Health Bill

Debate between Lord Kamall and Baroness Pidgeon

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Barker for their very personal and raw contributions, as recent carers, on the recent losses of loved ones.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for my Amendment 230 in this group, which also has the support of Marie Curie and Hospice UK. At its heart is the principle that people approaching the end of life should be able to have their wishes, preferences and priorities for care understood, recorded and respected. Advance care planning enables people with terminal illness to express how and where they wish to be cared for. It supports more proactive and personalised care and, as we have heard, it has been shown to improve patient and family satisfaction while reducing the likelihood of crises, avoidable hospital admissions and the need for emergency care out of hours. I have seen at first hand how, in Devon, the system seems fairly well set up to support people in their own homes, and to have these very difficult conversations with a hospice at home service, with people who have real skill in communicating and talking about these difficult topics at a time when someone may have just learned that they have a terminal illness and when lots of things are going around their mind. It is important for them to be able to get some clarity, going forward, about what they wish for and do not wish for. As we have heard, other parts of the country do not work so well.

Importantly, the evidence suggests that advance care planning does not increase costs to the health and care system, and may in some cases reduce healthcare expenditure by ensuring that care is delivered in accordance with patients’ wishes. We will come on to the single patient record on a later date, but I flag here that advance care planning can be effective only if the information is available to those providing care when it is needed. The single patient record offers a significant opportunity to improve co-ordination and continuity of care, but its success will depend not simply on sharing data but on ensuring that advance care planning is routinely embedded in clinical practice so that people’s wishes can be accessed, understood and acted upon, wherever and whenever care is provided.

The other amendments in this group from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Coffey, highlight the many issues with the current landscape of palliative care and specialist palliative care services, and the difficulty in getting access to those services. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that, and her response to the trick or treat challenge.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an important and timely debate, coming not long after the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and the Prime Minister’s remarks. While these amendments address a range of issues, they all point to the same conclusion: palliative and end-of-life care must have a central place in this conversation.

If the Government are serious about shifting care from hospitals into communities, supporting people to remain closer to home—notwithstanding the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—and delivering truly patient-centred care, palliative care must be part of that vision from the outset. The need for action is clear. Marie Curie estimates that each year around 170,000 people in England die with unmet palliative care needs, equivalent to almost one person every three minutes. We must ensure that those approaching the end of their lives can access the support they need, when and where they need it. This is closely linked to my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment. She spoke movingly of her mother’s experience and the need to ensure that patients have access to high-quality palliative care, wherever they happen to live and choose to die.

If the Government’s proposed national care service is to succeed, it cannot simply be a discussion about structures, responsibilities and reorganisations. It must be about the experience of those who rely on care. No group demonstrates that more clearly than people approaching the end of their lives. Palliative care is perhaps one of the clearest examples of where health and social care are inseparable. While clinical support may be provided by the NHS, the ability of a person to remain at home or close to home, to maintain their dignity and spend time with loved ones, often depends just as much on the availability of social care. For many families, social care provides the day-to-day support on which good end-of-life care depends. Evidence shows that when effective support is available in the community, people are more likely to be cared for and pass away in a place they choose, rather than in hospital. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins, said, this will also reduce hospital deaths, save the NHS money and make more beds available.

Palliative care does not begin and end with the NHS; it depends upon social care providers, community services, carers, local authorities, hospices and voluntary organisations working together around the individual and their family. When those services are joined up, people are more likely to receive care in the setting they choose and with the support they need. When they are not joined up, it can profoundly affect those approaching the end of their lives.

In that context, I welcome the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which recognises that good palliative care depends not on any single organisation but on effective collaboration across the NHS, adult social care and the voluntary sector. Too often, services that support people approaching the end of their lives are commissioned, funded and delivered separately, despite the fact that patients and families experience them as part of a single journey. The amendment would help to ensure that integrated care boards take active steps to bring those services together, whether through access to specialist hospice care, shared equipment, medicines, workforce development or closer collaboration between providers.

