Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 164 but I also strongly associate myself with Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.

In Committee, I raised concerns about a small number of individuals and families who have paid the highest personal price for the success of the Covid vaccination programme, suffering bereavement or serious injury as a direct consequence of adverse reactions to vaccination. We have the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, which was intended to provide a safety net for such individuals by providing a modest ex-gratia payment to those injured or bereaved in recognition of the fact that their injuries and losses flowed directly from “doing the right thing” by having the vaccine for the benefit of society as a whole.

The scheme is 40 years old and no longer fit for purpose. The maximum payment is capped at £120,000, which is far too little to provide proper financial support for families who have maybe suffered the death of a main income earner. The current scheme also requires that all eligible applicants in the UK must meet what is called the 60% disablement criterion. This criterion is antiquated, counterproductive and unfair: many applicants could have significant injuries and may be disabled up to 59% and yet, on the basis of the current scheme, they would have no access to funds.

The current system takes far too long to provide the payment. The causal connection between certain injuries and Covid vaccination is now accepted, I believe, by clinicians and regulators. However, despite providing death certificates that identify Covid-19 as a cause of death and medical reports confirming Covid-19 as the cause of injury, the scheme still estimates that it will take more than six months to begin to process claims submitted under the scheme more than 12 months ago.

In Committee—I thank Ministers for another meeting yesterday to discuss this further—the noble Earl explained that responsibility for the operation of the scheme has transferred from the DWP to his department and the NHS Business Services Authority has taken over the operation of the scheme. This is very welcome and I am glad that it has happened. However, this is not an issue that will disappear any time soon—Covid is not an issue that is disappearing. Further vaccinations will come along and there will unfortunately be adverse effects for a very small group of people, in the interest of the greater good.

I believe that the scheme offers too little, too late, to too few and I have three asks of Ministers. First, I ask that Ministers and the NHS Business Services Authority engage with the families affected. It would be valuable if Ministers and senior executives at the NHS Business Services Authority were to meet some of the families. I know that Sarah Moore of Hausfeld will be happy to facilitate this, and I pay tribute to her. Secondly, I ask that everything that can be done is done to speed up the process of meeting claims. Thirdly, on behalf of the families and individuals, I ask the Government to consider undertaking a review of the scheme in the light of current experience and particularly look at the 60% criteria bar and the £120,000 limit which has not been updated for a number of years.

The vaccination programme has been a wonderful success both in this country and globally. It is very unfortunate that inevitably there will be a small group of people damaged in the process. I think we owe it to them to have a generous scheme. I beg to move.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment is grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose persistence I admire concerning those who have suffered vaccine damage. My amendment is slightly different, but it is along the same lines in that it is about unintentional outcomes and redress for those who have suffered.

My amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for redress schemes to help those who have suffered avoidable harm linked to the three medical interventions that were examined in the report from the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, which I chaired. These are hormone pregnancy tests—the most common being Primodos—the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, which was used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.

I will be brief, but I make no apology for bringing this before your Lordships’ House again because the case for these schemes is so compelling. These are people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered terribly and had their lives changed for the worse and in some cases completely ruined—all because of mistakes, errors of judgment, oversights and a refusal to listen across the healthcare system. In each case—Primodos, valproate and mesh—harm could and should have been avoided. If that does not underline the moral and ethical case for providing some help, then I really do not know what does.

I believe that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues are genuinely sympathetic to the plight of these women and their children, but I sense that they are hesitant. I urge them to overcome some of this reluctance and act now. The suffering is immense, it is continuing even today, and very sadly people are dying before they receive the help they need. I remind my noble friend that these redress schemes are not the same as compensation. We are not talking about large sums of money. We are talking only about modest funds to help with the challenges of daily life: to pay for mobility aids, a respite break, travel to hospital. This is help that they do not and cannot access at the moment from the NHS, social services or elsewhere.

In Scotland, the Government there have acted. A scheme was set up to provide help to women suffering from mesh complications. It is modest: it was given a £1 million budget and women had to apply to it to be eligible. But it was welcomed, and it has helped. That is the kind of help I have in mind. Sums of that scale are barely noticeable in the context of the hundreds of billions we spend on health and social care, yet these small sums would mean so much to so many.

Are there concerns that this might set a precedent and that before we know it dozens of other groups of people who have suffered will all want the same? I do not believe so. That has not happened in Scotland. Thalidomide did not lead to an avalanche of other groups requiring help. We have existing schemes to help others who have been harmed. If the Government really believe that compensation is the better way for these people to get help, they are mistaken. The fact is that many have tried to obtain compensation through the courts. It is time-consuming, costly, stressful, adversarial and, worst of all, it simply has not worked.

The three groups that Amendment 180 is designed to help are small in number—not millions of people, not hundreds of thousands. I do not believe that an unwelcome precedent would be set. I do not believe that these schemes would cost the earth. The cost would be modest and can be contained and managed. I believe the benefits will outweigh the cost and that we have a moral and ethical duty to help these people. They have suffered for years and in some cases for decades. Surely the measure of a decent society is how well it looks after those who have suffered harm, especially where that harm could and should have been avoided.

I have met hundreds of people who have suffered; even today I get a lot of emails, phone calls and letters. We have heard from many more people. I am clear that help is both needed and deserved. People should not be made to wait any longer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 297D, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Brinton, for their support. However, I also express my general support to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for their amendments. The common theme of this collection of amendments is the question of how we support vulnerable people.

