Sugar Reduction Programme: Bread

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord. Since my first day at the Dispatch Box, he has challenged me on both sugar reduction and alcohol abuse. There comes a stage where it is diminishing returns. I know that the noble Lord and I are very keen on puns and dad jokes. When bread is being made, sugar is needed—kneaded; excuse the pun—because it extends shelf life by reducing the oxidation which causes food to deteriorate, it reduces the rate at which bread becomes stale, it activates yeast for fermentation, it adds the colour during the baking process, and it adds to the texture. The sugar contributes only about 2% of free sugars intakes in children. Therefore, it is much more worth while and targeted to focus on products that are higher in sugar.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating Tesco and Sainsbury’s? They have announced that, even though the Government are backtracking on the proposed ban on volume promotion offers of foods high in sugar, salt and fat, they will do it voluntarily anyway, and on time, to support the anti-obesity campaign. Will he encourage other retailers to join them and to work with their suppliers to reformulate and reduce sugar?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

We should welcome moves by those in the industry, including retailers; if they can meet deadlines earlier, that is all to be welcomed. Perhaps I might correct the noble Baroness on one inaccuracy. The Government have not backtracked; we have delayed location measures until October 2022.

Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors—Hospital and Other Pharmacy Services) Order 2022

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)]

My Lords, the Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors—Hospitals and Other Pharmacy Services) Order 2022 was laid before Parliament on 28 April. This draft order extends to the United Kingdom. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has submitted a Motion to Regret in relation to the draft Pharmacy (Responsible Pharmacists, Superintendent Pharmacists etc.) Order 2022. This will now be subject to a separate debate.

The draft order before your Lordships has been in development for a long time under the auspices of the Rebalancing Medicines Legislation and Pharmacy Regulation Programme Board, whose members include representatives from across the pharmacy sector and professional and regulatory bodies. The draft order is welcomed by pharmacy professionals working in hospitals and relevant pharmacy services, and has the support of the four Chief Pharmaceutical Officers of the UK.

I apologise for the parliamentary time taken to progress this order. The Government had to make some difficult decisions to deprioritise non-urgent legislation following the general election in 2019, EU exit and the Covid-19 pandemic. We are now returning to more business-as-usual matters.

The purpose of the order is to extend the defences already available to pharmacy workers in community pharmacy premises made under the Pharmacy (Preparation and Dispensing Errors—Registered Pharmacies) Order 2018 to ensure that registered pharmacy professionals working in hospitals and other settings, such as prisons and care homes, have access to the same defences. This would provide them with access to the defences to the criminal offences set out in Sections 63 and 64 of the Medicines Act 1968, which concern the adulteration of medicinal products in Section 63 and the sale of any medicinal product which is not of the nature or quality demanded by the purchaser in Section 64. The order makes these defences available in defined circumstances and, importantly, incentivises the reporting of errors where pharmacy professionals make genuine dispensing errors, improving learning to prevent such errors occurring.

In summary, the order will support improved patient safety by encouraging a culture of candid and fulsome contributions from those involved when things go wrong. This is a culture we want to see right across the NHS. Within this culture, pharmacy professionals can increase their learning from dispensing errors and identify mitigating action to make recurrence less likely in the future. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have always thought that the purpose of highlighting errors in the health service should be to learn and to avoid repeats, rather than to lay blame. That is why I supported the HSSIB, which was made mandatory in the recent Health and Care Act 2022. For that reason, I also support this order, which can contribute to patient safety by extending the removal of the threat of criminal sanctions for inadvertent dispensing errors beyond current community pharmacies and into other places where medicines are legitimately dispensed. These will include hospitals, care homes, prisons and detention centres. Anything which deters people shining a light on errors is a bad thing and should be addressed; anything which enables learning from them is welcome. However, although the order is welcome, I ask the Minister whether there has been evidence that staff have been deterred from exposing or informing patients about a mistake that has been made.

It is vital that the duty of candour that applies to all health professionals is upheld. I welcome the news from the General Pharmaceutical Council that it plans to develop new learning resources to help pharmacists understand how to fulfil this duty and, crucially, why they should do so. Of course, the duty already appears in the Standards for Pharmacy Professionals. This is where actual offences come into the picture. It is right that pharmacists could still be prosecuted if they can be shown to have had deliberate disregard for patient safety, as such a person would not be acting in the course of his profession, so patient protection still applies.

Identifying such a situation would probably rely on whistleblowers, who need protection and confidence that they would not be penalised for revealing information. Will the Minister say who would be responsible for making this judgment? Would it be the General Pharmaceutical Council or a magistrate with professional advice?

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sure that the noble Baroness appreciates that this was a new process, because of the Orbis trial. In some ways, NICE was not exactly prepared for that. NICE has learned from that lesson and 100% of its guidelines are issued within 90 days of licensing. It has learned the lesson but, sadly, there was a confluence of factors: one was Orbis and the other was that the committee meeting regarding recommendations ran over because there were a number of other cancer drugs that it was trying to look at. It has put this on the agenda for the next meeting.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

One of the ambitions in the life sciences vision is to enable early diagnosis and treatment, including immunotherapies such as cancer vaccines. However, last year, 20 treatment evaluations were paused because of lack of capacity at NICE. If successful R&D cannot be translated into treatments because of lack of NICE evaluations, how will that impact on commercial incentives and the ambitions set out in the life sciences vision?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about how this fits into the life sciences vision, and NICE is very aware of it. In fact, only last week, I saw a draft business case for NICE for future years, and it takes on board the very point the noble Baroness refers to. NICE is looking at making sure that is has more timely advice and that it can respond quickly; it has also increased capacity, not only for conditions like this but for more digital devices.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

He says that, eight months after asking Hikvision to address shocking allegations, it has failed to answer his questions. There are more Bills coming: there will be a new modern slavery Bill and a procurement Bill. As my noble friend said, there will also be an opportunity for more amendments. However, it would be helpful to know this evening whether this excellent amendment will be used as a yardstick when it comes to framing other putative legislation.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming Motion B, which puts in place government Amendments 30C to 30K, laid in another place. They relate to the Secretary of State’s role in major NHS reconfigurations and are a credit to the Minister, his ministerial team and the Bill team. They have listened to the strong arguments from across this House, led so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who is unable to be with us tonight. I thank the Minister for agreeing—eventually—that the powers originally proposed in the Bill were excessive, disruptive and unnecessary.

Unfortunately, we have not had such a fruitful consensus on the matter of workforce planning. We do not agree with the Commons that our workforce amendment, Amendment 29B, was unnecessary because appropriate measures already appear in the Bill. If that were so, and if the sector had had confidence in the Government’s track record in planning for adequate and safe staffing levels in health and care services, we would not have had more than 100 organisations backing our earlier attempts, led so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to put in place a mandatory system for reviewing the available workforce and predicting what will be needed in future. However, here we are, with the Government having set their face firmly against any compromise on or serious discussion about the matter. One has to ask what the Government are afraid of.

Any effective workforce strategy must be based on reliable information, be regularly refreshed and have numbers in it. This House and the whole sector have no confidence that what the Government are proposing will do that. I understand that the Treasury has had a hand in the Secretary of State’s determination to just say no. Perhaps the Treasury is unwilling to foot the Bill, which will prove to be essential when all is revealed.

