Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the regret Motion standing in my name, and also that standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, are critical of the Government’s handling of the Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. These regulations introduce measures designed to limit the ability of retailers to promote the purchase of products classified as high in fat, salt and sugar; the intention of the regulations was to help address the high prevalence of obesity in this country.

It is worth reflecting that on 29 September 2022, just a day before the regulations were due to come into effect, the Government of the then Prime Minister Liz Truss introduced these regulations to facilitate a delay to the “multi-buy” components of the regulations—multi-buy promotions are the “buy one, get one free” on products high in fat, salt or sugar. This was passed via a negative procedure without debate, whilst the location-based restrictions came into effect as planned on 1 October this year. That brought into play restrictions on the placement of unhealthier food products near to supermarket checkouts at aisle ends and store entrances.

The motivation, if I can put it that way, for this regret Motion is that the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee strongly criticised the Government’s handling of this issue, particularly with regard to the Government’s justification for the delay, and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny for the amendment. It is the report of the committee that has formed the basis for these regret Motions, and I certainly do agree with the observations that the committee made.

Let me summarise for the purposes of your Lordships’ House the concerns encapsulated in this regret Motion. First, the Government have not brought forward sufficient evidence to justify their decision. Their stated rationale for the delay was the “global economic situation”. I suggest to the Minister that this is a somewhat cursory comment; one sentence is not enough. It is quite unclear what the Government feel the “unprecedented global economic situation” is. Are we referring to the post-pandemic situation, the war in Ukraine, high gas prices or something else? In other words, this is hardly a full description that one might expect. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that there was insufficient

“justification for delaying the start of a measure intended, over time, to accumulate public health benefits including significant savings to the NHS.”

The Government’s decision to take this still further goes directly against their own impact assessment for these policies, which states:

“Although price promotions appear to be mechanisms to help consumers save money, data shows that they increase consumer spending by encouraging people to buy more than they intended to buy in the first place.”


The impact assessment further states that

“the monetised benefits greatly outweigh the costs on a ratio of around 14:1”.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee then outlined a number of procedural criticisms of the Government, the most significant of which include that appropriate parliamentary time was not given for scrutiny of the legislation. After all, as I have already mentioned, the statutory instrument was introduced just one day before the regulations were due to come into effect, without the standard 21-day period normally expected to allow for scrutiny by Parliament through the negative secondary legislative procedure. Of course, the statutory instrument was also laid without a full analysis of the public consultation being published, making it impossible to assess the views of the sectors affected by this decision.

There are a few questions arising from this that I invite the Minister to address when he replies. Why were the Government not able to bring forward sufficient evidence to justify their decision? Why do their claims about the impact of this policy on the cost of living contradict their own evidence presented in the impact assessment? Could the Minister say whether the consultation responses will be published, even at this stage?

I also seek reassurance from the Minister that similar procedural issues will not arise with future legislation. I make this point in particular reference to the fact that the Government will be bringing forward secondary legislation to delay the upcoming restrictions on the advertising of products high in fat, sugar and salt on TV and online, before they are due to come into effect on 1 January. I hope that we will not see a repeat of the failure to provide the requisite amount of time to allow for parliamentary scrutiny of legislation when we come to that statutory instrument. There should not be an attempt to bypass Parliament by not giving it the opportunity to discuss and examine the regulations.

This debate would not have been needed had the Government explained everything clearly in their Explanatory Memorandum, and had they allowed Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise, as is normally required. I say to the Minister that the Explanatory Memorandum is important. It is not just about how parliamentarians understand regulations; it is also about the public, industry and third-sector stakeholders. We all look to understand regulations by these means. I hope the Minister will take that point away and emphasise to the department the importance of providing the right supporting materials for often complex—and sometimes highly challenging—government policies. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, my regret Motion regrets these delay regulations because they damage public health and are against the Government’s previously stated policy. When the legislation for the ban, which these regulations delay, went through your Lordships’ House in the Health and Care Act 2022, it was supported enthusiastically from these Benches. We are keen on measures to prevent ill health, save patients distress and save the NHS money, and the evidence provided by the Government in the impact statement at the time was compelling.

However, during Report, the Government introduced an amendment to allow them to delay the implementation of this measure and others in the Bill. I distinctly recall being extremely sceptical and rather suspicious about this, because of the robust opposition to these and other measures from some Members on the Government’s own Back Benches and certain lobby groups. I felt that the Government were trying to keep their troops happy and ditch the measures by stealth.

In response to my concerns, I clearly remember the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who was leading on this amendment for the Government, assuring me that the delay power was needed only in case of a very short delay being necessary as a result of consultations on implementation. I was not convinced then and I am not convinced now. I believe that the delay power was put into the Act at the behest of lobbyists who have their own interests at heart, rather than the health of the nation, in order to allow the measures to be kicked down the road indefinitely and quietly buried.

