Brexit: Health and Welfare

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very well-informed debate, led by my noble friend Lady Brinton with her excellent and wide-ranging speech, on which I congratulate her heartily. There have been some excellent and moving speeches from across the House. I hope others will forgive me if I say how much I support the passionate and robust comments of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.

As ever in your Lordships’ House, we have covered the ground very thoroughly. My noble friend Lady Brinton started us off by expressing her concerns about procurement and the need to protect our NHS from United States predation. We heard worries about the levels of staffing in both health and social care, and particularly the effects on some of our most vulnerable citizens of the loss of care workers from the EU. We heard about the loss of the EMA and its consequences for medicines regulation and for the access of UK patients to cutting-edge medicines. We heard concerns about clinical trials and the availability of clinical isotopes if we leave Euratom. We heard concerns about the recognition of qualifications; about research; about medical treatment across the Irish border; about data sharing; about health inequality; about reciprocal parking for disabled drivers; and about mental health. Lastly, from my noble friend Lady Tyler we heard a welcome, which I endorse, for the Prime Minister’s recognition at last that we need a long-term funding settlement for the NHS.

For myself, I would like to mention two issues that have been mentioned but not dwelt upon. The first is my concern that, if we leave the EU, we will no longer be part of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the ECDC, and have a seat at its table, currently occupied by Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer. The ECDC is an EU agency aimed at strengthening Europe’s defences against infectious diseases. It works in partnership with national health protection bodies across Europe to strengthen and develop continent-wide disease surveillance and early-warning systems. The ECDC pools Europe’s health knowledge to develop authoritative scientific opinion about the risks posed by current and emerging infectious diseases. It provides the NHS with evidence for effective decision-making, helps to strengthen our public health system and supports our response to public health threats. It does so through surveillance, epidemic intelligence, scientific advice, microbiology, preparedness, public health training, international relations and health communication. Its programmes cover a number of important issues that have been debated in your Lordships’ House over the past couple of years, including: antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections; emerging and vector-borne diseases; HIV; influenza; TB; and vaccine-preventable diseases. All in all, the ECDC monitors 52 communicable diseases.

If we no longer have access to these services after Brexit, we will suffer when, for example, there is a flu epidemic or pandemic and vaccines or other specific treatment need to be rationed across the EU. This is almost inevitable, as it is not possible with current technology for vaccine production to be scaled up fast enough since we need to know the specific flu mutation that we are dealing with before we can start manufacture. The ECDC will be driving who gets what, as it will be the conduit to the World Health Organization for the EU; the UK will be a single nation at the back of the queue, as we will be with new medicines licensing and access. What action have the UK Government taken to ensure that UK patients do not suffer because of our exit from the ECDC?

My second issue is that of food safety. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that the safety of our food is an important element in enabling our citizens to be healthy. In order to ensure safe food, our food producers need to practise the highest possible standards of hygiene, which most of them do, and our consumers need the best possible information. It is because of this that scandals such as 2 Sisters, Muscle Foods, DB Foods and Fairfax Meadow are relatively rare. It is also because of this that British food producers are currently able to sell their goods in large quantities across Europe and the rest of the world. Indeed, one claim the Government make about the potential benefits of Brexit is that British food producers will be able to sell more, thus benefiting our economy. We shall see.

There does not seem to be much emphasis on food and health in current government thinking. The agriculture Command Paper Health and Harmony, which came from the Environment Secretary, makes little reference to food apart from the issue of pesticide residues. The fisheries paper focuses on maximum sustainable yields—again, nothing about health. The focus seems to be more on cheap food than on food standards. But the British people want decent, affordable, sustainable healthy food, not a race to the bottom. I am concerned that this is not the direction in which we are going. I certainly do not think we should be opening our doors to a lot of foods from the United States, where its need to export large amounts of corn syrup means that sugars are found in the most surprising foods. For example, breast milk substitute in the United States can contain any kind of sugar in any amounts. We do not want that here.

Let us look at how our food industry standards are currently maintained. Currently, they must be up to the standards of the European Food Safety Authority, controlled by the European Commission. In the UK, the regulator is the Food Standards Agency, but it relies heavily on local authority environmental health officers and trading standards officers. I expect that the Government will say that the UK food supply is safe and that we are currently aligned with EU standards and that that will continue, so what is the problem? The problem is this. Between 2012 and 2017, the FSA’s budget was cut by 23% and the number of samples taken for testing by EHOs fell by 22%, so resources, including local authority funding of EHOs, are already stretched.