I put it to the Minister one last time that our proposal would be cost-effective. Staff shortages are a false economy. Missing staff are often replaced by very expensive locums and agency staff, and the stress of unsafe staffing levels causes valued staff to leave the service. Training and recruiting staff to replace them also costs money. High staff turnover is not an effective strategy for any business or service, and poor treatment for patients often has to be done again or leads to greater and more expensive needs further down the track. No efficient shopkeeper would fail to do a proper stocktake or take account of what people are buying and therefore what he needs to order to replenish his stock—but that is what the Government are doing if they fail to plan effectively for safe staffing. It is much more serious than empty shelves, because it is playing with people’s lives, as was recently demonstrated so clearly by the Ockenden report.

If the Government are determined not to carry out the reviews and consultations in Amendment 29D, I would like to ask the Minister whether they would be happy for some other organisation, such as NHS England, to do so and whether they will take note of the results of that investigation. Amendment 29D from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, in Motion A1, is not a silver bullet; it will not solve the current staffing crisis in the NHS and care services. But it would provide a strong foundation for future safe and cost-effective staffing, which would be to the benefit of the whole population. It is our duty to ask the Government to think again—again.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, in closing the debate before we hear from the Minister, I make no apology for concentrating on social care, on how the care cap is to be implemented, and on my Motion D1, which implores the Commons to think again on this vital issue. I thank noble Lords who have given their strong support to Motions A1 and D1.

I wish to reinforce the key point that, from the outset, social care and Parliament have been treated pretty shabbily as part of this Bill. It is essentially an NHS Bill. As we know, the social care cap and charging arrangements were added to the Bill in the Commons, with no notice and after the Bill had finalised its Committee stages, and were then pushed through, without any opportunity for full explanation, scrutiny or time to consider the impact on the hundreds of thousands of people who are desperately in need of social care and support and will not receive it under these proposals. We later also had the money-saving bombshell announcement of local authority contributions not being allowed to accrue against the care cap, which was designed to achieve savings on the Government’s original package—even before any form of scrutiny of the Bill had commenced—that will be at the expense of some of the country’s poorest and most vulnerable people.

As noble Lords have pointed out, in reality, we in the Lords Chamber have had little actual time to consider and debate these vital social care provisions, despite many hours and days being spent overall on a long and complex Bill. Worst of all, we had the blank refusal by the Government to discuss or address any of the concerns and issues expressed or put forward by noble Lords from all sides of the House, with their deep expertise and knowledge across social care, or the detailed and painstaking evidence and modelling work undertaken by key stakeholders, such as Age UK, Mencap, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the King’s Fund, Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation expert think tanks. We have instead been told that Ministers have done their best to explain their proposals, but they have absolute red lines against making any changes whatever. Is this what must now pass for parliamentary dialogue, scrutiny and debate?

For the record, I will underline some of the key reasons why opposition to the Government’s proposal for the cap implementation is so clear and strong. The cap level and implementation strongly favour the better off and would bring almost nothing to the worst off. This is unfair and the opposite of levelling up. Older people and those with modest means all fare badly under the Government’s charging proposals.

Even the Government’s own impact assessment admits that only 10% of working-age disabled adult care users will benefit, that one in five older people will not see the benefits of the cap and that poorer care users are much more likely to die before they reach the cap than others with the same care needs. Among older people, those in the north-east, Yorkshire, Humber and the Midlands will be worse off. For dementia sufferers regionally, just 16% of people in the north-east and 19% in the east Midlands would hit the cap, compared with 29% in the south-east. The overall figure, as a result of disallowing local authority contributions towards the cap, is that only 21% of people living with dementia would reach it.

The mountain of evidence produced by stakeholders and think tanks shows that social care is not being fixed, as the Government continue to try to have us believe. The “nobody will have to sell their home” promise is firmly debunked, too, despite the Government desperately clinging on to it; it is a hollow and false claim. Somebody with assets of £100,000 will lose almost everything, while someone with assets of over £1 million will keep almost everything. How can this be the fair plan that the Minister insists it is?

The reality is that, as the Government holds to their solid red line, their arguments just do not stand up but get weaker by the minute. The Minister argues that his is the only affordable plan, but, if that is the case, why do the £90 million of savings have to be paid for by those who can least afford it, and why are there not better plans to protect those with fewest assets?

Local authority care contributions counting towards the cost are presented by the Government as unfair. Instead, they insist that setting the cap at the same level for everybody,

“no matter their age, where they live in the country or the nature of the care and support they need to draw on”,—[Official Report, 5/4/22; col. 1986.]

is the fairest system. Is that not also the opposite of how levelling up should work?

The argument that no one will be worse off than under the current system is just not borne out by the overwhelming evidence from the stakeholders and think tanks. The contention that the Government are reforming and changing the system where previous attempts have failed just is not true. There was cross-party agreement on the implementation of the Care Act after detailed scrutiny of the Dilnot proposals, and it was this Government who failed to implement it. I remind the House, as someone who was heavily involved in the scrutiny of that Bill, that there was no mention of the Care Act provisions being unaffordable when the Act and its implementation proposals were agreed in 2014.

On working-age adults, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has again forcefully underlined, the Government’s proposals will mean that they remain trapped in poverty. The Minister’s previous reference to the uprated social security benefits that they will receive instead under the minimum income guarantee completely missed the point of how social care needs have to be supported.

Ministers have doggedly stuck to their responses, without either acknowledging or addressing these clear counterarguments and evidence. My Motion again reinforces the key issues that we have tried all along to get the Government to respond to: the importance of implementing the care cap under the consensus provisions of the Care Act, and ensuring that local authority care costs are allowed to accrue towards the cap to avoid the huge unfairness that not doing so will cause to key groups in need of social care.

Finally, we want to make sure that the Government’s much-vaunted but little-explained trailblazer pilots are completed before regulations on the cap are agreed, as well as including the analysis of the impact on regional eligibility and the effect of the cap on working-age disabled adults under 40 with eligible care needs. Is this not both sensible and fairer to the key groups who stand to lose so much under the Government’s proposals? Why is this so difficult for the Government to agree to? I referred to “little-explained pilots”, but I did receive a letter three hours ago from the Minister, for which I thank him, setting out information about the pilots that in fact adds very little more than the DHSC press release in March and also shows that they will not be evaluating the key areas of impact that my Motion calls for.

I will also add that I have seen recent government claims in the media that deleting the social care cap arrangements in the Bill would jeopardise the whole Bill. I emphasise that that is not so. In their place we would instead have the rest of the Bill and the Care Act 2014 provisions, which would form the basis for moving forward quickly and implementing the cap in a much fairer and more inclusive way that would benefit many more people in desperate need of social care support.

I hope that even at this late stage the Government will listen, address the overwhelming concerns and evidence from all the stakeholders and experts on social care services and delivery and accept my Motion as the best way forward.