Last week, the Government announced £20 million of funding for research to develop new medicines and digital tools to help people shed 20% of their weight. Although this will be welcome to those living with obesity, it is closing the door after the horse has bolted. In addition to spending all this money on helping people lose weight, why not promptly implement some of the measures already in legislation to help prevent obesity in the first place? By its own figures, obesity costs the NHS £6 billion annually, and this is set to rise to over £9.7 billion each year by 2050 unless effective preventive measures are taken.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, in its 15th report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee criticised the Government robustly on this regulation. It reminded the House that, in the impact assessment to the original instrument setting up the ban, the Government said that

“the monetised benefits greatly outweigh the costs on a ratio of around 14:1”.

That is pretty good value. Of course, the costs would have been borne by the manufacturers, retailers and advertisers of these unhealthy foods, and the benefits would have been felt by patients and the NHS, but clearly that did not suit those who lobbied the Government to introduce this delay.

What is the Government’s justification for it? The unprecedented global economic situation. What I would like to ask the Minister to explain to the House is this: whose pocket do they think they are saving by delaying the ban on this kind of price promotion? Is it that of the shoppers who are trying their hardest to put food on the table after they have paid the vast increases in their energy bills and mortgages thanks to the Government’s economic mismanagement? Or is it that of the large, profitable organisations that make, sell and advertise these foods? I am not convinced that the global economic situation is going to cause these companies to go bust, but I am convinced that continuing to allow this kind of promotion will do harm to the average shopper. Why do I say that? For the very simple reason that the Government themselves, in their own impact statement, said:

“Although price promotions appear to be mechanisms to help consumers save money, data shows that they increase consumer spending by encouraging people to buy more than they intended to buy”.


So now we know: the big manufacturers, retailers and advertisers of unhealthy foods have won, and the patients and shoppers have lost.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

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?

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Lords Hansard _ Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Many thanks. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that a lot more people will be dead from tobacco if we carry on at this rate. He suggested that, just because this measure was not in the Conservative Party’s manifesto, perhaps we should not carry it forward. Well, the Conservative Party does not have all the best ideas, although I congratulate the Government on the sugary drinks levy, which has been highly successful. We support the polluter pays amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I might call it the killer pays amendment because, make no mistake, this is a killer substance.

I happen to live in Wales so I want to raise a matter that has not been mentioned yet. I am glad that the Welsh Government have committed to a smoke-free Wales by 2030. However, although England announced its intention to go smoke-free by 2030 two years before Wales did, Wales has leapt ahead as regards action, which is why I hope that the Minister will either accept Amendment 158 or give adequate assurances. In the Green Paper of July 2019, the Government said:

“Further proposals for moving towards a smoke-free 2030 will be set out at a later date.”


Approaching three years later, still nothing has happened. There are no further proposals and no funding has been announced. In contrast, Wales has published concrete proposals, but many of the interventions require action from the UK Government. Examples include the polluter pays funding mechanism, which could help to fund tobacco control in Wales; raising the age of sale; and putting warnings on cigarettes and pack inserts. I am concerned that, by being so slow, the UK Government are undermining the ability of the devolved Administrations to achieve their smoke-free ambitions. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, if he chooses to put this amendment to a vote.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for putting forward this group of amendments. In introducing Amendment 158 and the consequential amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined that they would establish a consultation on a polluter pays levy whereby funds are raised by the scheme to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures to deliver a smoke-free 2030. This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved.

We know from this debate and many previous debates that tobacco use carries huge health risks, and disproportionately so for the most disadvantaged in society, whose likelihood of smoking is four times higher in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived. If ever there was a case for levelling up, this is it. My noble friend Lord Faulkner rightly highlighted that we have seen cuts to stop-smoking services, and this group of amendments seeks to redress the situation in a practical way. It is vital that we motivate and support more smokers to quit, while reducing the numbers of children and young people who start to smoke. Greater action is clearly needed now.

The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, at the risk of being boring, I am one of those people who has been asking for this for the last 20 years. I started off asking for the number of units of alcohol in a bottle of wine. Every manufacturer of these alcoholic drinks knows exactly what goes into them. On the issue of labelling products from abroad, there are a lot of foodstuffs that come from abroad and they have to abide by British rules on labelling, so why not wine and spirits? It is time we did this. It is terribly important for public health, and I hope the Minister will say yes.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for bringing forward Amendment 163, and thank other noble Lords for outlining their support for or concerns about it. The amendment refers to publishing a report on alcohol labelling to improve consumer knowledge.

