforce or board; I have also written about that. I believe a cross-government strategy and a taskforce are needed to address our health inequalities and that that taskforce would go beyond this to tackle wider and general determinants of health.

If we want to seriously address this, we must have a cross-government strategy. I recognise the important work already undertaken by the Government in this Bill and the 10-year health plan, but given that many of the underlying causes of poor health sit outside our health service, has the Minister given any consideration to developing a cross-government strategy and potentially a taskforce similar to the one created in respect of the child poverty strategy to address the wider determinants of health? Are there any lessons from that approach that could be applied to tackling wider health inequalities? I am really honoured to have spoken in this debate.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am honoured to follow my noble friend Lady Nargund. I have added my name to a number of the amendments in this group calling for a clear duty on the Secretary of State to take action to reduce health inequalities and produce a cross-government health inequalities strategy. I also support the other amendments on this theme, including that in in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. As we have heard, her amendment makes specific reference to inclusive health groups, including Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller communities, who experience some of the poorest health outcomes of any group in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spelled out.

As Just Fair points out, there is a right to health under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In its 2025 concluding observations, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights raised a number of concerns about the provision of health services in the UK, including inequalities in access to care, as we have heard about.

At Second Reading, I and a number of other noble Lords spoke in favour of a clear duty on the Secretary of State to tackle health inequalities and a cross-government health inequalities strategy that would underpin the preventive approach that the Government, rightly, initially favoured and, indeed, that the Chancellor referred to in his Budget speech today. Our interventions reflected calls from a wide range of health and other bodies, many of which support the Health Equals campaign to put tackling health inequalities on a statutory footing and to reboot the Government’s emphasis on a preventive approach. It also reflected the position of the Health and Social Care Committee in its scrutiny report on the Bill.

The Government themselves have emphasised the importance of addressing health inequalities in their child poverty strategy, as I pointed out at Second Reading. Indeed, the strategy declares that addressing healthcare inequality is at the heart of their health mission. Moreover, in September, the Minister for Women and Equalities, in announcing the establishment of a new class unit, described it as

“a pivotal step in embedding a focus on socio-economic inequality into the heart of government”,

as part of their drive to tackle entrenched inequality. Given all that Ministers have said about inequalities, I am puzzled as to why they seem so reluctant to translate this commitment to tackle entrenched inequality into a statutory duty in this key legislation.

In the Commons, Minister Smyth failed to give a convincing explanation as to how mere empowerment is more effective than a duty to address health inequalities, which she herself said remained a government priority. However, it might not be a priority for a future Government, so warm words are not enough. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships’ House, my noble friend the Minister reiterated the Government’s commitment to working for greater equality but did not engage with the arguments put by a number of us and explain why a power is better than a duty to achieve this. I therefore hope that she has been able to reflect on what was said and on the growing pile of evidence on health inequalities, especially among children, some of which we have heard about today, and that she will be able to respond more positively and commit to bringing forward a government amendment on Report that meets the objectives of the various amendments debated today.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I may be the first speaker not to have signed any of these amendments, but that does not mean that I do not agree with them; a great deal has been said with which I agree. The importance of this debate can hardly be overstated.

I just want to contribute one thought, which is that in taking all these issues and understanding how they relate to this Bill, we have to put it in the context of what is already in the National Health Service Act. I want very quickly to outline that.

The Bill before us is an improvement on what is in the NHS Act as far as the Secretary of State’s duties are concerned, because it extends the duty from equal access to healthcare services and facilities to seeking to reduce inequalities and securing equity in outcomes from healthcare services. That is what is in the Bill; I think that is a significant improvement. The Bill focuses at this point on what the National Health Service is doing to secure the prevention of illness and the promotion of successful treatment. It is not about the improvement of public health at that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, talked about the Bill transferring a duty to the Secretary of State. In fact, the NHS Act has the same duty on both the Secretary of State and NHS England: they are concurrent duties. Therefore, we are not transferring the duty; this is not part of a transfer from NHS England to the Secretary of State.

Under Section 2A of the NHS Act, the Secretary of State has a duty for the protection of public health, which are all those things to do with vaccination, immunisation, et cetera. Section 2B, which was inserted by the 2012 legislation, as my noble friend on the Front Bench will recall, inserted into the Act a duty as to the improvement of public health, and that is on both local authorities and the Secretary of State. It is not, I think, phrased as we would want it to be; more needs to be done to look at that.