Folic Acid Fortification

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

This will all be part of the consultation, but once the policy has been decided on and fortification starts, clearly, we will be communicating to parents, families and others. If there is a risk—which noble Lords in their expertise seem to disagree with—we will have to identify that. The history of good intentions is littered with unintended consequences. We must be aware of those in our pursuit of increased folic acid in flour.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, over the past two years, the Government have made urgent decisions about Covid-19 to save lives and save sickness. Why can they not, in light of the strength of the evidence we already have, make a similarly urgent decision on this issue to save harm to 400 babies a year?

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to comment extremely briefly on Motion E, in relation to unpaid carers and hospital discharge, and to ask the Minister one question. I want first to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for her unstinting leadership on this issue. I very much welcome the amendment in lieu which the Government have brought forward to ensure that carers and patients are properly involved in discharge decisions.

My one point is that the cost of living crisis is a reality and life is getting tougher for many people. Involving carers at the point of discharge gives them the opportunity to say that they are unable to care, or unable to get the support they need for caring because they are juggling work and care—for example, if it is impossible for them to give up work fully because they need to feed the family or pay the bills. Can the Minister give me assurance that carers’ needs to juggle work and care will be both properly covered and explored in the guidance which I know that the Government are committed to producing, and which I am very much looking forward to seeing?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make a few brief comments about Motions A, E, G1, L1 and Q. On Motion A, we very much welcome the Government’s amendments in lieu, to make it clear that no commissioning organisation within the ICS can have a member appointed to it who could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service because of their involvement in the private sector. The Government have listened to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whom I congratulate for spotting the loophole, and that is very good and welcome.

On the matter of carers and safe discharge in Motion E, we on these Benches were concerned that unpaid carers would not be sufficiently consulted and their own health and well-being might not be sufficiently taken into account. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out, at my request, how the impact on carers will be assessed before a patient is discharged into her or his care. However, at the moment, when there is an outbreak of Covid-19 in a hospital ward, the carers are not allowed to visit the patient. Therefore, those conversations are not taking place. I should be very interested to know what the Minister will suggest about how those conversations can take place in that situation.

It is very important that appropriate action is taken to address the carer’s needs as well as those of the patient. Indeed, if those needs were not addressed, it would affect the ability of the carer to look after the patient, so both would suffer. I know this is a big responsibility for local authorities, which are strapped for cash, but it is vital that these needs are catered for, especially in light of the fact that those many thousands of unpaid carers save the public purse a massive amount of money, as well as looking after their loved ones with the loving care and attention that it would be very difficult for professionals, however dedicated, to give.

On Motions L and L1, I have listened carefully to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and she is quite justified. Governments have a habit of promising action but then moving on to something else, so we on these Benches, like the noble Baroness, will be looking out very carefully for the results of the review and the actions which we hope will follow.

We very much welcome Motion Q and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on achieving what he has. We particularly welcome the mention in the amendment in lieu of the word “prevention” of mental ill-health, as well as diagnosis and treatment.

Finally, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said, we support Motion G1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. I want to add just two comments to those of my noble friend. We should support the amendment because the government savings will be paid by the poorest and most vulnerable, and 80% of those with dementia who have very long-term caring needs will be worse off under the Government’s proposals, and that is not right.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who took part in this wide-ranging and interesting debate. Perhaps I can deal quickly with some of the issues. On mental health membership of the ICBs, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, for his persistence, but also for accepting the amendment that we produced in lieu.

On conflicts of interest, I thank all noble Lords for acknowledging the work that the Government have done, and I shall try to answer a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the chairs of the ICBs. They are appointed by NHS England, with the Secretary of State’s approval, which is the route by which the Department of Health and Social Care can ensure that the chair does not undermine the independence of the NHS. NHS England and the Secretary of State will want to appoint people who meet the highest standards and will not undermine the interests of the NHS. On the second question, ICBs will have to make arrangements to manage conflicts of interest to ensure that they do not affect, or appear to affect, the integrity of ICBs’ decision-making. This would implicitly include data sharing and access to information. I hope that that meets with the noble Lord’s approval and addresses his concerns.

On palliative care, I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for all her work and for teaching me so much about the subject. Indeed, the officials in my department are very grateful for what they have learned about the whole palliative care process: the noble Baroness has definitely put it right on the agenda for consideration.

It is clear that the views of parents are very important, and it is essential that their voices are heard. That is why we expect the review to include evidence from both parents and clinicians who have been involved in disagreements in the care of critically ill children.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for the points that he made and I hope that we will have further conversations. I would be happy to put my noble friend in touch with officials in my department, so that they can benefit from his wisdom and many years’ experience of mediation.

There are already robust duties to involve parent carers in hospital discharge planning. Parent carers of a disabled child are covered by the right, under the Children and Families Act 2014, to request a carers assessment at any time. We will continue working closely with the Department for Education to ensure that, in guidance, we signpost to existing rights and protections for these individuals. The existing guidance stresses that discharge teams should ascertain whether the carer is willing and able to provide care and support post discharge, before an assessment of longer-term needs. No assumptions should be made about their willingness or ability—that includes all forms of ability—to care. This will be set out in the new statutory guidance. As the noble Baroness rightly knows, we will be working with Carers UK on the guidance.

I will finish on the adult social care cap. I understand the concerns that many noble Lords have expressed. In the current system, individuals with more than £23,500 face unlimited costs. The cap is not a target to work towards; it is a backstop to make sure that people are not liable for unlimited costs of care. There are a number of different issues and views on this, but we believe that our proposal is better than the current system. Although I understand the concerns of this House, I once again urge noble Lords to consider that the other place has considered this and rejected noble Lords’ amendments. The Government Benches will be opposing Motions G1 and G2.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for the points he raised. We will look at all aspects of the trailblazer schemes; it would not be wise to limit what we look at. We want to get the best from that discovery and learning process, and perhaps spot with the trailblazing and piloting any unintended consequences. So we will look in a holistic way at how the trailblazer schemes are working before we roll them out nationally. We believe that that is wise and prudent.

I think that completes my points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, regarding Motions F and F1. He, assisted by my noble friend Lady Brinton and I, has pursued the question of the future of data governance in the NHS with great determination and persistence. I pay tribute to him and to medConfidential in that respect. I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is equally determined to make sure that data governance in the new structures is designed to secure public trust. I very much hope that he will give the assurances sought by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

The key problem we identified early on was the conflict of interest referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with NHS England in effect marking its own homework, and those who have data governance responsibility reporting directly to senior managers within the digital transformation directorate. I hope that the assurances to be given by the Minister will set out a clear set of governance duties on transparency of oversight, particularly where NHS England is exercising its own statutory powers internally. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I plan to address matters in the group that have not been addressed by my noble friends. They are workforce planning, reconfiguration and organ tourism.

First, on Motion K, on organ tourism, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, my noble friend Lady Northover and others on their success in convincing the Government that something must be done about this dreadful trade. I also thank the Minister for listening.

On Motions B and B1, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and will be right behind her when she leads us into the electronic Content Lobby on her Motion B1. It was made clear during earlier stages of the Bill that Peers across the House believe proper planning for training and providing a safe health and care workforce is essential. We also hear that almost 90% of trust leaders do not think the NHS has robust plans in place to deal with the workforce shortage. We are asking a lot of the NHS and care workforce at the moment; they are badly understaffed but, at the same time, are being asked to reduce the backlog of treatments that built up during the pandemic, while Covid-19 is still rampant in the population and thousands of patients are still in hospital with that as the primary cause.