Government data comparing pre-pandemic and post-pandemic figures has shown that sales of alcohol increased by some 25%. This is, as we know, a booming market and consumers need to be equipped with the right information to make informed choices. They have a right to know what is in their drinks and decide what and how much to drink. The consultation promised by the Government, with this in mind, remains something of a consultation in long-overdue waiting.

Currently there is no requirement for alcoholic drinks to include health warnings, drinking guidelines, calorie information or even ingredients. As my noble friend Lord Brooke said, this is very much out of step with any other information on what we consume. There is, as always, a balance to be struck between health improvement measures, consumer information and industry regulation, but this amendment supports a necessary move in the right direction and I hope the Minister will agree to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly said, the devil is in the detail. That is what Parliament does and it is what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is asking your Lordships to allow Parliament to do.

Like many families across the country, my family has had discussions about the substantive issue of assisted dying. Different views have been expressed and no one has fallen out, but it is not around our dinner table that decisions must be made about an issue as serious as this; that is for Parliament. I trust Parliament, and I do not think it should be—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out—for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make decisions about these issues. Assisted dying is happening and Parliament must decide how or if it should be done.

It has been suggested that this House should not instruct the Secretary of State to do anything. As we have gone through the Bill, we have asked the Secretary of State to do quite a lot of things; in fact, we have voted that the Secretary of State should do a lot of them. What happens to those amendments? They go to the elected House. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I understand how important he feels it is that issues as controversial as this should be decided by the elected Chamber. Well, if we vote for this amendment, those issues will be decided by the elected Chamber. If this novel procedure of a draft Bill being laid before Parliament is used, I trust Parliament; there will be proper debate and I hope that what will come out of it will be a very measured piece of legislation that takes all the concerns into account. The game-changer that my noble friend Lady Finlay has successfully introduced to the Bill will be taken into account by the elected Chamber.

It is very important that people who want to have palliative care to ease their suffering at the end of life actually get it—everyone should get it; there should be no postcode lottery—but even in those situations there may be people who do not want it and instead want to do something else. It is for Parliament, not for my dinner table or anyone else’s around the country, to make that decision and to be given the proper amount of time to come up with something that I hope will reassure those who rightly have fears. They have fears because they do not know what Parliament will decide. If we give Parliament the opportunity, I am quite sure that even a draft Bill, however well drafted, will probably be amended as it goes through the elected House. What will come out at the other end will probably reflect public opinion—genuine public opinion, that is; I am not quoting any polls on either side—as they will have given serious thought to the issue and listened to everyone who wants or does not want this measure on the statute book.

We must give the elected Chamber the opportunity either to accept an amendment that we may pass tonight or to send it back to us, but at least we will have asked them to think again. This House does that very well. We ask another place to think again. I hope we will tonight.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened very closely to the many passionate, informed and often personal contributions from noble Lords this evening. This debate has inevitably been about not only parliamentary process and legislative approach but consideration of assisted dying. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for opening the debate on Amendment 170, which proposes, as your Lordships’ House is more than aware, a new clause to bring forward a draft Bill on what the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, described as a complex and difficult issue.

However, for me, the challenge of this debate is encapsulated in the contributions in the middle of it. The first, from the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, was that not allowing time for discussion is not a neutral act. This was followed swiftly by my noble friend Lord Hunt taking a different tack, saying that allowing for this amendment is also not a neutral act, and it is that which your Lordships’ House has wrestled with this evening.

It is indeed a matter of profound moral, personal and legislative importance that we find ourselves dealing with in Amendment 170. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will be seeking a Division and these Benches will approach this on free votes. It is a shame that this is not the case on the Government Benches. Your Lordships’ House heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about the importance of principle, whereby matters such as this should be subject to nothing other than a free vote. I certainly share that view. I know that noble Lords will exercise their vote this evening with the greatest of care.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I wish we were talking about restricting the advertising of gambling; that would have more effect on the health of the country than this. However, these are very important measures. Before I talk about the three major groups in this grouping of amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Barker for raising the really important issue of nutrition to patients in hospital and people living in residential care homes.

The rest of the amendments fall into three broad groups. First are the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. While he was telling us the very sad story about the manufacturers of the Grenade bar, about how much protein it has and how little carbohydrate, I was wondering: what about the other major nutrient, fat? Noble Lords will remember from their biology lessons that, gram for gram, fat has twice as many calories as either carbohydrate or protein, and if you eat an awful lot of those bars, you will get fat—the “F” in HFSS foods. Of course, one “S” in HFSS foods stands for salt, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has now told us exactly what is in that bar—far too much fat and far too much salt.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point which I raised in Committee: the nutrient profiling model is 11 years old. I asked the Minister whether there are any plans to update it, because companies really need up-to-date information about exactly what will fall within the ban and what will not. So I ask the question again: are there plans to update that 11 year-old guidance? We really do need it, because then companies such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and many others, will really know what they are dealing with. It certainly does not sound to me as though that bar will fall outside the restriction on advertising.