I suggest—and this picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon—that when we talk about wider determinants of health, we are looking at a strategy that relates not only to the Secretary of State—i.e. to the Government—but to local authorities, and she made that point very rightly. But it is in the NHS Act. Local authorities have a duty to improve public health in their area and take such appropriate steps as they can to achieve that, and the Secretary of State has such a duty to improve public health in Section 2B—unaffected, as I understand it, by this Bill. Therefore, when we come to look at it on Report, I hope that those who are thinking about how we might create the right strategy for the improvement of public health do not just think that it is done by attaching it to the responsibilities of the Secretary of State in relation to the NHS but also look at Section 2B.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

11: Clause 4, page 3, line 4, leave out “(3) or (4)” and insert “(2A), (3) or (4).
(2A) A person is within this subsection if—(a) they have been granted protection status in accordance with rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) they have been granted limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of Appendix Hong Kong British National (Overseas) of rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, or(c) they have, as part of a safe and legal humanitarian immigration route, leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom in accordance with rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 or leave on a discretionary basis outside of rules.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add people who have been recognised as in need of international protection, who have arrived as a Hong Kong British National, or have arrived on a safe and legal humanitarian programme to the priority group.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 11 would add to the list of priority groups people who have been recognised as in need of international protection, who have arrived as a Hong Kong British national or who have arrived on a safe and legal humanitarian route. I will speak simply to this amendment, but I have some sympathy for the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada.

I apologise for popping up at this late stage of the Bill’s passage. This issue was brought to my attention by the Refugee Council, which recently spotted that, as it stands, the Bill will exclude those recognised as refugees from prioritisation for medical training posts. This will potentially make it harder for people with medical backgrounds who have been displaced and given protection in the UK to contribute fully to the NHS. This resonates with me because my father, as a young man with a medical qualification, came to the UK in the 1930s as an early refugee from Nazi Germany. He was able to requalify at Glasgow University and, after the war, eventually went on to have a long career as a medical officer in Manchester in what was then the DHSS. As such, he contributed to British society in a way that would now be difficult for medically qualified refugees.

Programmes such as the Refugee Council’s Building Bridges programme support qualified refugee doctors and other health professionals to utilise their skills and experience in the UK. These programmes are based on close collaboration between charities and the NHS. This is beneficial for the refugees themselves, as well as for the UK. That support can include helping refugees to pass the necessary language requirements and get professional registration in the UK. Some refugees will also progress to accessing medical training posts. This has included foundation programmes specifically designed to support refugee doctors into the NHS workforce.

During Second Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State said that the UK

“must break our over-reliance on international recruitment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/26; col. 803.]

This amendment does not run counter to that aim. Refugees have not come to the UK because they have been recruited. First and foremost, they have sought protection and have been given it. My amendment would simply ensure that those refugees who are also doctors would be able to put their medical backgrounds to good use and continue to develop their expertise for the benefit of the wider community, as well as for themselves.

At the same time as the Bill is progressing through Parliament, the Government are proposing significant changes to settlement for refugees as part of the earned settlement plans. Ministers have said that these changes are supposed to incentivise integration and ensure that settlement is earned. Ensuring that refugee doctors are not placed at a disadvantage because of this Bill would help the Government meet those aims.

At Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister explained:

“Internationally trained doctors with significant NHS experience will continue to be prioritised for specialty training, recognising the service that they have given. This year, immigration status will be used as a practical proxy for NHS experience in order to allow prioritisation to begin swiftly. For following years, we have taken powers in regulations to enable us to refine this approach in consultation with key partners. I have been asked by noble Lords what this means for those with refugee status. This status is not a stand-alone priority group, although refugees will be prioritised for specialty training in 2026 if they fall within another priority category, such as holding indefinite leave to remain or having completed the foundation programme. Refugees who do not fall within a prioritised group may still apply for specialty training posts and the Bill will not change their eligibility to apply for locally employed doctors’ roles”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. 1648.]


The noble Lord, Lord Patel, responded positively with particular reference to Ukrainian refugees. I am not sure that my noble friend’s response was quite as reassuring as he perhaps thought, especially as Ukrainians who have arrived on the Ukrainian scheme will not be in any of the priority groups. If I understand the proposals correctly—this relates to the previous amendment—indefinite leave to remain is being used for places on specialty programmes in 2026 as a quick proxy for recognising doctors who have been trained abroad but who have been employed within the NHS for some time. It is not such a useful proxy for anyone who, like those on the Ukrainian schemes, have no route to settlement or who, under the proposed earned settlement changes, could have to wait 10 years, or even longer, to qualify for indefinite leave to remain.