My amendment is about the experience of many of us who have seen the harm caused to our loved ones in care homes during Covid when visits were not allowed for so long. Even now, it can be difficult to visit in some homes because of the Covid restrictions that continue or where a member of staff or visitor has Covid and then 14-day long impositions are imposed. It is a bit rich when one hears in the media that all restrictions are being lifted, because for many of us, in practice those restrictions have not been lifted at all.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on care home blanket bans and other excessive restrictions recommended that regulations for care and treatment should include a requirement to ensure face-to-face contact wherever possible between residents and the people most significant to them. I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by care homes in the past two years. They have faced huge challenges. My personal experience is that many of them have risen to the challenge and provide high-quality care. But even before the pandemic, serious concerns were growing about the use of care home visitor bans to punish relatives for complaining about standards of care. Indeed, as far back as 2016, the “Victoria Derbyshire” programme reported that hundreds of care homes were guilty of this method of what it described as institutional abuse. In 2019, the Relatives & Residents Association was coming across at least one case per week and warned the problem was increasing.

One woman found her mother dressed in other people’s clothes, left in her own urine and with her hair unwashed for weeks. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upheld the daughter’s complaint, reporting that after raising her concerns with the care home, she and a doctor were prevented from seeing her mother when they tried to visit. The care home later told the ombudsman the ban was because of a previous incident reported to the police of the daughter and her partner’s behaviour, but could not provide any evidence that an incident had occurred or was reported to the police.

As visiting restrictions are, hopefully, going to be relaxed in the weeks ahead, I am afraid we have the prospect of seeing more residents’ families being victimised in this way. Helen Wildbore, director of the Relatives & Residents Association, has found from its helpline calls that relatives and friends play a vital role in spotting potential human rights violations, particularly around abuse and neglect. When they are locked out by bans, people in care lose crucial support: their advocate and confidante—they might be the only person they tell about their concerns. Sometimes residents are even threatened with eviction or actually evicted in reprisal for complaints about their care. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was told about a family whose mother was threatened with eviction after they merely asked to discuss concerns with the head office of a care home.

These are the kinds of abuses my amendment seeks to tackle and get over the problem that regulations are not sufficient. These regulations may specify the standards of care against which care providers are regulated by the CQC through its inspection process, but the CQC is not going to pick up individual complaints, so there is a gap. There is a strong case for a statutory duty of care sitting alongside CQC regulations to require care providers to facilitate such contact with families as is reasonably practical and to prohibit evictions where non-vexatious and non-repetitive complaints are in progress. In my amendment, I am not proposing that. All I am asking for is a review; an independent review charged with examining these options. I hope that the Government will agree that there needs to be some reflection on what has happened and how we can prevent this kind of abuse in the future.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to speak to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Hodgson.

From the age of five, I was a child of general practice; it was my world. I accompanied my father on home visits, patients came to our house and the telephone rang constantly—my mother was the secretary and took all calls. My father loved his patients and they loved him. He knew them inside and out, and their families as well. He attended road traffic accidents, of which I have to say there were plenty, and he delivered babies at home—he never lost one. I remember him telling me one day when he came back from a birth that it had been a very difficult birth, but the mother praised my father for having helped her to produce a very healthy little boy. “Doctor”, she said, “we will call the baby after you. What is your name?” My father replied, “Lambert”. “Right”, said the father, “we will call our son Tom.” I mention this only because maternity has been the love of my life, and in this area relationships are critical to a safe and good experience. In my youth, maternity was part of general practice.

After being appointed much more recently to chair the maternity review for England by Simon Stevens—as he was then; now, of course. the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham—I was determined to introduce relationship care, sometimes called “continuity of carer”, where the final “R” stands for relationship. We have much respected and credible research from the Cochrane Collaboration in Oxford which shows that women who receive relationship care are less likely to have a preterm birth, less likely to lose their baby before 24 weeks and less likely to lose their baby overall.

We now have in the NHS 371 relationship teams with 2,355 midwives in place where the midwife provides all three elements of midwifery care: prenatal, birth and postnatal care, which is sometimes called follow-up care. In the James Paget Hospital, 90% of maternity care is provided through continuity and it has a waiting list for midwives to join the hospital. Through this initiative, we are transforming maternity care. The women and their families value hugely the relationship with their known midwife, and the midwives who are providing this care absolutely know that what they are doing is the right way to work. They would leave their hospital and go to one that provided such care if their hospital gave it up.

Listening to my noble friend Lady Hodgson, is not this what she seeks for general medical practice? Her amendment is well drafted and reflects an interesting report produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners, entitled The Power of Relationships: What is Relationship-based Care and Why is it Important? and published in June last year. In his foreword, Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the college, writes:

“COVID-19 has radically changed the face of general practice. We have moved from a predominantly face-to-face service to one in which most consultations are delivered remotely, either by telephone or video call … Remote consultations are certainly here to stay. For many patients, they enable quicker and more convenient access to a GP appointment, which of course is hugely important.”


But then he asks the following questions:

“But should speed and ease of access be our primary measures of effectiveness? They are certainly easier to quantify. But what about the quality of care? What about the relationship between doctor and patients which, to me, is the essence of general practice?”


He goes on to say that

“The evidence for the benefits of a trusting relationship is compelling—better patient experience; better adherence to medical advice, fewer prescriptions, better health outcomes, better job satisfaction for doctors and even fewer deaths.”