I have added my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I remember when, in Committee, the Government introduced this power to extend the deadline—they did not say how long for—and I asked what this was for and why the Government needed to extend the implementation of these restrictions. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said it was just in case there were any hitches with the consultation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is right and there is certainly a hint of long grass in what the Government were trying to do. I was a bit suspicious about it in Committee, and I still am. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is trying to do.

All the industries concerned with these measures have had plenty of notice of what the Government wanted to do, and I think, once the detail comes forward, they will have had plenty of time. Perfectly reasonably, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is asking for that power that was taken to extend the deadline to be limited to just three months. That is quite enough.

As for the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Black, I agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, although not necessarily for the same reason. Of course, there is a fairness issue here, but I think that, if the responsibility for implementation and making sure there was compliance was extended to online platforms, it would strengthen the objectives of these measures from the Government, which I support. Therefore, if he puts his amendment to the vote, we will vote for him.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a considerable debate on these issues, in Committee and this evening in your Lordships’ House. From these Benches, we absolutely support the provisions to tackle obesity. The reasons have been gone over many times, but I make one point in respect of children—that children with obesity are five times more likely to become adults with obesity, and increase their risk of developing a range of conditions, including type-2 diabetes, cancer and heart and liver disease. It is incumbent on us to take the steps that are necessary.

Given the lateness of the hour—and I know that noble Lords wish to get to the question whether there is to be a Division—I shall focus my comments on the amendments relating to advertising, Amendment 151A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the subsequent amendments, to which I have put my own name. There has been a great clarity of argument as to why those amendments deserve favour, but the one that sticks out for me is about ensuring the effectiveness of the legislation that we are speaking about.

We already know that legislation can have a huge impact. For example, the soft drinks industry levy has led to manufacturers reducing 44 million kilograms of sugar each year from drinks in the UK. We also know of the support for the measure of the watershed for advertising of high-fat sugar and salt products—in other words, to protect children from those influences. We know that the measure is supported by organisations such as the British Heart Foundation, the Food Foundation and many other experts as being able to make the difference, because children are influenced by advertising. We should really be ensuring that children see adverts for healthier food and drinks.

Should the will of the House be tested on these amendments, these Benches will certainly be in support, because we feel that the Government should make sure that the proposed pre-9 pm ban on advertising unhealthier foods on TV, with a total ban online, has to be implemented effectively and appropriately across all media and platforms. If it is not and remains as it stands, it will not do the job that it is intended to do, and we will miss an opportunity, which we hope the Minister will reflect on, as the case has been made so clearly and directly.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I simply rise to say that I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken and look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to share all the concerns expressed about the open-endedness of what is in the Bill and the concerns about the lack of protection for patient data. Clearly, there has been much debate and discussion, and I think it is right that we hear from the Minister.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, without whom this amendment would not have been laid by the Government —although I pay tribute to the Government for listening to her. As she said, it could be game-changing—I say “could be” because unless the resources are made available for these services and for training enough of the health professionals needed to carry them out and make them available everywhere, it will not be game-changing. I would like a reassurance from the Minister that adequate resources will be made available so that, as appropriate, ICBs can carry out the duty that will be put on them.

I was horrified to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mention a hospice with half its beds empty. I hope additional resources will be provided for hospices. I clearly remember somebody saying in Committee that you would not expect to have a coffee morning or a cake bake to treat a broken leg; you should not have to do the same sort of thing for services at the end of life. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the possibility that additional resources should go there.

We have heard that services are patchy across the country, and I suggest that the worst patchiness is in services for people dying at home. I know it is not easy to provide 24-hour services and advice to a family doing their best to try to care for somebody dying at home, but it must be done. I am afraid I know friends who have had a very bad experience of that. The person at the end of life had a bad experience, and the family have never forgotten it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has often told us, it is possible for everybody to have a good death if the right services are provided to them. That means a good experience too for the family, who simply want to know that they have done the best and that that has been enough.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, from these Benches I am very glad to continue our support for palliative care being part of a comprehensive health service—literally from the cradle to the grave—no matter who you are, your age or where you live. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute and giving appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her assistance and professionalism over many years. I hope that the real tribute to the efforts of the noble Baroness will be in the delivery of real change to the quality of people’s lives—and their deaths. I add my appreciation to all the charities and hospices that have also been a force for good in seeking this change.