My amendment also addresses the impact of the Bill on doctors who have come to the UK as part of the Hong Kong BNO visa scheme. As with other refugee doctors, they have sought safety in the UK. Indeed, the scheme is frequently described by the Government as a safe and legal route. The case for their inclusion has been put to me eloquently in an email from an anaesthetic registrar who is a BNO visa holder and is currently working in the NHS. Like many colleagues in a similar position, he migrated to the UK for political reasons before completing his training and now regards the UK as his permanent home, where he wishes to dedicate his career to the NHS. They argue that

“deprioritisation to the point of exclusion would leave us without any pathway to complete training, despite our qualifications and NHS contributions, effectively ending specialist careers for a group formally invited to settle here”.

They also point out that BNO doctors in the NHS form a small, finite cohort. Their main argument is that,

“unlike many other International Medical Graduates who can return home to complete training, those of us on the BNO scheme face unique barriers. Due to the political situation in Hong Kong, returning is not realistic nor possible for many of us. The UK is now our only place to practise medicine and pursue specialist training”.

Although their situation is not quite the same, the argument also applies to other displaced persons covered by this amendment.

At a time when the Government are making it much more difficult to achieve refugee status, should they not at the very least ensure that those who are so recognised and who are medically qualified are able to requalify and use their medical expertise to the benefit of our society? I hope my noble friend will be able to accept this amendment, but I suspect she will not. At the very least, I ask her to give a commitment to further consultation with a view to giving serious consideration to including the groups specified in the amendment, even if only in modified form, in the regulations to which she referred at Second Reading and which were mentioned earlier today. I beg to move.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 12, 13 and 15 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I repeat my conflicts of interest: I am of Maltese heritage, I am a doctor and I am co-chair of the APPG. My amendments are narrow, they are practical and they respond directly to the concerns raised by the Minister in Committee. I respect the Minister and am grateful for the time that she has given me, for her letter and for engaging seriously with this issue.

I fully accept that we must find a solution to the difficulties faced by UK medical graduates, as so eloquently pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. In doing so, however, we must ensure that we do not unfairly disadvantage a small, specific group of students, do not strain valued relationships with an EU member state and Commonwealth partner or inadvertently undermine a long-standing transnational higher education commitment. That is the purpose of my amendments.

This is not about opening floodgates, nor is it about creating a new route for offshore medical schools. I am speaking here about just two long-established UK universities with overseas campuses: Queen Mary University of London in Malta and Newcastle University in Malaysia. They are the only two that, upon Royal Assent, will meet the criteria for delivering UK primary medical qualifications overseas—the same curriculum, the same examinations, the same degree and, until now, the same eligibility for the UK foundation programme. Historically, there was a third, City St George’s, which is now teaching its final cohort of seven students in Cyprus; that arrangement is closing. In reality, therefore, we are speaking about two mature, well-governed partnerships with capped, predictable numbers of no more than 190 students per year.

Let me address Malta, which I obviously know best. Since 2009, Queen Mary has operated a British medical school in Malta on the understanding that its graduates would be treated in the same way as its London cohort for entry into the UK foundation programme. That reassurance was reaffirmed as recently as 2024. Each year, about 90 students enrol at the university. Many of them are UK nationals, often with a clear intention of serving in the NHS. They are students such as Michael, who comes from Essex; he is a final-year medical student who worked as a nurse during the pandemic before deciding to train as a doctor at QMUL Malta. He is not a rich kid but someone who has dedicated his life to working in the NHS, and has worked, saved and borrowed money to achieve his passion of becoming a doctor. What can he hope for now? If we imply that a UK degree somehow becomes less UK because a lecture theatre is in Malta rather than Whitechapel, we send an unfortunate signal not only to those students but to a close education and historic partner.

The Minister has quite properly raised concerns about NHS exposure and it is true that most clinical placements take place in Malta, but almost all the students undertake NHS attachments. The health challenges they face are strikingly similar to ours—much more so, I would attest, than the health challenges in Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway. Non-communicable diseases dominate: diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity. There is a growing burden of mental illness, especially among children and young people. Its population is ageing and its society is increasingly diverse. The weather may be warmer, but the medicine is not fundamentally different.