Indeed, he says that the relationship between the patient and their GP is as important as the scalpel is to a surgeon:

“If relationships were a drug, NICE would mandate their use.”

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for speaking so eloquently in support of this group of amendments. There are a number of amendments relating to data in this Committee and they fall into three categories. The first category, the group that we are debating today, is about the prioritisation of the digital transformation in the NHS. The second group looks at specific patient groups and the potential of data to improve their care outcomes. The third set is about confidentiality of data as far as patients are concerned. My view is that all three run together.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I am enthusiastic about digital transformation in the NHS; indeed, I believe it is the only way we can hope to meet the challenges that healthcare faces over the next 20 or 30 years. However, there are two conditions. One is that the integrity of patients’ data is assured for individual patients. That has not always been the case in the past, and the debacle of care.data is a salutary warning of what can happen if we do not protect patient information in an appropriate way.

The second condition is resources. I was very glad that my noble friend referred to the issue of resources and to the Wade-Gery report, which is the most recent report looking at the arrangements to support digital transformation in the health service. Wade-Gery reported that

“transformation funding is … split between revenue and capital and dispersed across the organisations. Tech funding is variable, often diverted and not necessarily linked to strategy and outcomes, incentivising either monolithic programmes or small-scale initiatives.”

She commented:

“The requirement for digital transformation in other sectors has driven up the proportion of their spend on digital and technology”.


It has been well-known, for many years, that the NHS locally has not been spending sufficiently on data and data transformation. The latest estimate from NHS England is that the NHS spends less than 2% of its total expenditure on IT, while the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and the IPPR suggest that this should be nearer 5% by 2022. I say to Ministers that, unless they can find ways to ensure the NHS starts to spend at that level, we are simply not going to achieve the kind of transformation we want.

One way to do that is to ensure that, at the ICB level, there is an official charged with driving this forward at the local level. We know, in general, in relation to boards of the health service, that the data/digital leadership often does not have a seat, in contrast to many organisations. This is why we think that needs to change. Overall, we believe this set of amendments would enable the Government and Parliament to show how important it is to prioritise the kind of digital transformation that we want to see.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments but first I believe in putting right wrongs. I failed to declare my interests in last Tuesday’s debate, so I took advice from the registrar. He assured me that I do not have to give a full account of my life and times, which is a great mercy to everybody, but I do have to declare what I am currently involved in and the remunerations. I serve on the Maternity Transformation Board, which is owned by NHS England, and the maternity Stakeholder Council, which is also supported by NHS England but is much more of a free agent.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath; it was a very rounded, fulsome and clear introduction to these amendments. I want to pick up the issue of trust, because both noble Lords linked trust and confidentiality. That is absolutely essential. We will not get the support or trust of the public if we do not respect their confidentiality, and I will say a word about that in a minute. I support Amendments 84, 134, 140 and 160—I have added my name to them. I also support Amendments 70 and 73, and wish to comment on those.

I strongly support digital transformation. Amendments 84, 134 and 140 place a duty on integrated care boards to promote digital transformation and to produce their own five-year plans. It will need money, so Amendment 160 requires the NHS to spend at least 5% of its capital allocation to achieve it. That is right, as digital needs sustained resource—it is not simply a “nice to have”; it is absolutely essential for the future of our services. I have talked to visitors from the USA and cannot believe how antiquated they think our systems are. In many places, they are still in the dark ages, so we have to invest in digital.

I support the increased use of digital technology in healthcare largely because of my involvement in two major inquiries into NHS services in the last few years. One evening in 2014, I had a telephone call from Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, before he was knighted and welcomed into your Lordships’ House, where he has already made a very significant contribution. He invited me to chair an inquiry into maternity services for England. The noble Lord has a sense of humour: he gave me nine months in which to deliver.

I set up a panel and we delivered in time, calling our report Better Births. Our 28 recommendations were accepted by NHS England, which then set up the Maternity Transformation Board and the Stakeholder Council, on which I have declared my interests. The Stakeholder Council is interesting because it is full of a wide range of people. A lot of charities, in particular, are on that council, and add a lot to the work that we do.

Two of the 28 recommendations are particularly relevant to this Bill and these amendments. We recommended that every mother should have her own digital maternity record, which she would create with her midwife. This record would set out the plans for managing her pregnancy, the birth and aftercare, which is so necessary for the baby, the mother and, I would add, the family. The mother’s record would then be accessible, with her permission, to all those contributing to her care. In future, we could see it being part of the child health record, and possibly the lifetime health record of the mother.

Although some progress has been made on improving access to NHS health records, we are still some way from achieving this, or the ambition set out in the NHS Long Term Plan for every citizen to have their own personal health record. We need to galvanise the NHS to move quickly and capitalise on the enormous potential that digital offers. That is what these amendments are designed to do. I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench will consider them carefully and assess the potential that they offer.

I also recently had the privilege of chairing an investigation into the safety of medicines and medical devices; our report was called First Do No Harm. Thousands of women and children suffered avoidable harm relating to the medicines and one of the medical devices which we reviewed. They continue to live with the terrible consequences today. This harm did not take place in one isolated moment; it has spanned years and even decades. Why was it not detected and stopped? Many people could have been spared the misery it has been for them and their families.