I welcome the government amendment in this area and, in so doing, I simply say to the Minister that I hope the Government have heard the number of questions asked today. Clearly, there is concern about the words “appropriate” and “reasonable”, and I will add a few questions to those already put to explore that further. I am sure the Minister understands that noble Lords are simply trying to ensure that what is intended will actually be delivered.

Can the Minister confirm how the Government’s expectations will be conveyed to ICBs, and how they will understand what is expected of them in terms of the nature of palliative care services that they would be required to commission? It would also be helpful if he could commit to providing a definition of “specialist palliative care” services, referring to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, so that we can see a consistent standard in provision of services across the country. My final question is: can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to communicate to all ICBs that they should fulfil the true requirements of this amendment, and can he tell your Lordships’ House how this will be monitored?

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and other noble Lords have made it clear that we would like the matter settled by the amendment, but it is not entirely. I hope that the Government will not lose the opportunity to really make the transformation so that we can all expect, and have, a good death, as we would want to have a good life.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening very carefully to what noble Lords from across the House have been saying about the need to recognise the parity of esteem between physical and mental health, and for giving us some reassurance that the funding for mental health will increase in the future. A lot of mental distress has been caused by the fact that many patients suffering from mental ill health have not been able to reach the threshold for access to services. The reason for that has been a shortage of resources and a properly trained workforce which can deliver the therapies required. At the end of the debate, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that those resources will be made available.

My noble friend commented that she hoped that the new standards would not have the unintended consequences of transferring delays from the initial diagnosis to further down the treatment pathway. That is a very important consideration. We will talk about the importance of increasing the NHS workforce later in our debates. However, will the Minister consider how focusing increased resources on early intervention and prevention will save both money in the end and a lot of distress, as dealing with it early will save patients having to go into more intensive therapies further down the track? It is very important that any increased resources—or, at least, much of them—are focused on early intervention and prevention. I hope the Minister can reassure us of this.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, if the role of your Lordships’ House is to improve the Bill, I feel that this set of amendments will achieve this. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for responding to the points which were made so powerfully in Committee and in meetings outside this Chamber. The range of amendments will take us further.

The Minister talked about the introduction of transparency and accountability, which are key in the efforts to improve the provision of mental health services. However, of course, improving transparency and accountability is not an end in itself; it is purely a way of getting us to the right place. What will be important is what this delivers. A step along the way to improving mental health services is definitely being made, but there is an awful lot more to do. For example, the Centre for Mental Health estimates that some 10 million additional people, and that includes 1.5 million children and young people, will need mental health care as a result of the pandemic. It would of interest to understand a little more about how the Government intend to make progress on this once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Will we see a recovery plan in the area of mental health services, backed by a long-term workforce plan, something which we will return to later?

On the policy to bring practice into line with aspiration, and on the funding for and redoubling of effort towards achieving parity, while we are talking about this on a national level, it would also be helpful for the Minister to clarify that it applies to all areas of the Bill’s implementation and that the new bodies set up by the Bill will be expected to treat mental health equally from the outset. For example, it would mean ensuring that the decisions about resource allocation, capital spending, waiting times and priorities were all taken on the basis that mental health must be valued equally with physical health.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was right to point out that we do not start in a neutral position, because we know that waiting times are considerable, standards of services need massively to be improved and the workforce needs to be strengthened in order to deliver those services. It is therefore extremely important that the Minister in putting forward these amendments undertakes to see the job through, so that we do not just have transparency and accountability for their own sake but we deliver for the many millions who will rely on those services.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

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

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, this group rightly began with an amendment about adequate provision in dentistry. As we have heard, there is currently a massive shortfall in provision of NHS dentists and indeed dentists as a whole, so much so that a charity called Dentaid, which normally works in the third world, is now working in Dewsbury and Batley—and possibly in other parts of the country that I am not aware of—because people cannot get free dentistry. The situation is made worse by the backlog of treatment caused by the pandemic, whereby dentists were at first unable to see patients and later had to reduce the number of aerosol-producing treatments they could carry out each day.

I have no doubt that the condition of the nation’s teeth has deteriorated during the past couple of years. Nearly 1,000 dentists left the NHS between 2020 and 2021, according to the BDA. However, problems with access to NHS dentistry predate the pandemic. Government spending on dental services has fallen by a third in real terms in the last decade, and the £50 million one-off injection of funding announced recently will barely make a dent in the unprecedented backlog that NHS dentistry now faces.

However, it is also well proven that fluoride, however administered, can strengthen tooth enamel and help teeth to resist decay. The 2018 report from Public Health England made that clear and did not report adverse effects. In Clauses 147 and 148, the Government intend to ensure that the whole country has access to drinking water with at least 1 milligram per litre of water, the level believed to be most effective in reducing tooth decay without the unwanted effects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and without waiting for local authorities to initiate schemes. I have to say that I believe Public Health England rather than the noble Lord.