On top of that, Ministers have insisted that the FSA makes even greater savings, as a result of which last year it obligingly published a document entitled Regulating Our Future: Why Food Regulation Needs to Change and How We Are Going to Do It. I have just read a critique of this document by a collaboration of academics from the University of Sussex and City, University of London. I have scarcely ever read such a scathing academic study. The authors have the grace to support the proposal for mandatory registration of food business operators. They also support demands by environmental health officers that they should have the power to refuse registration to,

“FBOs that cannot demonstrate they can produce food that is safe and honestly labelled”.

However, the rest of the report is strongly critical, in particular of the proposal that inspection of FBOs should in future be outsourced—and not just outsourced. The proposal is that the food producer itself should contract a third party to inspect it on a basis it thinks is right at an agreed frequency and decide whether the inspection is notified—talk about marking your own homework. The fear is that the food producer will go for the cheapest option, which is unlikely to be the most rigorous, and our food safety will be affected. The other worry is about access to information—and the list goes on.

I do not think that this proposal from the FSA will give confidence to the European Commission or the European Food Standards Agency, in which case UK FBOs will have great difficulty selling their produce to either the EU or other countries, given that all over the world countries are moving to EU standards so that they have only one set to deal with. Add to all that the fact that the majority of vets contracted to supervise abattoirs and meat-cutting plants were recruited by the FSA’s outsourcing contractor from non-UK EU countries and you have a recipe for disaster in UK food safety.

This is one of the issues that the Government need to take extremely seriously when they are negotiating our exit from the EU. We need some confidence that the safety of our food, which has such a big effect on our health, will be taken into account by the Government.

Nurses: Training

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank my noble friend for highlighting that important issue. A very stringent language test is imposed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council—indeed, it is perhaps so stringent that it has excluded some nurses who are perfectly capable of practising in this country. A review of that is going on at the moment to make sure that a proper line is drawn—ensuring professional competence, including in technical language, while not excluding people who would be perfectly capable of practising well in this country.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the vacancy rate for nurses in social care settings has doubled over the last four years? Given the other pressures on nursing homes, will the Government take specific action—perhaps grants for placements—to relieve this problem, which the NAO has described as dangerous?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness has highlighted an important issue, which is the number of nurses in social care. I recognise that to be a problem, as does the department. A specific social care workforce consultation will get under way and is linked to the overall draft workforce plan that Health Education England has published. This is something that we are looking at. We can solve it to some extent by increasing the overall number of nurses, but we need to find ways of attracting them into the social care profession.

NHS: Cancer Treatments

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a unique, moving and effective debate. I am proud to be able to support the demands of the courageous noble Baroness, Lady Jowell.

In my three minutes I want to focus on two of her demands: early diagnosis and patient rights. Public Health England says:

“Diagnosing cancer earlier is one of the most important ways to improve cancer survival and we know that those patients who have their cancer diagnosed as an emergency have poorer outcomes”.


That is why new screening and diagnostic methods must be made available quickly.

In fact, I am standing here because of screening. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that I have had two as well; perhaps we should start a club. That shows how far we have come, does it not? Screening does not merely diagnose disease but can sometimes predict the risk of it through identifying gene mutations, as we have heard. Genomic screening can also contribute to treatment decisions by predicting how the tumour will respond to chemotherapy. That can avoid chemotherapy for those patients who will not benefit from it.

Diagnoses of colorectal cancer through the national bowel screening programme remain under 10%. This effective early diagnostic tool is not being used widely enough. Is that because CCGs are not offering the screening, or is it because people are not returning the samples? What are the Government doing to improve those figures?

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, that patients should have a great deal more say in the risks that they are prepared to take, and that adaptive trials should be allowed where they could help. I will not repeat many of the cancer-related examples that we are discussing today, but I shall give the House a non-cancer example of where the system is preventing a patient from receiving medicines that have already been shown to work, to illustrate that the problems that the noble Baroness has identified go wider than cancer.

A small boy, whom I will call A, has rare and serious epilepsy. He was treated, at great expense to the NHS, with powerful pharmaceutical drugs to stop his fits, although some of them were not even licensed for use on children. His condition did not improve and the doctors admitted the drugs could damage his vital organs and shorten his life. His parents heard of a similar case in Holland where a child was being treated successfully with cannabis-based medicines, which were licensed there.