Part of the answer to that lies in the absence of data. We found that data was not collected or that, when it was, there was no attempt to link data to identify patterns of concern. Paper records, such as there were, were incomplete, dispersed, archived or destroyed. The healthcare system could not tell us how many women had taken the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and gone on to have damaged babies. It could not tell us how many women had pelvic mesh implants, or which implants were used, or where and when.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I want to come back to the debate on clinical negligence and the recommendation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her report for a redress agency. I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board.

We have reached a very serious position, with an exponential rise in clinical negligence costs. Twenty years ago, contingent liability was £3.9 billion; it is now £83 billion. Even allowing for inflation, I hardly think that we have become 20 times more negligent over that period. Indeed, the Minister, Nadine Dorries, told the House of Commons in a Written Answer last November:

“The continued rises in clinical negligence costs are eating into resources available for front-line care”.


It is not delivering for patients and their families, either. There are huge delays in getting cases settled and huge lawyers’ fees, in a quite remarkable situation where the NHS ends up paying damages in 80% of litigated clinical negligence claims. There is something wrong in the way we deal with these cases.

There have been endless reviews over the past 20 years, but precious little has happened. Seventeen years ago, an NHS redress scheme was unveiled by the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. Legislation followed in 2006 but, 14 years later, it has yet to be implemented—and I doubt it ever will be. Since then, there has been much debate about the sustainability of Section 2(4) of the 1948 Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, which essentially promotes increased costs because it provides that

“there shall be disregarded, in determining the reasonableness of any expenses, the possibility of avoiding those expenses or part of them by taking advantage of facilities available under”

the NHS. In other words, the NHS tends to pay twice.

In 2017, the department and the Ministry of Justice commissioned the independent Civil Justice Council to draw up a new claims handling process for clinical negligence claims of up to £25,000, together with proposals for fixed recoverable costs for these cases. The report was published, with recommendations, in October 2019. Since then, there has been silence.

In that context, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, argued in her report First Do No Harm for a redress agency to be set up on an avoidable harm basis, which looks to systematic failings rather than blaming individuals. This, she thought, would encourage reporting and provide faster resolution for claimants. She argued that this

“would provide a standing structure to administer decisions using a non-adversarial process. This model is simple for patients to access as there is one point of contact. This structure enables flexibility to adapt and respond to situations as they arise.”

The proposed scheme of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is well intentioned and has popular appeal. I recognise that details need to be spelled out in relation to eligibility, qualifying criteria or conditions of entitlement for her proposed redress scheme. Of course, causality is at the heart of any consideration of patient safety remedy. Causation is at the heart of tort. The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 is limited to persons disabled as a result of vaccination. Even the NHS Redress Act 2006, to which have just referred, is concerned with arrangements for redress in relation to liability in tort. The noble Baroness’s approach is of course quite different from that.

The noble Baroness the Minister in Committee was not enthusiastic. In the past 48 hours we have heard the Government’s response that they have,

“no current plans to establish a redress agency”,

as set out in the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The reply went on to say:

“The government and industry have previously established redress schemes without the need for an additional agency.”


Well, that is a rather disappointing dismissal and misses the point, because the noble Baroness was essentially calling for a wholesale reform of the current clinical negligence system. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Can we really go on with the exponential rise in costs to the NHS—a system in which it loses 80% of cases that reach the courts, and where huge delays take place in patients getting access to an outcome? The system is completely bust. We need a new one and I hope that the Minister will, with his colleagues, consider what action needs to be taken to improve the current situation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. His determination is awe-inspiring. I am so pleased that he has not left this issue mouldering on the Committee Floor but has picked it up again.

I understand what the noble Lord said about the Government not being enthusiastic. However, I have known other issues on which the Government have been less than enthusiastic. It is the way in which we put forward persuasive arguments—although setting up this agency will take a lot of work, with a lot of detail to be considered. However, other schemes have been successful. I think about the one in my area—thalidomide. That trust is still running and getting redress for people who need it. So I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

In our review, we tried to achieve a very simple and accessible structure for patients through the proposed redress agency. In an update on our recommendations, the Minister in the House of Commons, Nadine Dorries, said that the Department of Health and Social Care had delivered ex-gratia payments with individual schemes without the need for a redress agency. Indeed it has.

There are four or five schemes for infected blood alone, with eligibility based on whether the patient was a haemophiliac with HIV; a haemophiliac with hepatitis C; a non-haemophiliac with HIV; or a non-haemophiliac with hepatitis C. These different schemes addressed what type of payment should be awarded according to the patient’s need. What we—I am talking about my team and I—were advocating is a single point of contact for avoidably harmed patients. We felt very strongly that they had suffered enough without the necessity of finding out how to access the schemes that are relevant to them. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said that something is wrong. He is right: it is wrong. This is not the way to help people who have been seriously harmed.

The problem is that, without a redress agency, each ex gratia scheme starts from scratch, which we felt was grossly inefficient. We need a standing administrative structure, funded by contributions from manufacturers and the state—both have a responsibility. At the moment, litigation is the only route, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, for injured people to get serious compensation. We know that the process is very damaging to people. They do not like going to court, they do not like having to put forward all the information that is absolutely necessary—and sometimes not so necessary—and they do not like the fact that it is an adversarial system. We felt that the redress agency could remove the need for adversarial litigation that focuses on blaming individual doctors and nurses. The agency would be non-adversarial and would look at the systems failings that led to avoidable harm. This would help develop an open culture in healthcare and facilitate learning—we are not good at that. We know that the same mistakes happen over and again, and we felt that this was another tool to ensure that there would be much less of that.