In these circumstances, we have a desperate need for a reliable system to plan for and provide the staff we need, but nobody has confidence in the current system—if you can call it that. However, it seems that the Treasury has stuck its oar in. I find that rather odd, since neither the Bill as drafted nor the various amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, have mandated the Treasury to fund the numbers of workers at every level who may be identified as necessary to deliver the health and care we need.

I accept that, when the yawning gap becomes clear between the numbers we have and the numbers we need for safe care, there would indeed be pressure on the Treasury to provide the money. However, it has been pointed out many times—including this afternoon, by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—that the NHS spends £6.2 billion every year on expensive agency staff, whose roles could be provided much more cheaply, and with better continuity for patients, by permanent employed staff. Considerable savings could be made to offset this.

It is significant that the Government are resisting the noble Baroness’s amendment. They know very well that the reviews she recommends would shine a light on the fact that the NHS and care systems do not know what they have got or need, and are badly short-staffed. The Government would be pressured to do something about it.

Since the Ockenden report, something else which is rather crazy has emerged. The Government have agreed to comply with all Ockenden’s recommendations, including on planning for and providing adequate staff in obstetrics and gynaecology. Hopefully, all maternity units will be safer in future, but it would be ridiculous to have a maternity unit adequately staffed in the same hospital as a cancer or stroke unit that was not. In voting for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, we will attempt to save the Government from making such a dreadful and unnecessary mistake. We will be voting for safe health and care services in the future, in the interests of patients and staff alike.

On Motions C and C1, we support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which she will no doubt speak to in a moment. In voting for this amendment, we will again be attempting to save the Secretary of State for Health and Care from getting himself into an awful pickle. There may be far too much temptation for a Secretary of State to use the powers in the Bill as it stands to meddle in matters far better decided by the professionals and local authorities on the ground. A clear process, which is rooted in local accountability, already exists for reviewing proposals for NHS reconfiguration—there is no call for the Secretary of State to be further involved except now and then if an election is in the offing. The Government have emphasised accountability throughout this Bill, but that accountability must be at the right level. Many of the decisions that might be made under the power that we are attempting to curtail today should be accountable to local people through those operating the local integrated care systems. By interfering, the Secretary of State may well corrode the very accountability that the Government say they want. We will be voting with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I sense a deepening of support in your Lordships’ House for the issues contained within this group. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing Motion B1. I also put on record my thanks to the 100 organisations which have indicated their support and got involved to make this an even better Motion for us to consider.

Yesterday’s Health and Social Care Committee report said:

“Neither earlier diagnosis nor additional prompt cancer treatment will be possible without addressing gaps in the cancer workforce”


through a workforce plan. The lack of staff, both currently and projected, is not restricted to the cancer workforce but extends to the total staff shortage of some 110,000 across the NHS as well as 105,000 vacancies in social care, while some 27,000 NHS workers voluntarily left the health service in just three months last year, the highest number on record.

As we have heard, just last week your Lordships’ House debated the Ockenden review, which I believe has provided great focus on the issue of workforce planning. The review shockingly laid bare the reasons why hundreds of babies’ lives were avoidably cut short or damaged and mothers died; to their great credit, the Government have accepted every one of the recommendations. The clear finding here is that we must safely staff our maternity wards, yet midwives are leaving the NHS in greater numbers than it is possible to recruit them. If the Ockenden review does not illustrate why we need a workforce plan then I do not know what does.

It is worth reflecting on what Motion B1 is not about, in case that offers some late reassurance to the Minister. Despite needing all of these things, it does not commit the Government to hiring thousands more doctors and nurses, nor does it commit to new funding for the NHS. It does not even commit the Government to finally publishing the workforce strategy that the NHS is crying out for—even though the NHS has not had a comprehensive workforce strategy since the Government’s plan was published in 2003.

What Motion B1 talks about is an independent review of how many doctors, nurses and other staff are needed in health, social care and public health, both now and for the future, and that the report, which must be brought before Parliament, must be informed by integrated care boards, employers, trade unions and others—people with expertise and a great contribution to make. This is not just a question of recruitment, important though that is, but one of retention. There is absolutely no way out of planning and preparation; without them, it is just not possible to magic up the necessary staff. Motion B1 is about facing up to the scale of the workforce challenge so that we can see safe and efficient health and care. These Benches will certainly be supporting Motion B1 if the will of the House is tested.

I turn now to Motion C1 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. The inclusion of a clause about changes to reconfiguration shows that not all of the Bill was what the NHS was asking for. The powers in this clause are unnecessary and introduce a very considerable new layer of bureaucracy. Just about every commentator and representative group has said that this approach of an interventionist Secretary of State is quite wrong. As many have pointed out, the power that any proposal can be taken over by the Secretary of State takes us down a road of politicisation and will deter some from even trying to pursue necessary but controversial changes. It matters not that we are told that this power will be used only sparingly; if it is there, that will influence behaviour.

Given where we are in the parliamentary process, outright rejection of this provision would, of course, be problematic. Our alternative in this Motion is to say that, if the power is only rarely to be used—in exceptional circumstances, when intervention is justified—then the way to deal with this is to make that case to Parliament, to put it up for proper scrutiny and to show the evidence. If we are potentially to deprive people of their right to be consulted, then at least let Parliament do a proper job of examining this.

I now turn very briefly to Motions D1 and K. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for presenting Motion D1 today. It seeks to ensure that health service procurement of all goods and services avoids modern slavery; in other words, it takes us further than Motion D. I thank the Minister for the move forward contained within that Motion; however, if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wishes to test the will of the House, we on these Benches will certainly be in support.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords for their persistence in ensuring that Motion K is before us today. Again, I thank the Minister for being so responsive on this point. I hope that, in the votes that follow, your Lordships’ House will swiftly take the opportunity to ask that we might further improve this Bill.

Ockenden Report

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House and for the reassurances he has given and the actions that have been, and will be, taken. I listened to this Statement in great sadness and shock, as I know that so many others have as they heard the news unfold. I will start by expressing heartfelt gratitude to the families who came forward. We would not be here today had it not been for their persistence and the resilience they have shown across over 20 years in their fight for justice. I also thank Donna Ockenden and her team for this landmark report. I utterly regret the appalling circumstances in which it has come before us.

Today marks an important milestone for hundreds of bereaved families who are seeking justice. As the Minister said, it is not the end, because West Mercia Police are investigating some 600 cases. This report lays bare the disturbing truth of what families have had to face and why their fight for justice has been so fierce. The inquiry examined cases involving nearly 1,500 families in instances crossing over decades. It concluded that hundreds of babies were stillborn, died shortly after birth or were left severely brain damaged, and that mothers died giving birth while others were made to have natural births despite the fact that they should have been offered a caesarean. This must have been cruel. The report says that over 200 babies and nine mothers might have survived if they had received the right care.