Child A has now been receiving cannabis treatment in The Hague with enormous success. His doctor here is convinced of the safety and efficacy of these medicines, which are not licensed here, but is frightened to treat him with them because he is afraid that the GMC will strike him off. The family can no longer afford to remain in The Hague, yet the Home Office tells me that it will not grant a special licence for the treatment in the UK. This child could die of his fits. His parents would agree in a heartbeat for him to receive the medicines here, even though they are unlicensed. They know the risk is small and the benefits huge. They should have the right to make that decision for their child, just as the cancer patients mentioned by the noble Baroness should have the right to make decisions about risks and about their own treatment. What is the Minister going to do about that?

NHS: EEA Doctors

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of doctors from European Economic Area states working in the United Kingdom who may be planning to leave the NHS after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government value the contribution of all European Union staff working across the NHS and social care systems immensely. We have set out a clear pathway to permanent residency for these EU citizens. According to the latest NHS digital data, there are now more non-UK EU doctors working in the NHS than ever before, with almost 500 more since 30 June 2016.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, according to the BMA, almost half of EEA doctors are considering leaving the UK and one in five has already made plans to do so. Given that it takes 13 years to train a consultant, what is the Minister doing to fill these gaps in the short term? Is he aware that there are numerous doctors from around the world already resident in the UK but whose qualifications fall short of what is required by the NHS? They would dearly love to be able to upgrade their qualifications and help us to fill the gap that is going to be left by the Tory Brexit, but there is no organisation that will advise and support them to improve their qualifications. What will the Minister do about that?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I recognise that, as the noble Baroness pointed out, there has been uncertainty. That is why I am sure that the entire House will welcome the agreement reached last Friday to provide that certainty, and I encourage all noble Lords to look at and circulate the letter written by the Prime Minister to EU citizens explaining how much we value them, how much we want them to stay and how we have now agreed with the EU a process for doing that. The noble Baroness will be interested to know, as I am sure will other noble Lords, that there were 470 more EU doctors working in the NHS in June 2017 compared to June the year before—so, happily, we have not seen the exodus that so many people have warned about. We need to grow more of our own in the future, of course, and there are 1,500 training places for doctors coming on stream in September 2019, but I shall certainly look at the issue that she raises about providing opportunities for doctors—not least refugees; that issue has been raised with me—to upgrade their qualifications so that they can serve in the NHS.

NHS: Staff

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, for bringing forward the debate today. It is high time that we debated the fiscal issues in relation to health.

Although it is always nice to see the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, answering a debate, I fear he is the wrong Minister for this one. Indeed, I think there should be a whole row of Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench today, led by a Minister from the Treasury. Here is the reason. Noble Lords who know me will recall that my favourite word in health debates is “prevention”. Without prevention of a great deal of the country’s ill health, of which we are perfectly capable, the cost burden of preventable diseases will bring the NHS to its knees. Our hard-pressed health and care workers will never be able to work hard enough. My party’s policy, for the moment, is to add one penny in the pound on income tax for health and social care, while continuing to take lower-paid people out of tax altogether by raising the personal allowance. However, while this would provide the NHS and social care with what they need for the moment, in the long term, this will not be enough if we carry on the way we are going.

I am a great believer in evidence-based policy and also a great admirer of Professor Sir Michael Marmot and his rigorous work on health inequalities and the social determinants of health. That is why I said what I did about the Minister being the wrong person to answer this debate. If you want to lead a healthy life, all the evidence shows that you need to be conceived and born to a family that is comfortably off. The Marmot indicators show very clearly that poverty and deprivation are the clearest indicators pointing to poor health. So what are the factors that contribute to this—those things known as the social determinants of health? Of course, they are low income; poor housing; low educational attainment, leading to lack of well-paid work; poor air quality; poor access to the cultural activities that contribute to our well-being and mental health; and poor access to the healthy food, help and advice that help us make the right choices for our own health.