I am always in favour of prevention and of reducing health inequalities, and it is claimed that this measure would do both, but there are some issues which I wish to probe. Currently only two areas in the country, Hartlepool and Braintree, have the optimum level of naturally occurring fluoride in their water. Other areas, covering about only 10% of the population, mainly in the north-east and Birmingham, already have schemes initiated by the local authority. I accept that a number of costly and bureaucratic barriers have been identified to more local authorities initiating such schemes, and I understand these clauses are an attempt to overcome them by making national regulations. These would remove some of the consultation costs from local authorities. However, some local authorities are reluctant to give up their local autonomy on this issue and believe their residents should be consulted before fluoridation occurs. This must be considered.

I have some questions for the Minister, which fall into two categories. The first is about costs and where they fall. We are told in the impact assessment that current schemes will not be affected, and existing and future capital costs will continue to be borne by the Department of Health and Social Care. What will be the additional burden on the funding of the Minister’s department of bearing the capital costs for every area in the country? I understand that regulations will allow for future costs to be shared by his department with water companies. What impact is that expected to have on the water bills paid by households, since the companies will undoubtedly try to pass it on to customers?

Water companies can well afford to pay these costs themselves, rather than take the money from the health budget. This is clear from the eye-wateringly high earnings of their leading directors. We know from a briefing from Yorkshire Water that the costs can be considerable. A few years ago, it did a feasibility study when only one area—Hull City Council—was looking into fluoridation. At the time, it estimated the capital cost to be £1.6 million to £2 million and the annual operation costs to be approximately £330,000 per year. These costs would have fallen on Public Health England and the local authority at the time, but under the new proposals they would be covered by the Department of Health and Social Care.

Over recent years, capital investment in water and sewerage services has been covered just by income from water bills, but investment in infrastructure has not been adequate, since we still have raw sewage being discharged into water courses and leaks wasting water at an unacceptable level. So, we can expect the companies to accept some of the cost of fluoridation themselves, without passing it on to the customer.

Can the Minister also say what is the plan for regular measurement of the fluoride content of water, and at what point in the delivery journey will it occur? What will this cost, and where will the cost fall? Will the Government allow companies to pass this cost on to the consumer too, although they can clearly afford to absorb it? The reason I ask is that water companies share water all the time and there is a possibility that, without frequent monitoring, the fluoride content delivered to customers could turn out to be either too high or too low to be effective.

The second category of question concerns what other proposals for reducing the incidence of tooth decay have been considered by the Government, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Storey. I have dealt with the availability of NHS dentistry, but it is excess sugar and acids in the diet that cause tooth decay. Sadly, poor diet is a major problem, particularly among poorer children, for whom the most common reason to be admitted to hospital is the need for complex extraction of rotten teeth. Fluoride can, of course, can be administered in other ways: either applied by the dentist or by regular use of fluoride-containing toothpaste—fortunately, most toothpastes contain fluoride. However, many children eat too much sugar, drink too many acidic fizzy drinks and do not brush their teeth regularly.

As my noble friend said, there used to be a school dentistry service to check for problems, and dental nurses used to visit nurseries and primary schools to teach good dental hygiene. I have myself sat in on such a session and it was excellent, but I do not believe it happens any longer. Have the Government costed a return to these schemes? As for diet, we will be dealing with that in a later group of amendments. So, while accepting the potential benefits of what is proposed, I ask the Minister to assure the House of the cost-effectiveness of the measures, explain the impact on family budgets and tell the House what other measures are being considered to achieve the same ends, which we all want to see: better and more equal dental health.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group, which focus on the need for universal access to dentistry and the introduction of fluoride into water. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, they are about treatment and prevention, which are equally important when it comes to considering how we tackle tooth decay and oral health. I am grateful to my noble friend, the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for their support for these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on cancer and a great supporter of John Baron’s campaign on outcomes. Of course, as noble Lords across the Committee have said, the key to getting better outcomes is early diagnosis, rigorous audit, and proper dissemination across the country of what we know works. I certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is trying to do.