In addition to what we have read about the actual circumstances, the report also has huge implications for the future of maternity care. The report, of course, makes for harrowing reading—cries for help going unheard; parents having to try to resuscitate their own children because there was no one there to help; and women and babies dying needlessly because the mothers were not listened to. That women were silenced and ignored at their most vulnerable, when they were relying on the NHS to keep them and their babies safe, is shameful. In addition to the NHS, the CQC also failed in its duties as it missed opportunities to stop the poor maternity care.

No woman should ever have to face going into hospital to give birth not knowing whether she and her baby will come out alive. However, these were not just one-offs or isolated incidents of negligence. There was an institutional failing in a system riddled with a toxic culture of bullying, ignoring mothers and deliberating keeping caesarean rates low, even though that was not the right thing for the mother. The entire culture failed to take up the many opportunities to realise that there was a serious problem and to act. We are where we are today because of the persistence and resilience of the families who have suffered, and continue to suffer, and because of their refusal to give up the fight to expose these failings.

The only comfort we can offer them is that their voices have been heard, and that we commit today, in your Lordships’ House, to ensure that these failings are never repeated. For too long, patient safety issues and the voices of women have been an afterthought, leading to the kind of crisis we saw in this NHS trust—and this must change. There can be no compromise on patient safety, which has to be a priority for both health professionals and Ministers.

With this in mind, I will put some points to the Minister. I certainly welcome the acceptance of all 84 recommendations, but how will the Minister monitor the progress that is being demanded through these recommendations, and when and how will this be reported to Parliament?

The report makes it clear that safe services cannot be run unless there is a culture of transparency and accountability. Can the Minister therefore explain how he intends to ensure an open culture within the NHS, with a willingness to learn, particularly within maternity services, and for future failures to be identified and corrected quickly?

Underpinning issues in maternity care, as is the case across so much of our NHS, is the workforce, which is why we have been pushing so hard on this matter in the Health and Care Bill. The NHS is now losing midwives faster than it can recruit them. A recent CQC survey shows that almost a quarter of women were unable to get help when they needed it during labour. Hundreds of pregnant women were turned away from maternity wards last year because there were not the staff available to care for them. What is being done to ensure that the NHS can recruit the midwives that it needs? What is being done to keep the midwives we have in post?

It is only with the necessary workforce that the NHS will be able to ensure that women receive the care that meets their needs and prioritises their safety. That security and respect is all that the families who suffered so much at Shrewsbury want, and it is all that the women who put their and their babies’ lives in the hands of the NHS want. This has to be reasonable, and it has to be done.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of midwives, nurses and clinicians providing maternity services do their very best to provide good care for their patients. It must have been with great sadness that they read—as we read with great sadness—today’s Ockenden report and the previous interim report, which have shone a light on a shocking range of shortcomings in maternity services, leadership and inspections at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. I hope that this report will lead, in future, to mothers and babies being as safe as we can possibly make them in our NHS.

The report has been made possible only by the bravery and persistence of all those families who were prepared to go through their trauma all over again when they gave evidence of what happened to them and the awful consequences and pain that followed. From these Benches we offer our thanks and sympathies to all those suffering bereavement and ongoing health issues. The report is also a tribute to the fine work of Donna Ockenden and her team, who used both their professional knowledge and their human qualities to conduct the review with dedication, empathy and attention to detail.

I also commend those members of staff who were prepared to give very candid evidence to the investigators. Such people are sometimes referred to as whistleblowers; I call them courageous, public-spirited professionals. However, their actions were not without risk to themselves and their future, as with many whistleblowers in the health and care services. I therefore ask the Minister: will the special health authority, which is being set up to continue the maternity investigation programme currently run by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, have the same safe-space confidentiality for those giving evidence in the future as the HSSIB, which is currently being legislated for in the Health and Care Bill? The Minister will know how strongly both Houses of Parliament feel about the importance of giving staff absolute confidence that the material they disclose remains confidential in the interests only of learning and improving patient safety rather than laying blame.

The report stated that:

“There were not enough staff, there was a lack of ongoing training, there was a lack of effective investigation and governance at the Trust and a culture of not listening to the families involved.”


I therefore first acknowledge last week’s funding announcement of £127 million by NHS England for maternity services, although this is still significantly short of the £200 million to £350 million recommended by the Health and Social Care Select Committee in June 2021. However, it is surprising to me, in the light of Donna Ockenden’s clear finding that staff shortages risk lives, that the Government, in the other place, continue to resist the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, voted for by your Lordships, on assessing, reporting and planning for safe levels of staffing in the NHS and social care. Proper planning cannot take place without an accurate and independent assessment of current supply and future need. In light of the Ockenden report, will the Government change their position on this?

There are currently 2,000 midwife vacancies in the NHS, according to NHS England figures published last month, and the number of midwives in post has fallen since last year. This is going in the wrong direction.

In the debate on the interim report in your Lordships’ House on 14 December 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, denied that the issues in Shrewsbury and Telford maternity services were linked to understaffing. Does the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, now accept that staffing is an issue? Can he say what will be done about it? As Ms Ockenden rightly says, we need to create a situation where midwives, nurses and clinicians want to remain in the NHS. We will not do that if they are constantly having to battle against staff shortages.

The report also highlights the need for women to be listened to when engaging with maternity services, rather than experiencing a culture of services based around targets for a particular kind of birth. I need hardly say that giving birth is a very personal matter and women’s preferences must be listened to and provided where clinically appropriate. Ockenden emphasised that listening to women and empowering them in their care will lead to improved outcomes. I therefore remind the Minister of the parallel between this situation and telemedicine abortion treatment, where the Government are failing to listen to women’s clinically safe preferences. I was pleased to hear recently that Members of the House of Commons have been listening to women, rather than to the Government.

The report pointed out that what happened in Shrewsbury and Telford was not an isolated incident. In July 2021, 41% of maternity services in England were rated as inadequate or requiring improvement. That is why the report made 15 recommendations aimed at all maternity services across the country, and I understand that the Government have accepted them all. Can the Minister therefore say how implementation of these country-wide recommendations will be monitored and reported on? Will that duty be given to the CQC or will there be a special system?

I finally turn to training. In the debate on the interim report in December 2020, my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out that:

“In 2017, the £8.1 million national maternity training fund was withdrawn. Does the Minister now, in hindsight, regret this, and will he seek to re-establish this fund urgently?”—[Official Report, 14/12/20; col. 1522.]


I echo his question today. Will the money for training be ring-fenced and will midwives going for training always be covered by similarly experienced staff?

Despite earlier events, similar although smaller in scale to what happened at Shrewsbury and Telford, there has not been systematic integrated change. Can the Minister therefore assure us that this will happen now, especially under the new regime of integrated care systems? Who will be responsible at the level of NHS England, ICSs and individual trusts, as well as politically, for ensuring that, this time, the changes highlighted by Donna Ockenden are implemented in a timely way, so that no more families will be avoidably deprived of their precious child, mother or wife?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I begin by thanking both noble Baronesses for their questions and resisting the temptation to bring too much politics into it. This is an issue that we all feel very strongly about. I will try to answer as many questions as I can; I apologise in advance if I do not answer all the questions today. I have quite a big briefing pack, which I have been through a number of times. I commit to writing to noble Lords and the noble Baronesses to fill the gaps.