So until we get a truly progressive tax system that taxes poor people less than rich people, until we stop subsidising the fossil fuels that pollute our air and warm our planet, until we train a highly skilled workforce and until we start building affordable well-insulated homes for poor people, we will never iron out the major health problems that keep our doctors and nurses far too busy. That is why we should have a Treasury Minister leading a team of Ministers from transport, housing, education, DWP, DCMS, DCLG, BEIS, Defra and all the other acronyms. Until we get a whole-government approach to the health of the nation, we will never solve the problems of health and social care. So as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, has rightly identified, fiscal policy is a powerful tool in this battle. I would like to hear the Minister say that the Prime Minister will show a bit of leadership on this and set up a powerful Cabinet sub-committee with teeth, which will be able to hold all the other departments to account on their contribution to the health of the nation. Until I hear about some mechanism of that sort, I fear that the Marmot indicators will never shift.

In addition to that, we politicians need to put our heads together. I fear that the Government’s failure to heed the calls of my right honourable friend Norman Lamb MP and others to put together a cross-party commission on a sustainable health and care service is very wrongheaded. Good-quality health and social care are things that people care about and vote about, and they depend very much on the welfare of staff. So I would have thought that any sensible Government would prefer to bring in all points of view to find the answers to a problem that has been growing for years, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, just said. And no, the Government do not have all the answers. This House’s Select Committee, led by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, had many of the answers, but they nearly all involved money, yet what did we get in the recent Budget for an NHS that needed more than £4 billion extra and a care system that needed £2.6 billion? We got £1.6 billion for the NHS and nothing at all for social care. But of course, we got £3 billion put aside for Brexit. How many doctors and nurses could we get for that?

It is clear that the overwork, stress and effective pay cuts suffered by our doctors, nurses and other health professionals will continue. These are contributing to their low morale and the fact that many of them want to leave, cut their hours or retire early. The public service pay cap imposed by the Chancellor for many years has not been lifted, despite a comment to the contrary by Jeremy Hunt. The small easing of the pay restraint announced by the Chancellor last week is conditional on the money being saved elsewhere by the removal of year-on-year increments of other health workers. It is all about saving money, not patient safety, yet patient safety is a big issue when you have demoralised staff working longer than they should in a team with vacancies. The Royal College of Physicians told us that 69% of doctors work on a rota with vacancies and that 74% of them are worried about the ability of their service to deliver safe care. Half of those polled by the RCP believe that patient safety has deteriorated over the past 12 months. What are the Government doing to ensure patient care?

What about nurses? The Royal College of Nursing has reminded us that, since 2011, nurses’ pay has dropped in real terms because their tiny pay awards have nowhere near kept up with inflation. No wonder trusts are having difficulty recruiting and retaining enough nurses and we now have 40,000 vacancies. So trusts are having to turn to expensive agency nurses—and things will get worse if Brexit ever happens. Indeed, it is happening already as some nurses from other EU countries go home and the number of applications to come here has fallen by 96% in the last year. UK applicants, too, are being deterred from training by the withdrawal of the student nurse bursaries.

Another fiscal measure that is demoralising nurses is the serial cuts to the budget for continuing professional development. This has gone from £205 million to £104 million, and now £83.49 million, over two years, so the opportunities for nurses to increase their income by undertaking specialist training are diminishing. Will the Government restore that funding for CPD and also look again at the bursaries for student nurses?

We are very dependent on doctors from abroad, including from the EU countries. We are not training enough of our own doctors. Despite the increase in medical training places by up to 1,500 per year by 2020, this simply will not do while we have rising demand and some doctors going back to their home country. It takes 13 years to train a consultant, so what are we to do in the meantime? Further funding for specialist training for home-grown doctors will be required, as well as an assurance to those who come to us from abroad that they are welcome here.

I have a particular concern about the cancer workforce. I have been involved in an inquiry by the All-Party Group on Cancer about where we are at this point, half way through the timeframe of the cancer strategy in England. Are we on track to deliver all the objectives or not? Although the report will not be published until next week, I think I can whet your Lordships appetites by revealing that all the evidence points to the fact that we are not. In particular, my colleagues and I were very concerned about the evidence of workforce shortages. We are still expecting the strategic review of the cancer workforce from Health Education England, which was promised a year ago. We were told it would come in December 2017, which starts tomorrow. I look forward to it. However, its delay has meant that the shortages which are apparent all across the NHS workforce are even more severe in cancer services because of the specialist staff needed to achieve the strategy. We heard that the lack of the staffing review, delays in releasing funding from NHS England and the last-minute changes in the criteria for transformation funding have meant that cancer alliances have not been able to plan properly and have certainly not been able to commit to funding staff posts until they are sure that they have the money available.