I do not oppose the government amendments outlined by the Minister, despite the rather unusual fact that they were only agreed with the Opposition Front Benches at the last minute—that is, this morning. I thank him for clarifying that; although cancer outcomes were the principal focus of Clause 4, they are not the only objective that should relate to cancer patients. The department has consulted with cancer charities, which, of course, represent many thousands of patients, to ensure that the new legislation meets their needs. Can the Minister say when the effects of Clause 4 will be reviewed and any action, if necessary, taken? Although generally approved by the sector, Macmillan is still concerned about how a focus on survival will affect those who, sadly, have terminal cancer and do not expect to survive. What they need is palliative care and measures to make the quality of their last few months of life as good as possible. Could this issue be a key part of any future evaluation of cancer care?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very pleased to support the government amendments that we have heard outlined. Crucially, they focus on cancer outcomes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, underlined, that includes survival, quality of life, experience of treatment, end-of-life care as well as diagnosis—in other words, the whole experience in treating somebody as a whole person on a journey that they may have to face. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the amendments forward. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Vaizey, and others, for highlighting the fact that pancreatic cancer has such an aggressive nature, and yet the symptoms are so silent and often misunderstood that it presents a particular challenge in the context of the care that we are speaking of today.

A focus on outcomes that covers matters other than treatment will be particularly crucial following the backlogs that the pandemic has inevitably led to, with delays in people seeking check-ups and treatment. Macmillan has let us know that more than 31,000 people in England are still waiting for their first cancer treatment, and it has also said of the Bill that for those living with cancer

“not a lot will look different.”

It is therefore crucial that the Minister assures noble Lords that stakeholders are supportive of the changes outlined in this group.

On the point about survival rates lagging behind those of other countries, that is not because the National Health Service is worse than other healthcare systems at treating cancer once it is detected but because it may not be as good at catching cancers in the crucial early stages. In other words, late diagnosis lies behind our comparatively poor survival rates. A key advantage of focusing on outcome measures is that it will give healthcare professionals much greater freedom and flexibility to design their own solutions, which could include running wider screening programmes and better awareness campaigns, and establishing greater diagnostic capabilities at primary care. A further advantage of this new focus is that it will better align NHS priorities with patient needs, which, after all, are core to our discussions on the Bill today.

I have a final and gentle word for the Minister to back up the introductory comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is of course usual to consult the Opposition and others in advance to ensure that amendments are acceptable and do what is required—in other words, to strengthen the case. I know that this did not happen until very late in this case, and I am sure the Minister will not wish to repeat that practice. In summary, however, we very much welcome these amendments.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked: what is the problem to which Clause 54 is the solution? But I want to know why the Government think that Clause 54 is the solution to the real problem. The real problem is that, over recent years, the funding focus has been on revenue to support the greater demands made on the health service, and, apart from occasional injections of extra capital funding, capital budgets have been inadequate. In the meantime, hospital trusts of both types—foundation and NHS—have found it impossible to keep up with the need for repair and maintenance to buildings and plant and, crucially, to invest in modern technologies that would enable them to deliver more effective care.

An NHS Confederation survey prior to the spending review in October last year found that 81% of leaders said an insufficient capital settlement could impact their ability to meet estate and service safety requirements, and 69% of leaders said a poor capital settlement threatens their ability to fully embed digital transformation in their care and even hampers their efforts to maintain staff levels or keep appropriate records of patients who need elective care. Many of our hospitals and clinics are located in very old buildings and some certainly show it, but capital funding has not kept up with demand for years, and this new Secretary of State power in Clause 54 will not solve the wider problem. St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington will need £1 billion to repair the hospital or services could be shut in six to nine years. Many buildings on the site date back to the hospital’s founding in 1845. One part of the hospital can no longer be used, as the building will no longer support the weight of modern hospital beds.

Annual statistics show that each year we do not invest enough and the problem only becomes bigger. We must keep reminding the Government of the consequences of this. It is worth noting that many areas of the country with the worst health outcomes have older estates, so upgrading these estates will lead to better outcomes for these populations. This is a health inequality issue. The problems are not confined to England. I could tell noble Lords some terrible stories about my local hospital in Wales, where health is devolved. It is easy to find examples of maintenance issues from hospitals, as these get a lot of coverage. The headline “Hospital roof crumbling” is always of interest to local media. However, there are also thousands of small community hubs and mental health trusts that desperately need new and updated facilities and equipment too, and they cannot shout as loudly. The backlog currently stands at £9.2 billion, with half of that, as we have heard, described as involving a high or significant risk to staff and patients.

The new powers for the Secretary of State proposed in Clause 54 would restrict the spending of any individual foundation trust in the same way as NHS trusts are currently limited. This may appear to be fair, and I do not oppose the principle of the Secretary of State having the power. However, it appears to me to be contrary to the principle of freedom of the foundation trusts as outlined by the Government when they were set up, and certainly contrary to the agreement made by NHS England and NHS Improvement with the sector through the September 2019 legislative proposal mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, which was the result of detailed negotiations with NHS Providers on behalf of their foundation trust members. The reason given by the Government is that this is in order to avoid the overall health budget being exceeded. However, the power needs to be a very narrow reserve power, to be used when all else has failed, and that is what these amendments would ensure.