Gathering information in one place—the agency—would make it so much easier to learn from the data that is collected and would strengthen the ability of the healthcare system to learn from the mistakes made. We have only to look at the cost of litigation of some £83 billion a year—I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. We know that, often, the majority of those costs go to the law firms, not the individuals who have suffered so grievously. We felt that it would be much better if those huge sums of money, which are much needed by the NHS, should be used with a redress agency, which would have other advantages, as I have just outlined. A stand-alone agency, with a single entry point, would be a much better and more cost-effective way to award redress to those who suffer such avoidable harm—and many of them suffer for decades.

Medicines and Medical Devices Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 19th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as noble Lords are well aware, First Do No Harm, the report of my review, was published in July of this year. Our ninth and final recommendation was that the Government should set up a task force to implement the other recommendations and the many actions for improvement contained in the report. That task force has not been set up, and the Government remain silent on whether they will agree to do so and, indeed, on the report as a whole.

This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to set up a task force within three months of the Bill becoming law. I would much rather not find myself tabling it; I would much rather the Government saw the urgency and had already set up the task force, because it is designed to help the department and the wider healthcare system to do the thinking, to make sure we get the details right and to set out a pathway and a timeline for implementing the report’s recommendations.

I believe it must be a collaborative venture; it should involve not just the department and its arm’s-length buddies but also patients. It would be a missed opportunity were it not to include the representatives of my review, because we have the knowledge and the expertise, acquired over two and a half years of work. To inspire confidence among people who have suffered, it needs to be independently chaired and overseen by a government board.

We feel that the task force is the right way to approach the job of implementing the review’s recommendations. My noble friend the Minister may well tell us that the Bill is not the right place for this measure—that is as may be—in which case, if he were able to reassure me that the task force would be set up separately by the Government, as we envisage in this proposed new clause, and on a similar or shorter timescale, I would be more than satisfied.

These matters are pressing. Our recommendations need to be implemented if we are to help people who have suffered so much already, many of them for decades. We must try to prevent further avoidable harm to more patients and families in the future. The task force is the key to making this happen, and those of us who have run organisations know that they need some discipline and something like a task force—a body that will ensure that the task set out is actually implemented and that it happens. I beg to move this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and to support what she is saying. At the heart of her argument is the concern that, although the Minister said earlier in Grand Committee that the Government are weighing it up with all “seriousness and intent”, the Government are not going to run with the core of the noble Baroness’s recommendations. Because the Government have been so reluctant—very unusually—to respond immediately to the thrust of her report, there remains a lot of uncertainty about how far the Government are prepared to implement it.

Of course, the opportunity given to us with the medicines Bill enables us really to press the Government to be more detailed about what they are going to do. On Tuesday, we had a very good debate on the recommendation for the appointment of a patient safety commissioner. The Minister made a very extensive response, which essentially set out the measures that the Government are taking to embed patient safety throughout the NHS. I shall just mention a few: promoting a positive learning culture at the heart of the NHS; taking steps to help staff to speak up when things go wrong; establishing the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch to examine the more serious patient safety incidents and promote system-wide learning; appointing medical examiners to provide much-needed support to bereaved families and improve patient safety; introducing a duty of candour, so that hospitals tell patients if their safety has been compromised, and apologise; and commissioning the NHS national director of patient safety, Dr Aidan Fowler, to publish a strategy, which, of course, has been done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Although I am a member of the GMC board, I make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the GMC.

It is very difficult to move on to the nitty-gritty of a redress agency after the hugely eloquent and moving speech made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The Minister said in his response to the noble Baroness that this is not the Bill to respond to the report. What I say to him is that this is the only Bill in town. Medicines and medical devices are at the core of patient safety. He promised that the Minister responsible for patient safety would make a Statement on the report in December. My assumption is that that will be made after the Bill has passed through the House of Lords, and therein lies the problem: we will not be told the Government’s response before we come to the critical Report stage. We just have to work on the assumption that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, the Government are not going to embrace her core recommendations. We will therefore have to take action on Report on that basis. I do not see what other course of action the House of Lords can take, unless the Government are prepared to bring forward their Statement so that we can see it before we reach Report.

I have just one other point. I listened to the Minister, and he has been very helpful in setting out some of the initiatives that the Government are taking. However, as with the patient safety strategy—we have been here before—the department seems to have collected all the examples of good practice it can find, bunged them into a report and called it a strategy. That is the problem, because it ain’t a strategy. It does not address the fundamental crunch that the NHS has been run far too hot and is unsafe. When you really tackle that, you have to tackle the issues of resources, work force and targets. That is a huge challenge to the Government, which is why they are so reluctant to go down that course.

What does that have to do with the redress agency? I will try to come to that in a moment. However, I want to ask the Minister whether he can say anything about this recommendation. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, argued powerfully for a redress agency to be set up on an avoidable-harm basis that looks to systematic failings, rather than blaming individuals, encourages reporting and should provide faster resolution for claimants. She argues that it should be a consensual process rather than a judicial one. Redress would be offered, not awarded, and proceedings under the scheme would be voluntary. She also said that the redress agency would have an important role to play in harm prevention as claims for adverse events would be centralised, enabling data to be provided that would help regulators detect signals earlier.