The cancer workforce is just one sector where, because of the clear objectives in the cancer strategy, it has been possible to measure progress against aspiration. However, we heard from several sources that workforce is the greatest challenge to delivering the strategy. I believe that fiscal measures could improve the situation here and right across the NHS, if only the Government were willing to put them into place.

Young Women: Self-Harm

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Storey, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, in recent years there has been an increase in self-harming among young women. This is a worrying trend that the Government are committed to addressing. That is why we updated the cross-government suicide prevention strategy and expanded its key areas for action to include self-harm. We are also committed to implementing a community-based care pathway for self-harm by 2019 and to making sure that every acute hospital has mental health liaison services in place by 2020-21.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for acknowledging the shocking 68% increase in the number of young girls being admitted to hospital for self-harm over the last decade. Does he agree that school counsellors can be a very valuable resource in helping to tackle this terrible epidemic of emotional distress among young people, because they are non-stigmatising and easily accessible? However, I visited an area yesterday where I was told that all the school counsellors have had to be sacked because the schools cannot afford to pay them. Will the Minister work with the Department for Education to ensure that by the end of this Parliament every secondary state school in this country has a school counsellor, so that we can tackle the welfare requirements of young people as well as their academic requirements?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the importance of schools in dealing with this. It is not just a health issue. Indeed it is not just about education either, but involves a cross-government approach. I would be very keen for her to write to me with the specific details of what she is describing—it does not sound like a positive development. Much more positively, more than 1,000 secondary schools have now had mental health first aid training for at least one teacher in the school, and the ambition is to extend that to all secondary schools. She will also know that there will very shortly be a children and young people mental health Green Paper, which I think will have quite ambitious actions for both schools and the health service to support young people with mental health problems.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that children and young people can obtain timely access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to making sure that 70,000 more children and young people each year will receive evidence-based mental health treatment by 2020-21. Since publishing Future in Mind, the Government have made an additional £1.4 billion available to improve children’s mental health. Key mechanisms for delivery are local transformation plans, which cover the full spectrum of mental health, and the upcoming children and young people’s mental health Green Paper, which will contain proposals for further improving access to services.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that early intervention is essential to prevent escalation into crisis and lifelong problems? Is he aware that the number of CAMHS psychiatrists fell by 6.6% between 2013 and this year, while demand for their services rose? The number of qualified doctors who go into psychiatry is 2.6%, the lowest of any specialism, and some universities do not send any. Will he consult Health Education England to find out what it is doing about this, because the pipeline is drying up?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness is quite right to highlight the fact that we need more staff to meet the mental illness burden in society, which is sadly growing. I hope that she will have seen that Health Education England has announced that there will be 21,000 more mental health staff by 2021, of which 13,000 will be qualified clinical staff, including 700 more doctors. The warning she has made has been heard loud and clear and those changes have been made.

If I may, I would like to use this opportunity to say that I made a mistake in my previous answer, when I talked about there being 21,000 people eligible for flu jabs. If that really was true, that would be a poor place to be. It is actually 21 million, which is slightly more reassuring.

National Health Service

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of remarks by the Chief Inspector of Hospitals that the NHS is not fit for the 21st century.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government agree with Professor Baker’s statement that,

“we need a model of care that is fit for the 21st century and the population as it is now”.

That is why we are backing the NHS’s own plans for transformation with an extra £8 billion a year in real terms by 2020-21 and an extra £2 billion over the next three years for social care.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he also agree with Professor Ted Baker’s statement:

“The model of care we have got is still the model we had in the 1960s”,


and that this “needs to change”? Can the Minister say how many of the new models of care are up and running and how many of the sustainability and transformation plans are in special measures? On World Mental Health Day, will he look into how many clinical commissioning groups are failing to commission good and timely mental health care, especially for young people?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness asked a few questions that I will try to deal with. First, on new models of care and STPs: STPs are now being ranked in order to see their fitness for moving forward. The Chancellor announced in the Budget that we will invest £325 million initially, with more funding in the future to support the transformation that we all want to see. The noble Baroness is right to point out that our care model is still based around hospitals and curing infectious diseases, rather than dealing with chronic illnesses and comorbidities. That needs to change.

I echo, as the noble Baroness would, the Care Quality Commission’s report, which talked about staff dedication—nowhere is that more true than in mental health, where staff often deal with very difficult circumstances. It is important to talk about that on World Mental Health Day. She may be interested to know that the Cabinet was briefed today by mental health experts about training programmes going into schools, and so on. There is a lot of work going on, but these are the NHS’s own plans for change, which this Government are backing.