Crucially, the amendment recognises the vital contribution of hospices and charitable organisations to the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care. These organisations are not peripheral to the system; they are an essential part of it. If the Government are serious about creating a national care service and a neighbourhood health service that are genuinely joined up for patients, the expertise and capacity of the voluntary sector must be properly integrated into the way care is planned and delivered.

Indeed, some of the most important services available to people at the end of their lives are delivered by hospices and charitable organisations. For decades, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the voluntary sector has not merely supplemented statutory services but has been fundamental to the provision of specialist palliative care. But too often it is forced to operate at the margins of the system, dependent on local arrangements, local funding decisions and local fundraisers, and subject to tax rises, such as employers’ national insurance, from which state providers are understandably exempt. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, shared examples of recent hospice closures.

If the Government wish to build a neighbourhood health service and develop a national care service, integration must mean integration not only within the NHS but between the NHS, adult social care and the voluntary sector. Ultimately, the measure of success will not be the structures we create but whether individual patients receive seamless support at one of the most difficult moments of their lives and for their families.

The issue of patients having a conversation about their end-of-life care, addressed in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was illustrated by the very moving stories from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. These amendments seek to move us towards that goal. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the issues that have been raised during the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, since taking over as our spokesperson, I have lost count of the number of times the Minister has talked about the workforce strategy that will at some point emerge from the department. I am not sure whether we will be given a season this evening, but hopefully it will be published soon.

My Amendment 253, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, have added their names to, would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish

“a health and care workforce strategy for England”.

I have included “care” on purpose because the two are so importantly linked. It must assess the staff needed to meet current and projected demands, expressly including registered nurses and primary care practitioners, and it must contain a funded plan to close staffing gaps. Annual progress reports would be laid before Parliament, keeping that issue on the agenda for us all. Putting staff in is an important marker too. We need to properly plan and invest in our workforce, both health and care, hand in hand.

The Royal College of Nursing supports this amendment, as do a number of representatives of primary care. Too often, primary care seems to be forgotten in the debate on workforce, but it is critical: GPs and district nurses—we have just heard passionately from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, about their role—as well as optometrists, dentists and pharmacists. As the Government look to shift services into neighbourhoods and hospitals—something I think we all support—this is really important. The early years workforce is important as well, as are health visitors.

The other amendments in this group, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, all require similar reports, perhaps on different timescales. Some are focused on really important areas such as the mental health workforce, the education and training that is needed alongside a workforce plan, and continuing professional development. Noble Lords have flagged the current vacancy rates in a number of roles, as well as skills shortages and the need for independent scrutiny of the workforce plan.

My noble friend Lord Scriven rightly stressed, using his personal family experience, the need for nurses for people with learning disabilities and the investment in that workforce, as well as the need to understand the whole workforce, looking at models in, for example, the Netherlands. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, talked about the complexity around primary care and the challenges with part-time workers, with perhaps more women coming into the workforce, as well as the challenges of work-life balance. Some people want to work part-time rather than full-time. These are key questions for the Government on this issue of workforce. I look forward to a comprehensive response from the Minister, and possibly a date, a season or a hint of when we might at last see that workforce strategy.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a crucial debate, and I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling and speaking to their amendments, which raise fundamental questions about the future of the NHS workforce, the quality of care patients can expect and the Government’s ability to deliver health service reform.

The amendments from my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, go to the heart of a simple but vital question: how can this Government, or indeed any Government, credibly plan for the future of the NHS without an independently verified assessment of the workforce that we need? As my noble friend said, the previous Conservative Government, albeit belatedly, recognised the importance of this challenge when we published the first NHS Long Term Workforce Plan in 2023. This was a baseline step in establishing a long-term approach to workforce planning, with clear ambitions to expand domestic training, improve retention and reduce our reliance on international recruitment.

