Schools Bill [HL]

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Brinton

Report stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Monday 18th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He talked about hair-trigger actions for the school attendance order process. He is right that we need clarity and common sense, an active relationship with parents and a way of holding local authorities to account where things have gone wrong.

Amendments 89, 95 and 96 in this group are in my name. Amendments 89 and 96 echo my amendment in the first group, which my noble friend Lord Storey spoke to. Many Peers have reported specific cases where, despite the Minister saying that this is meant to be about schools and local authorities working together with parents, that is just not happening in practice. Parents are definitely made to feel that they are always in the wrong, so I thank my noble friends Lord Storey and Lord Addington, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, for their comments in that group that despite some schools and LAs having very good practice, unfortunately there are some which do not.

Noble Lords know that I have focused on pupils with medical conditions because some of the most concerning incidents relate to schools and local authorities making decisions that fly in the face of the pupil’s doctor. It should not be possible for education people to countermand expert advice. There are other categories, too: a looked-after child, a young carer or even a young offender may all have—in the eyes of the expert, such as their social worker or youth offending officer—a good reason why they should not be in school. Schools should not be able to countermand that.

Other noble Lords have given examples of some of that poor practice, and I cite one example I have heard about: of a paediatric oncology specialist telling a school with cases of an infectious disease—that could be Covid but could also be measles—that a pupil with cancer on strong chemotherapy should not be in school as they were severely immunosuppressed and that if this pupil caught the infectious disease, there was a high risk that it would be fatal. At present, the guidance says that there must be a partnership between parents, schools and health professionals in determining the best route forward. Unfortunately, the school can still choose to ignore that advice.

I thank the Minister for saying on the first day of Report that a headteacher disregarding specific advice would be acting unreasonably and would therefore be in breach of their duty. The problem is that no one knows that—certainly not headteachers or health professionals, and especially not parents or the pupils themselves. I am afraid that the same is true for some local authorities too, which is why these amendments are laid, to ensure that a poor process that starts in a school does not just continue on a conveyor belt. I repeat the point I made at earlier stages of the Bill: the current arrangements do not work. If we especially want to protect children with medical conditions and ensure that they have the same experience as other children, frankly, the arrangements need to be more explicit.

Amendment 95 is a probing amendment about parents who have repeatedly failed to comply with school attendance orders and not paid fines, and who can now—under the Bill—be sentenced to a prison term of up to 51 weeks. The previous maximum level was three months; that is a very large difference and, if used, is likely to lead to the local authority having to provide foster carers or, even more drastically, putting the children in care if a parent or both parents were imprisoned for 51 weeks. Surely, that is the exact opposite of what should be happening. The whole point of this part of the Bill is to encourage children into the stability of education and learning, in which their parents should have a role, and if things have gone wrong then this is a step too far.

I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting last week at which, in light of the debate we had in Committee, we discussed this. She also said in a letter that there was no intention ever to use 51 weeks and that it was a technical provision, solely because that would be the maximum sentence a magistrates’ court can give. This seems extremely strange to me, and slightly worrying. It is wonderful that the current Government say that they would never use it, but what of a future Government? I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box exactly what she said in her letter, so that, should the 51-week term be used, the ministerial intentions when the Bill went through your Lordships’ House could be prayed in aid.

Above all, we need clarity. We need to ensure that this part of the Bill does not act solely as a form of prosecution. Surely, all the good intentions regarding parents who wish to educate their children at home should be understood. Schools and local authorities should really understand when there are genuine reasons why a child may not be in school.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Brinton

Committee stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Grand Committee

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, just before I speak to the two amendments in this group, I ask the Minister whether I might be copied into the answer about permitted development rights on the previous group. We had an interesting case in Watford three years ago, where a small industrial unit was converted under permitted development rights into 15 tiny flats, and not one of the upstairs flats had windows. At the time, the planning inspector, who overruled the borough council, commented that it was within the rules and that planning permission was not required. Even the size of the flats was outside of the scope: normally, the minimum should have been 39 square metres; the largest flat was 22 square metres and the smallest was 16 square metres. I would be grateful if I could see the Minister’s written response.

I support both Amendments 5 and 10 laid by my noble friend Lord Stunell and signed by my noble friend Lady Pinnock. Dame Judith Hackitt talked about the importance of absolute clarity on who is responsible for which element of safety and control. The mistake in recent years has been to allow a multitude of different arrangements that have enabled a culture where matters of safety are somebody else’s problem; hence Dame Judith Hackitt’s focus in her report on the golden thread.