This is not the first time that a redress scheme has been proposed. Indeed, 17 years ago, an NHS redress scheme was unveiled by the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. It included no-fault compensation for babies born with severe brain damage, and payments of up to £30,000 without litigation for patients whose treatment went wrong. Under the scheme, parents would get a managed medical care package for their child, monthly payments for other care of up to £100,000 a year, lump sums for home adaptations and equipment of up to £50,000, and compensation for pain and suffering capped at £50,000. The other arm of the redress scheme, for smaller negligence claims, would have provided a package including an explanation and apology, remedial treatment, rehabilitation and care where needed and financial compensation up to £30,000 where authorised. Legislation followed in 2006, but 14 years later it has, as I understand it, yet to be implemented. The aim of the Act was to provide a genuine alternative to litigation, but it has languished on the statute book. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me whether that is it and whether the Government do not think it the appropriate way forward.

I also ask the Minister to say something about the increase in negligence costs to the NHS. The latest annual report from NHS Resolution shows that the total cost of payments made in respect of clinical negligence in 2019-20 was £2.32 billion. Of that figure, a substantial amount was paid in legal costs: nearly £500 million to claimant legal costs and £143 million for NHS legal costs. We know that it often takes years for cases to be resolved.

Is the Minister confident that we are getting this right? Does the noble Baroness’s recommendation not deserve examination, at least? I beg to move.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is hard to follow the very well-researched contribution to this whole issue from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It was interesting to hear about Sir Liam Donaldson’s report, which got on to the statute book but was not implemented. Is that not a disgrace? It is really dreadful.

Very near to where I live is the centre for Chailey Heritage, now the Chailey Heritage Foundation, for children who suffered through their mothers having taken the drug thalidomide. I chaired its governing body for years. It is interesting that that redress system still continues; it is supported by a trust, which inherited the disaster of the medication, and it has honoured that and receives government support. So we have examples where this is working.

The redress agency that we recommend is really about the future. My amendment is about the present. We know that so many patients and their families have suffered such harm, and we need a system that is more compassionate and a much more certain route for obtaining redress to compensate them. We are talking not about compensation as such, but about redress. You have to go to the courts to achieve compensation, and it is a very miserable experience—we have heard that from patients. It also takes a very long time and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, very often the people who benefit most are the lawyers.

We are talking about Primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh—the three interventions through which people have suffered avoidable harm. The suffering they endure now is terrible. All three have caused and are causing avoidable psychological and, of course, physical and neurological harm. These families really need a little help with the conditions they are living with. Indeed, some are looking after some very disabled children. We do not believe that their needs are adequately met by the healthcare, social care or benefits systems. Some of these people are actually very elderly—the parents of the children who took Primodos. It would be a scandal if those people were to live their lives unable to access the redress they need and the outcome they deserve. After all, the harm was caused not by them, but by the state.

In the case of these three interventions, there is a moral and ethical responsibility to provide ex gratia payments in respect of the avoidable damage that occurred. That responsibility falls on the state and the manufacturers of the products in question. The schemes that would be established through this proposed new clause would provide discretionary payments, and each of the three schemes would have tailored eligibility criteria.

The payments the schemes make would not be intended to cover the cost of services that are already available free of charge, such as healthcare and social security payments. They would be for other needs—for example, the cost of travel to medical appointments. We have met and talked to many of those people, and they have said that it is a significant cost burden. The payments might be for respite breaks or emergency payments where a parent has had to stop work to cover care. These redress schemes would not be in place of litigation, nor will they be to deliver compensation. People should retain the right to take legal action if they wish to obtain compensation—of course they should; that is in our law. The schemes I am talking about should be set up in such a way that they can be incorporated into the wider redress agency that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about, once it is established.

These people have suffered for decades. They have tried to obtain compensation through the courts. That action has failed in the case of valproate and Primodos, although I am aware that a new Primodos action is under way. I have been told by solicitors that, in fact, the report does not in any way affect that action. There have been some awards and settlements in the case of mesh, but legal action takes time, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. It creates added stress and much more personal cost can be involved.

I believe that a measure of a decent society is how well it looks after those who have suffered harm, especially when that harm was avoidable. From having met many hundreds of people who have suffered and heard from many more, I am clear that help is needed and deserved. People should not be made to wait any longer. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree with that.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

Monday 10th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I support these amendments on mandatory training. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has fought and fought for this. I served with her on the United Kingdom central council for nursing, midwifery and whatever it was. She pioneered the whole idea of improving nurse training, and it was very successful.

To follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, it is interesting that we now have two different parts to the arguments. One concerns the benefit to patients and the public, while the other concerns the benefit to the workers themselves, which I thought was a very interesting angle. It was Terry Leahy who said that he built his empire just by ensuring that all who worked for him felt good about themselves, and I thought that that was very interesting.

I am concerned about how the amendments are fashioned because I am not quite sure what we are talking about. Perhaps the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will clarify that for me. We talked about healthcare support workers, and I understand that such workers predominantly work in the NHS. However, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause refers to,

“a health or care support worker”.

I am not sure what a care support worker is, as opposed to a healthcare support worker. Does the support worker work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said, in people’s homes? Do they work in residential care? Are they covered by this or not?