As the noble Baronesses said, we accept all the actions outlined in the report. The Secretary of State has asked NHS England and NHS Improvement to write to all the trusts across England about the final Ockenden report, and will ask all maternity services across England to assess their services against the 15 immediate and essential actions outlined in the report —and take action where they fall short. As the noble Baronesses acknowledged, NHS England and NHS Improvement have announced that they will invest £127 million in maternity care; that money will go towards the NHS maternity workforce and improving neonatal care.

We have also seen work under way to tackle some of the key issues in the report, such as the £5 million for the Avoiding Brain Injury in Childbirth collaboration project, the establishment of a special health authority to continue the work, which I shall go into later, and the development of 17 new maternal medicine networks. We will update the House as appropriate on the monitoring.

We have to look at the culture; I completely understand the points made. Strong leadership will now be established across the system, with the appointment of named regional and local maternity safety champions led by two national maternity safety champions, Matthew Jolly and Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent. In every trust, front-line maternity safety champions—one obstetrician, one midwife and one neonatologist—will work closely with a board maternity safety champion to promote unfettered floor-to-board communication. We have also tried to make progress in shifting away from a defensive blame culture in healthcare towards a culture in which we recognise and accept when things go wrong and look to learn.

I thank noble Lords for their engagement, particularly over the HSSIB, during the passage of the Bill. I think we all agreed that it was important that we kept as many people as possible out of the “safe space” to encourage people to come forward. However, as we have seen in these cases, people were bullied and disincentivised from coming forward; some even withdrew their names.

Last year, there was a £500,000 fund to provide maternity leadership training for NHS maternity and neonatal leaders. We looked at addressing the issues raised in the first Ockenden report—to use that phrase again, “between ward and board”—to make sure that there was proper accountability and training.

On workforce, as I said, NHS England and NHS Improvement have the investment. In addition, there is £95 million in new funding to support the recruitment of 1,200 more midwives and 100 more obstetricians, and to support multidisciplinary team training. The department has also commissioned the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to develop a new workforce planning tool to improve how maternity units calculate their medical staffing requirements. The tool will calculate the number of obstetricians at all grades required locally and nationally to provide a safe, personalised maternity service within the context of the wider workforce. Health Education England has also been working with stakeholders towards a targeted increase of 3,650 midwifery student training places by the end of 2022-23.

One concern that was raised when I spoke to officials and asked for briefings before this evening was whether reports such as this one would disincentivise people from coming forward to work in midwifery. We have to be very careful that we are as open as possible and that we make sure that the system learns where there are problems. People are human, and they will be concerned about coming forward. So we have to get the right balance and have safety, training and awareness all the way through, making sure that it is patient-centred.

I shall try to answer as many questions as I can; I know that other noble Lords want to come in. In terms of deterring midwives from leaving—I know that there is a real concern here—the NHS people plan focused on improvement and retention. There is a well-being guardian role focused on: healthy work environments and safe spaces; empowering line managers to hold meaningful conversations; emotional and psychological support; a dedicated health and care staff support service; a bereavement helpline; free access to a range of mental health apps; a range of counselling and talking therapies; and online resources. Money has also been invested in 14 mental health hubs across the country, and £6 million has been set aside for a national support service for critical care staff.

We have to tackle bullying and harassment in the service. The people plan deals with a number of issues on that; there is also a visibility and respect framework and a toolkit. A number of projects and pilots are under way across the NHS to support organisations to see what works and where we can learn from that.

There were some questions about the special health authority, which we see as a key part of work to improve the investigation and learning culture. The investigators will carry out timely and independent individualised investigations into maternal and neonatal deaths and incidents across England. The SHA’s investigation will be family-centred and mother-centred, but it will also provide families with answers to questions about why an incident occurred or why their baby died, rather than just sweeping this away. The learning from these investigations will be shared at a local level and across the wider system. As an independent body, the special health authority will continue the work of the HSIB from 2023, and maternity investigations will continue during this time, without interruption, until the SHA is fully operational—this is specifically for maternity.

As for what the Government are doing to make sure that women’s voices are heard, we have the women’s health strategy—I know that noble Lords have heard that before—and we are looking at multidisciplinary training in the maternity workforce. There is a debate within the training community about whether you train someone to be a midwife first or whether they should start as a nurse and have nursing skills first. I will stop there to allow other noble Lords to ask questions.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I was rather hoping that we would do one of these. I agree with the Minister that we have improved the Bill; it is a much-improved Bill that we are sending back to the Commons, and I hope that they have the good sense to accept all the wise amendments that this House has made.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that this is his first Bill, and it has been a baptism of fire for him. It is a very large Bill to cut your teeth on. I think that he has had a bit of a masterclass on legislation and legislative processes, but I compliment him on how he has risen to the occasion and thank the whole ministerial team, including the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn; I was about to call her Baroness Jo-Jo, sorry. I also observe that this is a three-baby Bill. The leader of the Bill team and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, have had babies, and our adviser who started out on the Bill, Rhian, has also had a baby. That is probably quite unusual in your Lordships’ House.

I say thank you, of course, to my wonderful colleagues, my noble friends Lady Wheeler and Lady Merron, and also to the Labour team behind me, particularly my noble friend Lord Hunt, who has been especially active on the Bill—and very welcome that has been, too. We have worked very well across the House, and we have been very pleased to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, at a distance, and with many colleagues on the Cross Benches. If I start listing them, I know that I shall forget someone, but I need to mention the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He has not been with us for as much of the Bill as he would have liked, but of course his wisdom has been with us all the way through the Bill.

We are sending the Bill back to the other place, and I suspect that we are all going to be busy when it starts pinging and ponging back.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill is of great significance to the NHS, care services and, in particular, patients and residents in the care system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the Minister have said, it has been improved by your Lordships’ usual scrutiny.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the other two Ministers working on the Bill. By my calculations, the Government have given us either changes or reassurances on 13 different areas in this Bill. It certainly shows that the ministerial team and the Bill team—to which I am also grateful—have been listening. They have devoted an enormous amount of time to hearing our concerns and responding to them. I thank them for that.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

I conclude by saying that I just do not think it is possible to put across the message that this is now endemic, Covid-19 has gone away and we do not need to worry any more. I do not think that that is a responsible position for the Government or anyone else to take.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to ask some questions about data. We are told that the Government’s policy has been data driven. As my noble friend just pointed out, the Prime Minister suggested that the case figures and hospitalisations are going down, when in the last seven days cases have gone up by 52% and hospitalisations by 18.4%. This is a trend: the Prime Minister constantly fiddles the figures. First, we had him misleading Parliament on unemployment figures, then on crime figures, and now on Covid figures. This is very important.

I would like to know why the Government are withdrawing funding from some of the studies that enable us to know what the data is, such as the ZOE study. Without the data, the experts cannot properly advise the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister then cannot, if he chooses to, take the right decisions. Why are we withdrawing funding from these studies? As my noble friend says, if the virus is endemic, we still need to control it and we need the figures to do so.