Adult Social Care in England

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The noble Lord is quite right that the CQC report highlights that. It also highlights a broadly stable residential care home situation. What is changing the nature of care provision is the increase in the amount of domiciliary and community-based care that is being provided; we are seeing a shift there. The CQC report also shows big discrepancies across the country in terms of the proportion of beds per head of population. That is one thing we are trying to address, to make sure there is much more evenness of care.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the CQC report emphasised the need to co-ordinate care by stating that in future it will report not only on the quality of care in individual providers but on the quality of co-ordination between services. It quotes examples of services working together using technology and innovation to share data and improve care. How do the Government plan to encourage this approach? Will they look at funding models to make sure that they encourage co-ordination rather than deter people from co-ordinating?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness makes an excellent point. We will certainly look at those funding models. Co-ordination, as we have been saying, is the way forward, because if you are a user of care in your eighties, you may be visiting a GP, you may be based in a nursing home, and to you, it ought to be one system and you ought to be travelling through it smoothly. Of course, we know that that is not the case at the moment, and the noble Baroness is quite right to highlight that there are great gains to be made, whether from having pharmacists in nursing homes or from having GPs coming to visit. Her point about technology and data is a good one. We still have an argument to win in reassuring people that their data are safe within the NHS so that they can be confident that they are used wisely for their direct care. That is the policy area I am now responsible for, since the election, so I am focused on providing that reassurance so that we can unlock the kind of innovation she is talking about.

National Health Service (Mandate Requirements) Regulations 2017

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

If the Government are still saying that the 18-week target stands for this financial year, why do they not issue a direct and public instruction to NHS England to insist on the target being delivered? Otherwise, we know that this target will not be delivered. We know that the NHS believes that this target does not have to be delivered in the current financial year. Of course, it is important that Governments and services meet targets but the real impact is on NHS patients. As the Royal College of Surgeons reported, 3.78 million patients were on the waiting list at April 2017. That is 180,000 more than the same month the year before. It is well over a year since the 18-week target was met. I see my noble friend sitting on the Privy Council Bench and think of the efforts we put in over a number of years to get rid of the lamentable waiting list that we inherited. It is a tragedy for me to see the NHS starting to slip back. That is why the signal the Government have given about the 18-week target is so important and why I have initiated this debate tonight. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support this Motion.

This debate shines a spotlight on the existential quandary facing CCGs and NHS Providers. I am sure that at the end of the debate the Minister, in his usual courteous and thorough way will, as he always does, give us lots of figures about how much more the Government are spending every year and how many more treatments are being delivered and how well the STPs are doing. With demand rising, naturally the raw numbers are higher, but the Government have chosen an RTT target in percentage terms and they must live with that decision and fund the consequences. Over recent years, the increase in funding for the NHS has not kept up with rising demand. This year we have a lower increase than before, and so now is crunch time. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, nobody is even pretending that providers will be able to deliver the targets while remaining within their budgets. So there is no point in the Government watering down the targets and pretending that no one will notice. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and many others have noticed, and I am grateful to him for giving us the chance to have an honest and open discussion about this.

NHS staff work hard and do their best to meet the targets under difficult circumstances. It is not their fault that the RTT targets have not been met for 16 months. But changing the targets is a political decision, whether it is being done openly or not, and that is only right. It should certainly not be left to local decision-makers, in a postcode lottery, to quietly ignore them or try and fail to live up to them and then take the flack when people criticise. If the Government choose to change the target, they should take the responsibility for the consequences. But the trouble is that patients will live with the consequences, living longer with debilitating and painful conditions. Having those conditions worsen and requiring more complex and expensive treatment, they may even become untreatable, and their quality of life and perhaps their mental health will deteriorate. So although the 2012 Act was intended to pass the blame on to anyone but the Government when things go wrong, everybody knows that the Government’s NHS mandate is the Government’s NHS mandate and nobody else’s. The NHS can spend the money only once, and the Government should not be expecting two treatments for the price of one. The bald facts are that, this year, demand was expected to rise by 5.2% while the funding is only going to rise by 1.3%, which is 2.3% less than last year—which was too little anyway. So this is a deliberate choice on the part of the Government.