My noble friend Lord Stunell has talked eloquently about the issues thrown up by self-certification. I will not repeat his points, other than to say that destroying compartmentation by remediation works much reduces all other safety features, if not makes them redundant. I echo his concerns about that, and I would welcome the Minister’s response in order to see whether that is covered by the new arrangements. If it is not, these amendments should be given serious consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak specifically to Amendment 6 but I endorse the others, for reasons that will become apparent. One thing we have all become aware of, post Grenfell and the Hackitt review, is concerns about repeat problems emerging, whether they are systemic ones to do with the way a building has been built or newly emerging issues. They happen time and again, and yet the industry, councils and Parliament do not seem to learn from them. I shall give one brief illustration to explain.

In my role as health spokesperson for my group in the Lords, I know that we are increasingly concerned about some of the mould and damp issues increasingly found in more recent 1960s buildings, to which landlords have been very slow to respond. There is clearly a public health issue where especially children and the clinically vulnerable remain at risk and become ill, and yet there does not seem to be a mechanism to provide a review to make sure that there is learning from this, especially since it is happening across the country.

The other amendments in this group set out a swathe of mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability for the BS regulator, the Secretary of State and Parliament. Returning to Dame Hackitt’s review, these amendments would be a strategic element to push the culture change that she sought, to make sure that those who have some responsibility have to look at a higher level to make sure that buildings are safe and are dealt with, and that the costs, both in building and in human experience, are monitored.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Brinton

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely and I think now would be a convenient moment for her to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords, I was involved in the passage of the Bill that started off life as the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, and which, by the time it was passed, had been renamed the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill—a name almost as long as the Bill itself, and after some of the worst Henry VIII powers had been removed, including the power of Ministers to sign international trade agreements that could include preferential access to NHS contracts without the formal scrutiny and decision-making powers in Parliament.

The frustration with the remote arrangements is that I am speaking before my noble friend Lord Sharkey. I know that he will speak about the delegated powers in Clause 136. I wish I could hear his contribution before I speak, but I want to say that it seems the Government have forgotten, in nearly three years, the roasting that they got from your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said:

“The sweeping nature of the powers proposed in the Bill are in many ways offensive to the proper conduct of legislation. I accept that they are needed in the current situation in relation to the EU and Switzerland, but to go wider than that is wrong, I think. We have to insist on legislation being properly prepared, properly debated, properly scrutinised and properly consulted on.”—[Official Report, 12/3/19; col. 926.]


The then Health Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, when conceding on those Henry VIII powers later that day on Report, said:

“I want to be clear that the consequential Henry VIII powers were initially included as a future-proofing mechanism. They were never free-standing and we had envisaged using them in only a limited set of circumstances … we want to alleviate any fears that we are taking powers which are not absolutely necessary in this Bill. As such we are prepared to take the significant step of removing the entire Henry VIII consequential powers in Clauses 5(3) and (4).”—[Official Report, 12/3/19; col. 963.]


One of the reasons that your Lordships’ House is so concerned is that it looks as if the provisions in that Bill are being resurrected in Clause 136 of this Bill. I will give two brief examples: “2 Healthcare agreements and payments” on page 110 of the Bill, among other clauses, gives the Secretary of State the powers to make a healthcare agreement with another country and for Parliament to only comment on it by the negative resolution. For those of us who worked on a previous Bill, that sounds horribly familiar. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions to a person about the exercise of any function, which is familiar not only from that Bill but from other parts of this one.

In “2B, regulations under Section 2A: consent requirements” on page 112, it says at (5) that the consent of the Secretary of State is required for a

“healthcare agreement”

which means

“an agreement or other commitment between the UK and either a country or territory outside the UK or an international organisation, concerning health provided anywhere in the world”.

Any type of “agreement” or “commitment” brings us full circle back to the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill as first drafted. This would include international treaties, as was planned back in 2019, to include that access to providing major parts of healthcare in the NHS, but without the consent or knowledge of Parliament, because the detail of the agreement would not need be seen before it was signed, including by the NHS, its stakeholders and the staff who work in the sector.

Lest we think that this is just words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have both talked extensively in America to healthcare providers in recent months. What is different about this clause is the breadth of definition of a healthcare agreement, the powers that are held only by the Secretary of State, and the total lack or paucity of consultation or scrutiny by Parliament and other stakeholders before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House.