The noble Baroness made another point, which I was also going to raise and on which I would like some clarification: what about the people who work for others who need care, through direct payments or personal budgets? Will this rule out those volunteers who often come in and sit with someone, who may do some minor tasks and may even do some relatively nursing-style tasks, such as putting in eye drops, which a member of the family would do? I should like to clarify who we are talking about.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I remain puzzled by the Government’s approach. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, for setting out a number of persuasive arguments for why there ought to be mandatory training for health and care support workers. There seems to be a general consensus around the House and no doubt the Minister will agree with it. My reason for supporting the amendment is that mandatory training is clearly very important, but it is inevitable that if you have mandatory training you have regulation; the two run together. Those who are proposing these amendments ought to recognise that there is an inevitability that if you have training then you must have a list of people who are trained; action has to be taken against those people who have been trained but are then found to be unsafe in dealing with vulnerable people; and there has to be a way of removing them from the list of those who have been trained that has been published. If you go down this route, one way or another you are clearly signing up to mandatory regulation, and a jolly good thing too.

Amendment 23A puts forward an eminently sensible suggestion for healthcare support workers to be certified to show that they have been trained in basic standards, with employers to register individuals who hold such certificates. We need to go back to the Francis report. Mr Francis is widely reported to be disappointed with the Government’s response to his report, and it is not hard to see why. His report commented on the absence of minimum standards in training and competence. This is compounded by huge variations in the approach of employers to job specifications, supervision and training requirements. That is why my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has come across so many instances of poor-quality healthcare support.

The Prime Minister’s Commission on the Future of Nursing and Midwifery noted that training for support workers was very variable and recommended that they should be better trained. In response, as the noble Earl told us earlier, the Government have commissioned Skills for Health and Skills for Care to work together to develop a code of conduct and minimum induction and training standards. We now know from the mandate issued by the Secretary of State to Health Education England that it is obliged to establish minimum training standards for healthcare assistants by spring 2014. At this point, I ask the noble Earl: how far does that go? Will it be mandatory for all entrants to the role of healthcare assistant to undertake such training? If that is so, will this extend to care assistants? What about existing health and care support workers? Will this training extend to them, or will it apply only to new people coming into the healthcare profession?

Under the proposals, how will employers know if their support workers have undertaken the minimum standard of training? Will a nationally recognised certificate be issued? Will a national list be established, indicating those who have undertaken such training? If there is not a list, does that not leave a big burden on employers seeking to check whether prospective staff have undertaken the minimum training requirement under the mandate? I come back to the point I made at the beginning: if a list is established, would that, in essence, not amount to a register? If there is such a list or register and it becomes clear that a support worker is unsuitable to care for vulnerable people, is there a way in which an organisation or employer could then apply to have such an individual removed from the list of people who have received the minimum level of training?

Having a certificate showing that someone has achieved a minimum level of training will be generally regarded as a certificate of an ability to practise. If there is such a certificate, there must be a way to remove that certificate if people are found to be wanting. In effect, once one begins to lay down minimum standards and to specify mandatory training, will there not be an inevitable step towards regulation? Amendment 23A poses those questions to the noble Earl. I hope that he will answer sympathetically.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Society of Public Health, which I should have done in my earlier intervention. Can the noble Baroness—briefly but taking a little time—say whether she thinks from what she has heard from the Minister that she can now bring this issue back on Third Reading? I was not absolutely sure what the implications of the offer of talks meant in terms of our being able to debate it on Third Reading. I hope she takes it as an acceptance that the matter could come back on Third Reading.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

Perhaps I may address that in one minute’s time.

I appreciate the commitment of my noble friend Lady Northover to this matter. I understand that the Government are anxious to build on public health, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, and that they take this area with all due seriousness.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Cumberlege

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cumberlege]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this grouping and, lest I be drummed out of the Brownies, I would like to explain that there is a typo in the Marshalled List. It should read not “detailed merits” but “detailed remits”. As noble Lords will appreciate, there is a great difference, and I do not need any persuasion as to the merits of this Bill.

The purpose of my two amendments is to be probing; I am really just seeking clarification. The Future Forum was very widely welcomed by most people, but it further complicated the new proposals in the Bill regarding how we are to organise and manage the NHS. After years of being dictated to and micromanaged, there is a real risk of paralysis, and this at a time when commissioners need to reach decisions and be truly radical.

As I understand the proposed structure, the national Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups will be supported by clinical networks, clinical senates, commissioning support organisations and health and well-being boards, which will work in partnership with them. In addition, we have a new public health system, which we debated last Monday, with the creation of Public Health England and the establishment of HealthWatch England and Local HealthWatch to try to improve patient and public involvement. This has the potential to cause confusion and duplication if the Government are not clear about the accountabilities, roles and responsibilities of these different organisations. I would like to take a very serious example: it is still unclear who will take the lead on the commissioning of specialist doctors and nurses responsible for safeguarding children within the NHS.

At a national level, the movement from a single department of state to a more dispersed range of organisations, including the national Commissioning Board, Public Health England, HealthWatch England, Monitor and the Care Quality Commission, could have a similar effect. The danger is that the NHS could find itself in paralysis at just the moment that it needs to make key decisions that are crucial for the sustainability of parts of the service. In particular, some of the important decisions on potential service reconfigurations are urgent if the NHS is to meet the Nicholson challenge and at the same time fulfil its commitment to high quality and safe services to patients.

It is still unclear to me, and I know that it is to some others, how the respective responsibilities and accountabilities of commissioners, providers and regulators for quality are intended to work together. We also need to ensure that additional complexity does not result in an increased administrative burden or financial cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, falling on healthcare organisations. I think that my noble friend gave an undertaking on that on Monday but further clarification would be welcome.