Waiting lists are projected to rise to almost 5 million by 2020, and clearing this backlog will require not only funding but appropriately trained staff. With staff who are EU citizens leaving in droves because of Brexit uncertainty, and UK staff leaving because of overwork and stress, NHS Providers is finding it impossible to deliver waiting time targets. At the same time there is spare capacity in the private sector but it charges more than the NHS, so that is a hard choice for managers to make. I therefore ask the Minister a simple question: what assessment did the Government make of the potential impact on patients and waiting lists of deprioritising elective care and taking the decision to relax the 18-week target?

The RTT is not the only target the Government have changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, and this is looking rather like a habit. For example, NHS England and NHS Improvement are reportedly setting new targets for CCGs and providers for bed occupancy levels, to keep them below 92%. This is significantly higher than the recommended safe limit of 85%. The Royal College of Surgeons has warned:

“Anything over this level is regarded as riskier for patients as this leads to bed shortages, periodic bed crises, and a rise in healthcare-acquired infections such as MRSA”.


This is another target that was routinely missed last winter, and the latest figures show that the overnight occupancy rate for general and acute beds hit a record high in the fourth quarter of 2016-17, averaging 91.4%. If the Royal College of Surgeons is right, this high level of bed occupancy is not a measure of efficiency but could lead to greater costs and crises, which put patients in danger.

Is it not time for the Government to stop pretending that all is well and that they have all the right answers, and set up a cross-party commission on the funding of health and social care, as recommended by my right honourable friend Norman Lamb MP? We on these Benches would be enthusiastic about taking part in such discussions. I think that the public are very fed up with health and care being a political football and would like to see us working constructively together. They want some honesty and realism. Of course we do not want to go back to the 1950s: I was waiting for a tonsillectomy and after two or three years, when my mother was fed up of waiting, she discovered that I had been taken off the list on the assumption that I had grown out of it. Actually, I had, but we need to be a great deal more ambitious for the NHS than that.

I know that the Minister makes the best of his brief but I would like to think that he will go back to his department and use his considerable powers of persuasion to stop the Secretary of State from burying his head in the sand.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I join with this regret Motion, not as a matter of formality but because of deep and genuine regret at the position that the Government have now, by hook or by crook, engineered, which is the effective abandonment of the 18-week target.

I will briefly recall to the House where we were before that target was introduced. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we do not have to go back to the 1950s. We can go back less than 15 years, when my predecessor, Alan Milburn, became Secretary of State for Health. The maximum waiting time then was not 18, 24 or 52 weeks for elective operations but three years. Due to his sterling efforts and, I have to say, his adviser, who also advised me—Mr Simon Stevens—we reduced that, but not nearly as much as I thought was necessary in a civilised society.

Therefore I admit a conflict of interest in this debate: I introduced the 18-week target, against some considerable opposition—not in principle but because, I was constantly told, “it couldn’t be done”. But we did it. I remind the House that at that time the number on the waiting list, waiting for as long as three years, was the horrific figure of 1.2 million. It is now 2.7 million and it is estimated that it may rise to 5 million. Therefore there are more and more people, and undoubtedly, once this target has been effectively removed, those pressures will immediately start a process whereby it will go well beyond 18 weeks and we will go back to where we were some 15 years ago.

I will make a couple of points about this situation; the first has already been alluded to. These targets were also to reduce MRSA—hospital-acquired disease —in hospitals by 50% over four years, which we did, despite the fact that we were told that we could not do it. It was also to take hundreds of thousands of people off the waiting list. This was an effective way, not of making a political point but to remove people from pain, distress, discomfort and, above all, the insecurity of not knowing when and if they might have the condition treated. I recall that at the formation of the National Health Service one of Labour’s greatest heroes, Nye Bevan, produced his framework in a pamphlet that was not called “In Place of Pain” but In Place of Fear. The fear that people had for their families, their senior citizens, their children, of the prospect of waiting several years, even with what might appear to others to be relatively small difficulties and medical conditions, is inestimable. Therefore this was, more than anything else, about the relief of human discomfort and insecurity.

Secondly, having been there, I know that this is not easy. It is never easy. I have a great respect for Simon Stevens as a person and an administrator. However, he is caught between all sorts of conflicting demands—an increasing population, people living longer and, I have to say, a relative reduction in resources as well as a shambolic reorganisation which was the worst use of money I can think of in the health service in the past several decades. So I do not blame him, but it is the Government’s job to face up to difficult tasks, and it will take political will.