Why has Clause 136 reinstated some of the key elements of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill that were removed because Ministers recognised that the scope was too wide, the Henry VIII powers were egregious, and Parliament, the NHS and other stakeholders were being totally disregarded?

Should my noble friend Lord Sharkey wish to propose on Report that the clause do not stand part, I will support him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will be speaking remotely. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the large swathe of government amendments, trying to provide small changes to clarify and to remove unintended consequences of the current system. I will speak to Amendments 235, 236A and to Clause 140 standing part of the Bill.

Amendment 235 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is an attempt to replicate and update the Dilnot cap. It is certainly better than the current system, and I think that many noble Lords across all parties in this House have said that it is a shame that the new system does not emulate Dilnot better. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, reduces the rate at which those on low incomes lose benefits if they have assets above the means test threshold.

However, Clause 140 as a whole is a problem. It was added to the Bill later and was not considered by the Commons Bill Committee. Under Amendment 234, “persons entering the care system at or under the age of 40 will have their care costs capped at £0. This would apply to new applicants as well as existing care users who, while over the age of 40, have been accessing care and support since before the age of 40.” It is a huge form of injustice that we have an NHS that is free at the point of use and yet young people with learning disabilities and life-limiting health conditions are being charged for their essential care. One survey of respondents with disabilities in April last year found that 81% said that they had faced cuts in care packages or increased charges during the pandemic, with over half of them specifically reporting increased charges. The survey found that

“charges had forced people to stop care they needed or make difficult choices for financial reasons, with the results showing an increased reliance on family members and high levels of deteriorating mental health, including suicidal thoughts.”

The National Audit Office reported on local government finance in the pandemic and found that 41% of councils with social care responsibility said that they needed to make “substantial” service savings to balance their budgets, including by increasing charges and further use of their reserves.

Mencap’s response to the national insurance levy was that

“we can’t see how the proposed cap on care costs will benefit people with a learning disability … People who need care are missing out, others are having their support cut and some are being asked to pay towards their care which they simply can't afford.”

Further, BBC research has found:

“Some adults with learning disabilities are paying thousands of pounds extra a year, with six councils doubling the amount of money collected in charges. In half of 83 areas that responded to a BBC request, bills across all users have risen at least 10% over two years.”


One example is Saskia Granville, who was shocked when, earlier this year, her care charges increased more than 400%, from £92 to £515 a month. She has a learning disability and lives in supported accommodation in Worthing, west Sussex, but fears the charges will curtail her independence. Some 94% of people with learning disabilities are not in work so they just cannot find that extra cash.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister how on earth he thinks that the current system is either justifiable or equitable. While there may be change trying to sort out some of the minor anomalies, what remains is a system that is deeply unjust. I hope that the Minister is able to consider both Amendments 235 and 236A. I remain to be convinced by the arrangements that he has outlined and if brought back at Report, I am likely to support Clause 140 not standing part of the Bill.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Brinton

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed. That makes it 15 all, I think.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too will be extremely brief on this, given the hour and the number of groups we have to go through.

I am very interested to hear the response of the Minister on this; it feels as though there has been a sort of gentle relaxation, and it would be good to understand the boundaries for foundation trusts around how much they can increase their income from private patients at exactly the time when we have a phenomenal NHS waiting list and people are becoming more seriously ill as a result of the pandemic and there are delays in getting their treatment.

I say this particularly in the light of two recent comments—as I will call them—by the Secretary of State for Health. One was about increasing the amount of contracting from the NHS to private hospitals to perform large numbers of investigations as part of the backlog, but this is becoming habit now in this exceptional time—we have bad flu winters as well, but this is an exceptional time. Perhaps slightly more worryingly, the other concerns proposals that were outlined, informally, by the Secretary of State a couple of days ago to change entirely the nature of contracts with GPs. I am concerned that some of the structures, particularly for foundation trusts, are being loosened without Parliament being aware. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Covid-19

Debate between Earl of Kinnoull and Baroness Brinton

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will speak remotely and I invite her to speak now.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Leader of the House just said that there is no advice for people who were formerly shielding, the clinically extremely vulnerable, but there is; the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, confirmed this to me last night. It says that this group should still consider meeting people only 14 days after they have been fully vaccinated, social distancing, asking friends and family to have rapid lateral flow antigen tests, asking any visitors to their homes to wear face coverings and not going into enclosed crowded spaces. Putting this guidance on a website is not the same as telling this group of people, or the wider public, especially their employers, directly that this group still need to take care. Will the Leader take this back and ensure that communications go to this vulnerable group of just under 4 million people?