The Health and Social Care Committee in another place has made it clear that the powers should be used only as a last resort. It has to be remembered that, if a repair needs to be done on the basis of health and safety but is not done, it is the trust that will be blamed for any harm that comes to staff or patients, not the Secretary of State. They are accountable, and that is right, but it does not help them to keep people safe. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has tabled this group of amendments to narrow the scope of the power, to ensure in outline what must be done before it is used and, crucially, in my opinion, to require the agreement of Parliament. Currently, the proposal, like many others in the Bill, cuts Parliament out completely. Where the Government are proposing to wipe out an agreement with the sector which is only just over two years old, there must be compelling reasons, mitigating actions and parliamentary scrutiny.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for introducing this group of amendments and setting out for your Lordships that what we need to see is a reasonable system of checks and balances which will serve financial flows and objectives and where, if tensions arise, they can be resolved quickly, fairly and transparently. Certainly, these amendments provide for this.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Merron and Baroness Walmsley

Lords Hansard - Part 3 & Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I feel honoured to be a fellow Member of this House with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because of her professional and political work in raising this issue before your Lordships.

I want to use a word that has not been used yet in this debate, and that word is “fear”. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, nearly used it when she said that people are scared. Anybody who has read the reports that say that only 50% of people who need palliative care receive it will feel fear: “Is it going to be painful?”, “Am I going to be able to bear it?” and, on the part of the carer and family members, “Is it going to be terrible for my loved one?”, “Am I going to be able to help them?”, “Am I going to be able to cope?” The physical pain is part of it, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said, the fear and the psychological distress make things a great deal worse. At a time when it is in our power to give people a good death, we are not doing it; that is a disgrace.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the debate today across your Lordships’ House has shown that it is impossible to understand how specialist palliative care can be regarded in any logical, practical or humane sense as something so different. I am sure that the Minister will do his very best to address that in his consideration of these important amendments.

I am grateful to noble Lords for making this debate possible by bringing forward these amendments and making sensitive, informed and often personal contributions to underline the need to ensure that specialist palliative care features in the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for setting out the fact that if we are to say that the NHS is cradle-to-grave, that must absolutely shape how we approach such services. The noble Baroness and others, including the right reverend Prelate, talked about inequality and the fact that, when we speak of specialist palliative care, inequalities are not just in the course of someone’s life but actually to the very moment they leave this world. That really had an impact on me, because that surely is an unfairness too far for us to just stand by.

Taking action could not be more pressing a need. We know that the UK’s population is ageing rapidly. The Office for National Statistics predicts that, in 20 years’ time, there will be twice as many people over the age of 85, while Marie Curie’s analysis for Cardiff University has concluded that the number of people needing palliative care will rise by 42% by 2040. This is a challenge to our society which will not go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we should be able to live our lives in anticipation of a good death. The right reverend Prelate spoke of the difference of witnessing a good death, as opposed to a death that is less than what it should be.

It is important to say that, even before the pandemic, experts at the Royal College of Physicians, the Care Quality Commission, the health service ombudsman and Compassion in Dying were all sounding the alarm on how those approaching the end of their life, and their loved ones, did not, in so many circumstances, feel supported to make the decisions that faced them and that it was impossible to turn away from. They did not know what choices were available, and, sadly, were not given an honest prognosis.

The amendments in this group offer dignity to the greatly increasing numbers who will need this care, and would bring in moral and well-evidenced measures essential to providing the tailored care that is needed in the final stages of one’s life. This includes sharing information about a person’s care across the different professionals and organisations involved in that care, and providing patients and their loved ones with specialist advice, 24 hours a day, every day of the week—which expert practitioners, including those at Cicely Saunders International, have been crying out for.

My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Howarth, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others underlined the work, role and contribution of the hospice movement, and also spoke about their incredulity at the reliance on charitable funding. Who in this Committee can be surprised at that feeling? I hope the Minister will be able to speak to that absolutely crucial point because, even before the pandemic, many hospices were suffering from poor decisions from clinical commissioning groups, poor practice, and a lack of support and recognition of the vital role that they play. That impacts on the individuals who so sorely need their services.

Marie Curie reported that 76% of carers who lost a loved one during the pandemic felt that they did not get the appropriate care that they needed. This is an opportunity to fix the problem. Every day, pandemic or none, the quality and personalisation of specialist palliative care will dictate how dignified and comfortable —or not—the end of a life will be, and how much of a burden will be borne by the carers and loved ones: whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, reminded us, those left behind are adults or children. These amendments seek to get it right, and the feeling of this Committee could not be clearer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.