This is not merely an assertion. QMUL now has four completed cohorts—147 graduates who have transitioned safely into the NHS and are performing exceptionally well. Why would they not? More than half of them are UK nationals. All are fluent in English, and all have been trained to practise in the NHS. These doctors or students seek no advantage. They only ask not to be disadvantaged because the campus of the UK university is overseas. The numerical impact on domestic graduates would be negligible. The Government’s target competition ratio of two applicants per foundation place would still be met.

--- Later in debate ---

For all these reasons, as I have said, the Government cannot support Amendment 12A and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to withdraw Amendment 11.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for their support for Amendment 11. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe—I thought his response was very fair.

There was clearly very strong support for the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, who made a very good case for why what she was asking for was very limited, but clearly it is not something that the Government feel able to support.

I take some comfort from what my noble friend said with regard to future engagement, particularly with regard to refugees and what she said at the very end in response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I emphasise that I really hope that this process of engagement will include the groups working with refugee doctors so perhaps there may be hope that—if not this year, then in future years—their needs may be recognised, and similarly that the case made today by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, will be taken into account when this engagement process starts.

Perhaps my noble friend could write to us and give us more of an idea about what this engagement process will involve, when it will take place, who will be engaged and so forth. But with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

National Carers Strategy

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. Certainly we recognise that overpayments have caused people great anxiety. That is why it is important to review the circumstances independently, so we can find out exactly what went wrong and make things right, so it does not happen again. The main message I would give is to urge anyone in receipt of carer’s allowance to inform the DWP of any change in their circumstances in respect of the earnings limit, so that overpayments can be avoided. But we are seeking to work constructively to ensure that this is not an ongoing problem.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, a key element of any carer’s strategy, or non-strategy, must be to make it easier for carers to combine caring with paid work. As well as long-overdue reform of carer’s allowance, there is wide agreement that carer’s leave needs to be paid if it is to be effective. Will the Government therefore consider introducing it, at least in principle, as part of the Employment Rights Bill, rather than leaving it to a review?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The Government are committed to reviewing the implementation of carer’s leave—and also examining the benefits of introducing paid carer’s leave. As my noble friend said, the Employment Rights Bill includes provisions that will support all employees to support a better work/life balance by making flexible working the default, unless it is not reasonably feasible. That gives us an opportunity to make a particular difference for those combining work with unpaid care. Certainly, we are looking at the benefits of introducing paid carer’s leave, and I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House.

Black and Minority Ethnic Babies: Mortality Rates

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I have specifically investigated infant mortality rates. If you look at it, you see the increase is in pre-24-week term cases. Post 24 weeks, the number of cases has remained stable, the data has shown. I have been trying to drill down to understand why it happens within less than 24 weeks. Clearly, more work needs to be done. We are also changing the way this is being measured. We are looking for more indications of whether there are early signs of life, and if there are no early signs of life, that is not recorded as a death. Now there is a lot more investigation to understand those early signs of life, so the change in measurement could be increasing the numbers. I am happy to go into more detail on that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report on destitution found that minority ethnic groups are disproportionately affected by destitution. What steps are the Government taking directly to reduce destitution among this group?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, noble Lords will know that housing, to my mind, is key to so much of that, and the whole building programmes and the million extra houses are a key part of that. If you look into health across the board, you see that the homeless, for instance, use and need A&E services more than ever. Clearly, it is a root cause we need to tackle.

Vaccinations

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

This year, what the officials call the “delivery model” is likely to be broadly similar to previous rollouts, with a similar mix of vaccination sites—mass vaccination centres, GP surgeries, pharmacies, hospital hubs, pop-ups et cetera—as well as NHS services. NHS England and NHS Improvement try to emphasise co-administration of Covid-19 vaccines with flu vaccines and other vaccines. At the same time, NHS England, NHS Improvement and MHRA are looking at current guidance to see how we can ensure that we encourage this more.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my understanding is that uptake of the Covid vaccine has been much lower among some of the most marginalised communities, reflecting that hesitancy to which the Minister referred. In part, it would appear that this is because of a lack of trust in state institutions. I very much welcome what he said about the deployment of other agencies, but what are the Government doing to build that trust for the future?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Indeed, this is a really important point: the essential issue must be trust. As politicians in Westminster or officials in Whitehall, we must all have enough humility to recognise that we may not be able to cut through that. We have been looking at working with a number of different people in those communities and working out what the best message and channels will be. For example, we have spoken to faith leaders in some places. Even though some people may not be of a certain faith—they may be agonistic or atheist—they still respect faith leaders. In other places, we are looking at where people who are vaccine-hesitant go, and whether we can get the message—or even the vaccines—across to them.