Lateral flow tests that people can take at home are particularly important, especially in the light of the symptoms of this new subvariant—B2, I think—of omicron because the symptoms start as a bit of a runny nose. If somebody has a runny nose, yes, it could be a cold, but it could be Covid. If we are being asked to be sensible and to protect other people, if it is a Covid runny nose one should stay at home, and if it is a cold one should take precautions, but without the test—and poor people cannot afford £20 a box—people will not know which kind of runny nose it is. Can the Minister say how people on benefits or low incomes, who cannot pay the price that some companies are charging for these lateral flow tests, can afford to have them standing by at home so that when they get symptoms they can check the cause of those symptoms and protect everybody around them?

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, as I said in this House on Monday, I had to stay at home for seven days because I had a very bad chest cough, a bad cold and a lot of catarrh. I tested myself and the test was negative. Those bad symptoms continued for nearly six days and I tested myself every other day. It was very clear that I had a sudden form of flu, but its effects on me were quite strong. I was encouraged because I was able to test myself and the lateral flow tests revealed that I did not have Covid but had an awful cold and flu.

The programme that the Government embarked on in testing and tracking was world class. When we are still in the middle of this very cold weather, why withdraw free testing in April? It is the only assurance we have. I hope the Government will think again about that possibility, although the regulations have gone. To take responsibility for yourself, you need to know whether you have Covid, otherwise you will go out and infect other people, which you should not do.

The messaging still needs to go out. I was quite shocked when “Look North” said that people in our area who are testing positive and sometimes ending up in hospital had stopped washing their hands. That is a shock. It may be said that we have all grown up and know how to wash our hands regularly, but I am afraid that in some places that has gone, so the messaging should still be going out that for the protection of other people we must take responsibility and wear a face covering, not because it is regulated but to be considerate towards others. Sometimes you should keep your distance when you hear people coughing. You are keeping your distance to try to protect people.

When these regulations have all gone and such things are no longer mandatory, will the Government please continue to inform people that there are some places where you still need to keep your distance, some places where you must continue to wash your hands and some places where wearing a face covering is the responsible thing to do? Although it is not going to be policed, we need to create that culture. It happened during lockdown. I used to be shocked when I went to a toilet and people who had not washed their hands came out. We are now going back to our bad habits. Although the regulations have gone, could the messaging still go out to persuade people that the steps we took during lockdown and before these regulations are still worth doing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I thank him for all that information, but is he in a position to answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Tyler about vaccination of primary age children? There is an awful lot of Covid in primary schools. Vaccinating children was slow to start and the delivery of the programme has been even slower. Perhaps he could tell us something about that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Yes, I apologise for my enthusiasm to answer.

We have accepted the JCVI advice to offer the vaccine to all children aged five to 11. The advice follows a thorough review by the MHRA, which approved Pfizer’s paediatric vaccine as safe and effective for children aged five to 11. The NHS is also prepared to extend the offer to all children in April, so parents can ensure good protection against potential future waves of Covid-19. Every parent will have the opportunity to make an informed choice. I remember an email from my younger son’s school saying there was a vaccination clinic at the school. Sometimes vaccinations are done in schools, sometimes in an NHS setting, and sometimes in these pop-up centres that we have debated previously. I hope that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness.

I am sure that all noble Lords will want to join me in thanking all the scientists, the health and social care workers, the volunteers, the life sciences industry, and the postal, courier and transport workers, the Uber Eats people—all those who brought stuff to us while we protected ourselves. We have always sought to get the right balance between the safety of the public and keeping the country open. We were criticised sometimes when we went into lockdown and we were criticised sometimes when we came out of lockdown. We have looked at the scientific debate. Whatever you do, there will be scientists who agree with you and scientists who disagree with you. You just have to do the right thing on balance, with all the economic and social factors, as well as all the health factors.

We will continue to monitor the data, listen to scientific advice, build defences and encourage people to get vaccinated. We are always making it clear that it is not too late to get your first and second vaccine. We have targeted community groups, sometimes through faith organisations and sometimes through local community organisations, to reach people who are distrusting of authority, asking who the right people are whom they will trust. We must understand the motivations and why people are not getting vaccinated, rather than tell them that they are silly or complain about them. We must understand and work with them.

I end by saying that we agree with noble Lords who have said that this is not over. We must learn to live with Covid; we must get vaccinated, ventilate shared spaces, wear a face covering in crowded or enclosed spaces, and get tested. Lifting these restrictions does not mean that we are ignoring the virus. We have this Living with Covid-19 strategy, and I welcome all noble Lords’ scrutiny of it and their helpful suggestions. If I have not answered any questions, I will read Hansard and make sure that I sweep up all the other answers.

I hope that I have offered some assurance and answered most questions. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for whom I have incredible respect for her championing of the clinically extremely vulnerable, to withdraw her amendment.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support the two amendments in this group.

In Committee, I spoke on hospital discharge, focusing particularly on carers who are working. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, until very recently the impact assessment talked about an expectation that carers would have to provide more care. It said:

“There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier. For some, this may result in a … reduction in work hours and associated financial costs.”


While Ministers have talked of carers being able to choose whether or not they give up work to care, we have heard that many have not been given a choice, been consulted or been given the right information to care safely and well. We know that, on occasions, carers do make an informed choice to take on more care, which is great, but we have heard far more stories where the system is working against carers. Indeed, the research from Carers UK shows that two-thirds did not feel listened to about their willingness and ability to care by healthcare professionals.

I am particularly concerned about carers who are trying to juggle working and caring. They may be willing to take on and provide more care, but they are juggling work as well. The impact assessment makes an assumption that, when carers give up work, it will be a short-term thing because the care provided will not be significant. Yet the stories we have heard from carers show that, too often, that is not the case because patients with significant needs are discharged into the community without sufficient support.

To conclude, this is not a minor issue. It affects millions of people, and it particularly affects women. There have been 2.8 million more carers juggling work and care during the pandemic, and many have had to give up work. We also need to remind ourselves that women are more likely to be reducing their working hours to juggle work and care, and they are a group that is already often under-pensioned.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches, as has been said, support both amendments in this group. I just ask the Minister one question. We have heard about people who might have to give up work or reduce their hours in order to care. I do not know if the Minister has ever tried to apply for benefits, but it takes a while, and it certainly takes a while for the benefits to turn up in somebody’s bank account. Given that situation, will the Minister talk to the relevant department to see if a fast-track process could be put in place for people in that position?

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully endorse my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley’s excellent speech and the other contributions on Amendment 113. The amendment focuses on three fundamental issues for unpaid carers: being fully consulted and involved before their loved one is discharged from hospital; having a proper assessment both of their own needs and of those who they care for; and clinging on to the few concrete rights they have under the health and care and family legislation that refers to and defines carers, including parent and young carers, and the right of all carers to have a carers’ assessment.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for adding her name to my Amendment 144 and for her usual forensic analysis of how the discharge to assess approach is working and its impact on both carers and their loved ones being discharged from hospital. I spoke on this amendment in Committee, but the noble Baroness has underlined the key points and I will not therefore press my amendment today. We can instead concentrate on showing strong support from across the House for carers and for Amendment 113.

Speakers made this support very clear in Committee. At the very least, we could have hoped that this would lead to a commitment from the Government to reinstate the carers’ rights that the Bill deletes and to ensure that carers are consulted before the partner, husband, relative or friend they care for is discharged from hospital, as per their current entitlement under the 2003 delayed discharges Act. Instead, there have been no reassurances or movement in these crucial areas, despite some helpful meetings with the Minister. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley points out, we are once again having to defend existing carers’ rights rather than working to enhance them to recognise the worth of carers and reflect the vital role that they play.