Because of these concerns about the complexity of the new structure, I am asking the Minister if he could look seriously at this issue; go beyond the organograms and design detailed remits and powers for all those in the system to minimise confusion, gaps and duplication; and be as clear as possible at the outset as the reforms are implemented, while at the same time keep under review and address any confusion, gaps and duplication between the components in the system. Change is always a challenge. The more we can reduce muddle and confusion from the outset, the more successful these reforms will be.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group which concern the duty of the Secretary of State to keep health service functions under review. This is an important provision. I note that on what will probably be the last day in Committee, we have Amendment 354, which relates to a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a report which can then be debated by Parliament. Although it is not grouped with this amendment, it is highly relevant to it.

It would be helpful to know from the Minister just how these matters are going to be monitored and how adjustments can be made in the light of experience. As my noble friend Lord Warner suggested, although we are not going to be allowed to see the risk register—I am very doubtful that we will see it before the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House—we know that considerable risks will come with these changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, spelled out some of the key issues that we face. The last thing that the health service needs is a massive reorganisation. Clearly, there are risks and it is right that there should be a regular review by the Secretary of State.

It is also right that the Secretary of State, when reviewing the operation of the changes, reviews all parts of it. I am extremely puzzled by Clause 49 concerning the duty to keep under review. The Bill sets out the bodies to be reviewed. They are the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, the Care Quality Commission, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the Health and Social Care Information Centre and special health authorities. There is no mention of the plethora of bodies that will exist in the new system. There is no mention of clinical senates, the local field forces of the NHS Commissioning Board or health and well-being boards. Quite remarkably, there is nothing about clinical commissioning groups. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell me why the effectiveness of the CCGs is not to be kept under review?

Perhaps I have misread the Bill and this will be done in some other way. But I find it remarkable that this Bill is built around GPs and clinical commissioning groups, which are untried and untested, yet they are not to be kept under review. Looking at the architecture of this Bill, one begins to see very tight control of most of the health service but when it comes to clinical commissioning groups, issues of corporate governance, conflicts of interest or any of the other matters, it is incredibly light touch. It is as if we are to believe that, somehow, this part of the reforms is believed by the Secretary of State to be so remarkably able to carry out its duties that very little monitoring, performance management or review is to be undertaken. I would be grateful to know why clinical commissioning groups in particular have been left out of this list.

Amendment 243A concerns the annual report. In Clause 50 we see a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the performance of the whole service in England, which must be laid before Parliament. That, of course, is welcome. But my amendment asks that the report should include a statement on progress towards reducing relevant inequalities, on integration of services, on waiting time performance, and on health outcome performance. No doubt the noble Earl will argue that it is a list, and that the Secretary of State’s annual report is bound to cover these matters.

However, we are in new territory when it comes to specifying matters in the Bill. We are told that the Secretary of State is stepping back from involvement in the National Health Service, and that we should not worry about that, because there will be a mandate, and a constitution. All will be well. Those of us with some experience in these matters are rather doubtful as to whether that is sufficient in terms of accountability. In that context, it is right for Parliament to set out some details which we would expect the Secretary of State to report annually. Of course, there may well be other matters which one would wish the Secretary of State to report on, but my four areas cover some of the main points.

Amendment 245B relates to the intervention orders under the 2006 Act. I would be grateful if the noble Earl would confirm whether those intervention orders apply to the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups. If they do not, perhaps he could explain why not?

Amendment 245C deals with liabilities and the Secretary of State’s responsibility in relation to NHS organisations. Again, could the Minister confirm whether this duty applies to the NHS Commissioning Board and to clinical commissioning groups?

Amendment 245ZA relates to the general power of the Secretary of State. In page 289, line 30, the Government seek to dissipate the general power of the Secretary of State, as is currently set out in Section 2 of the 2006 Act. I realise that this takes us back to the crucial debate we had on day 1 about the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. The Explanatory Note which relates to this says that the reason for changing the wording is because there is no longer a duty on the Secretary of State to provide services. Given that those matters have been, in a sense, put to one side, is this part of the package that is being looked at, because it does relate to the general powers of the Secretary of State?

My noble friend Lord Warner made some very apposite points which I certainly support, and I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I had been agonising about her amendments, and she has very helpfully clarified a point for all of us. She has really put her finger on it. I am disappointed that she did not take part in our debate at our last sitting ,when we discussed the complexity of the new arrangements.

We were promised a streamlined approach. What we have got instead is a highly complex set of arrangements. The NHS Confederation has expressed its concern about their complexity. I therefore like the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that asks the Government to try to clarify for us who on earth is responsible for what in the new system.

When it comes to the key issues of the reconfiguration of specialist services and of funding, someone out there is going to have to hold the reins. Some agency or body is going to have to sort the problems out. It ain’t going to be the clinical commissioning groups. They are too small and they will not be able to do it, so someone else will have to. Is it going to be the clinical senates, or are we going to have to rely on the local government health and well-being boards, or will it actually be the local offices of the NHS Commissioning Board? I know that it will be the local offices of the NHS Commissioning Board. If that is so, we come back to the fact that that is patently going to be where the power is, and surely they ought to be made accountable. That is why I had an amendment down on our last day in Committee to turn them into statutory bodies. I detected a modicum of sympathy around the Committee, but not much more than that. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as a distinguished former regional health authority chairman, knows that when we had the RHAs it was they that, in the end, had to intervene and sort problems out. There needs to be some sort of agency to do that in the future, and I think we should be told.