Public Health: Night-time Working

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The Government commissioned a review of sleep and health from the former Public Health England for 2020-21. That reported just before Christmas and is now being considered by Ministers and other officials. We are hoping that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will publish the findings in 2022. The review looked at a number of different things, including trends over time, optimal levels of sleep, links between mental and physical health, the economic impact and factors that hinder interventions to promote sleep. As the noble Lord rightly says, there is research out there about how workers can experience gastrointestinal disturbance and sleeping disorders and the possible association with breast cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. All that will come out in the review, I hope.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, does not the evidence about the poor conditions experienced by night workers underline the need for stronger employment rights for those in the so-called gig economy, in which many night workers work? When, therefore, will the Government finally publish their long-promised employment Bill?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Indeed, the article the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, sent me talked about the impact on delivery drivers of not being allowed to rest or take shelter in restaurants and takeaways—being sent away and not having access to bathrooms and other facilities. The Government are looking at getting the balance right on this, in terms of flexibility, because some people value zero-hours contracts as long as they are not exclusive and they can work around them. We are looking at the various categories of workers. Because this is employment, I have been trying to get more answers; I apologise that I do not have all of them, but I will write to the noble Baroness.

Covid-19: Poverty

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I can certainly speak for the inequalities we have in health. The right reverend Prelate is entirely right—Covid has been a real reminder of the impact of deprivation and inequality on the population. Those who are disabled are two-and-a-half times more likely to have had some form of life issue with Covid. In terms of deprivation, mortality in the most-deprived neighbourhoods was more than double the rate than in less-deprived neighbourhoods. Those facts are chilling. They are a wake-up call, and we will be working through our levelling-up agenda.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, as the latest Marmot review made clear, damaging and heartbreaking levels of inequality and poverty, especially child and family poverty, weakened our resilience in the face of Covid. Apart from getting people into paid work, which increasingly is failing to protect from poverty, what is the Government’s anti-poverty strategy?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I can speak for the health dimension. I should emphasise the work of the office for health promotion. Under the Chief Medical Officer, the OHP will deliver proactive, predictive and personalised preventive strategies. We believe that there is a huge opportunity off the back of Covid to really change the health inequalities of the country, and that is what the OHP will be devoted to doing.

Covid-19: Self-isolation Payment Scheme

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the reality of the epidemic is that it targets some communities in specific areas with laser-like focus. The feedback from some of those communities, local authorities and community leaders is that support is needed in some areas where there has been a local lockdown. We have responded to those suggestions and put this financial support in place for specific communities in specific areas. In that, we are responding to local suggestions.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, can the Minister explain the evidence base for the decision that £13 a day would be sufficient to persuade low-paid workers to forgo their earnings and self-isolate?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I heard all the question. Can I just explain that those who are isolated for 10 days will receive £130? Other eligible members of their household who have been self-isolating will also be entitled to a payment. Eligible non-household contacts instructed to stay at home and to self-isolate will also be entitled to a payment of up to £182.

Adult Social Care

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is very keen on an independent commission, and he knows my views on that. I do not think we need an independent commission to tell us that social care and health care must be more joined up and integrated; we all know that. We can do that through a major reorganisation from the centre—but we know what big reorganisations do to the health service: they stymie it for years—or we can work locally in the STP and local authority areas to try to drive this at local level, which I think is the right way forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, an independent commission on care reported recently. It called for a national care service and for adequate investment in the social infrastructure of care now, not at the end of the Parliament, to give care equal status with the NHS and to prevent us going over the tipping point. The tipping point is here; we cannot wait until the end of the Parliament. Will the Minister and his colleagues take those recommendations seriously and urgently?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

There is no question but that we all recognise the enormous pressures on social care. I cannot comment on what may or may not be in the autumn Statement, but I entirely recognise the pressures to which the noble Baroness draws our attention. As I said, the Government did not have resources available to put money into the NHS and social care at the same time at the beginning of this Parliament because we have to live in the real world, which is very financially constrained. As I said, an extra £1.5 billion is going into the better care fund and an extra £2 billion will be raised by the local authority precept by the end of this Parliament.

Dental Health: Children

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, there is no question but that a low-sugar, healthy diet is good for people’s teeth. The noble Baroness will have to wait until we produce the children’s obesity strategy later in the summer, in which we will reveal the full strategy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister focused on the question of social deprivation. What will the government strategy do about that?