If the Minister was hoping that his recent letter and the accompanying updated draft guidance on discharge to assess would address the deep concern and frustration felt by carers, then he knows today that this has not worked. The promise of statutory guidance, and of carers being able to undertake judicial review if it is breached, is not the same as legal rights. In reality, how many carers would be able to go down the judicial review route? The Government just do not seem to understand how deeply ignored, undervalued and unrecognised carers feel.

We should remember, on discharge to assess, that the evidence from key stakeholders to the Commons committee dealing with the Bill clearly showed a very mixed experience of how the approach was working. In some areas, the perennial and disruptive issues around delayed transfers have eased and it is working relatively well, whereas in others, there were calls for much tougher safeguards or for the process to be ended altogether. The Government need to recognise that the system is in its early days but that, as we have heard, the horror discharge stories are happening now—and all too often, as we see from the briefings from Carers UK.

In his response, the Minister needs to reassure the House about the action that the Government are taking now to ensure that hospitals involve and consult carers about arrangements before discharge of patients. I hope that he will also accept Amendment 113 and fully recognise that carers’ existing rights must be reinstated in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for rising because I know we need to move on but before I speak to this amendment perhaps I may take the opportunity, as I was not here on the first day of Report, to thank the Ministers for listening—and taking action after doing so on many aspects. I thank them all for that. I also thank all those who sent me good wishes. It helped, and I did not realise I had so many friends.

I shall not speak at length on this group. I have my name on both sets of amendments. The reason I supported removing the whole clause was that there are a lot of issues arising, not just the invasion of the safe space. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that it gives the Government another chance if it is confined to removing the coroner provisions. I agree with what has been said: the medical profession particularly, but even other health professionals, will find it difficult if the safe space of what they say confidentially can be invaded, so I support that proposal.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I well recall hearing Jeremy Hunt announce that we would have this organisation and thinking at the time how important it would be in turning the NHS into a learning organisation, in the interests of patient safety. I would prefer not to take the whole clause out but to amend it.

The predecessor non-statutory organisation’s chief inspector has written to us, pointing out that when his organisation was set up it was made clear that full statutory independence, along with the fully enclosed prohibition on disclosure, would be essential to its success. I am concerned that if this power to disclose information to coroners is left in then this organisation, which we all so much support, will be set up to fail. That would be a very bad thing for patients and the whole NHS.

Quite honestly, the number of cases that the HSSIB is going to investigate—only 30—is highly unlikely to cut across anything that the coroner wants to do. In fact, the Joint Committee which scrutinised the previous Bill in 2018, which got only as far as Second Reading, concluded that the safe space would in no way impede the ability of coroners, regulators, the PHSO or the police in undertaking their own investigations or speaking to witnesses. That is not what we heard in the meetings which the Ministers have been kind enough to set up on Zoom, or from the Ministry of Justice. They obviously disagreed with the Joint Committee that scrutinised this carefully.

I hope the Minister is not going to rely on paragraph 6(7) of Schedule 14 because, as it stands, the so-called protections in that part of the Bill are completely unknowable. How can the High Court know whether a disclosure to the coroner will deter future witnesses from giving full disclosure? It simply cannot know that but there is a big danger. Nor can it know whether it will have an

“impact on securing the improvement of the safety”

of the health service. This is an empty protection and I hope the Government will not rely on it when arguing against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

In the case the noble Earl has just mentioned, could not the coroner have obtained the information by another means?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. I can, of course, find out and let the noble Baroness know, if those details are available.

I know there have been concerns that inquests can seem to be adversarial, and that protected material passed on to the coroner could be used in them. Inquests are, by definition, designed to be inquisitorial; statute prohibits inquests from determining criminal and civil liability, and interested persons are prevented by the inquest rules from making submissions on the facts. Coroners seek to obtain the objective truth—how and not why someone has died. I submit that not allowing coroners to see relevant safe space material could prevent justice being done and seriously undermine public confidence in the coronial system.

I turn to the important issue of funding, raised by Amendment 123, although I do not know that noble Lords have spoken to that. The noble Lord is shaking his head so, to save time, I will not cover that point.

Finally, let me just say that an independent HSSIB is an excellent concept that has wide support. In my submission, it would be a terrible pity if noble Lords rejected it because of doubts about how well it would work. I believe that it will give patient safety a valuable boost and hope that the House will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches support Amendments 141, 143 and 144A. I congratulate all who have spoken and laid out the very important issues that we are talking about in this group. I will add one more point, which is that the fairly small savings that the Government might make under these measures, unless they are amended, would be paid for by the most vulnerable people. That is unworthy of a Government who say that their ambition is to level up across the country.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I am sorry I was unable to engage as much on this issue as I was on others. I will speak first to government Amendments 128 to 140 and 187. We believe that these amendments are crucial to make the adult social care charging reforms work as intended. If they do not stand as part of the Bill, it will lead to unfairness between those whose needs are met by a local authority and those who self-fund their care. The intention of these amendments is to correct this.

Without these amendments, some costs which individuals have incurred will not meter towards the cap when they should do so. Currently, individuals eligible for funded support who have not had a timely needs assessment may incur costs in getting their needs met in the interim. This applies whatever system of charging we come up with. The costs incurred during periods of delay currently do not count towards the cap, and my amendments fix this. We came across this issue when we were looking back at previous Bills and unintended consequences.

I have also tabled an amendment to clarify the circumstances in which an independent personal budget must be provided by a local authority and what information those documents must include. We want these to be forward-looking documents, personal to the care user. To support this and to simplify the metering process, we are also removing the link between these documents and what meters.

Finally, as set out in the recent impact assessment, our charging reform implementation plan includes a small number of trailblazer local authorities that will implement charging reform earlier than others. I have tabled Amendment 187 to allow these trailblazer local authorities to begin implementing the reforms before others. For these reasons, I ask that noble Lords support my amendments.

On the other amendments, a number of noble Lords have asked questions and I will try to answer them. We believe that the £86,000 level set for the cap balances people’s personal responsibility for planning for their later years with a need to put in place a system to ensure that nobody faces unpredictable costs. Removing Clause 155 or simply omitting Clause 155(2) would have the effect of removing the ability to meter towards the cap by individual contribution only. Instead, progress towards the cap would be based on both individual and local authority contributions to care costs. This policy is unfair. However, it is also considered unaffordable.

Removing these clauses would increase the cost of the overall reforms by about £900 million per year, if you keep all other parameters the same—although. of course, other noble Lords have asked for other amendments, so those parameters would not necessarily be the same. This would require raising the cap, reducing means-tested support or expecting people to make contributions towards their daily living costs that are unaffordable from most people’s income. None of these is preferable to the approach that the Government are proposing to take.

We argue that the Government’s reform package is affordable and deliverable. We have indeed seen many reports over the years, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was on the Dilnot commission, but we have to ask ourselves why these were not implemented. Although we may see many merits in a number of a different systems, and we all have our own biases or views on what the system should—