We recognised then, as we must recognise now, that workforce planning cannot be conducted from one spending review to the next. Training doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals takes years, and decisions made today will determine the quality and availability of care for patients a decade, or decades, from now. Yet we are still waiting, as other noble Lords said, for the Government’s new 10-year workforce plan. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, offered some possible reasons for the delay.

National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Debate between Lord Kamall and Baroness Pidgeon

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and her team for the thoroughness and compassion with which they have conducted this important investigation. Above all, our thoughts must be and are with the women, babies and families whose experiences lie at the heart of this report. Many have had to revisit the most painful moments of their lives when some want to simply move on. But after years of fighting, they must be heard. Their courage, dignity, determination and persistence place a responsibility on all of us in this House. We owe it to them not simply to listen, but to ensure that their experiences finally lead to lasting change.

Only last week the House considered Donna Ockenden’s devastating findings in Nottingham. Here, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, presents us with a wider national picture. Once again, we see the same troubling themes emerge—women whose concerns were dismissed, staff who felt unable to speak up, inequalities that remained unchallenged, and organisations that failed to learn from previous mistakes. As Donna Ockenden herself observed, much of what is contained in this report is sadly already known to us, as it was to Governments of all political colours in previous years. That is perhaps the most disturbing and sobering conclusion of all.

The challenge before us is no longer one of evidence. We have had inquiry after inquiry, report after report and recommendation after recommendation. The challenge now is implementation. Families have every right to expect that this report will become the catalyst for sustained improvement across maternity and neonatal services. I am sure that all noble Lords welcome the fact that work is beginning immediately in a number of critical areas, including maternity triage, tackling discrimination, strengthening staffing and addressing urgent estate risks. It is right that today’s expectant mothers be given assurance and reassurance about what will change immediately, not only at the end of the year when the wider plan is due.

A few outstanding questions arise from the Statement. First, can the Minister update the House on the timetable for the Leeds and Sussex reviews? How will the Government ensure that concerns which have already been identified in those services are acted on before these reviews conclude? Secondly, it is welcome that the Secretary of State will publish the new maternity triage standards next week, but by when does the Minister expect every NHS trust to have implemented these standards and will Parliament receive regular updates on trust-by-trust progress so that families can see that improvements are generally being delivered? Thirdly, the Government propose establishing a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner. Can the Minister explain what powers the commissioner will have to hold trusts, regulators and national bodies to account? How will local leaders remain accountable for the safety of the services that they are supposed to oversee?

The additional midwifery posts announced today are also welcome, but the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, like those before it, identifies workforce pressures as a fundamental challenge to safe maternity care. Do the Government intend to address this issue immediately, or will we have to wait for the long-awaited workforce plan? If it is the latter, can the Minister update the House on when it will be published and whether it will specifically address maternity and neonatal services? I can understand her perhaps raising an eyebrow here, as she rightly and persistently challenged me on this when I was a Minister in her place.

Since the report’s publication, concerns have been raised by Dr Bill Kirkup about the removal of references to so-called normal birth ideology from the final report. Previous maternity inquiries have identified this as a contributory factor. It would not be fair of me to ask for comment on the editorial process, but can the Minister reassure the House that all relevant evidence—including from Morecambe Bay, which found that midwives were pursuing normal birth at any cost—will be fully considered?

Finally, the Secretary of State is right that culture lies at the heart of this challenge. Often, while policy changes and restructures are visible, it can be more difficult to bring about cultural change. Where the Government act with the urgency that this report demands, they will have our support. However, women and families will judge today’s Statement not by new structures, new titles or another report, but by what happens when a woman says that something is wrong. Is she heard? Are warning signs acted on? Is help from senior colleagues available when needed? Are maternity units safely staffed and can staff speak up without fear? Do families receive honesty and compassion when harm occurs? Above all, are we reducing the number of mothers and babies coming to harm?

Families have told their stories. The evidence is clear. We will support and, where appropriate, challenge the Government and the NHS as they seek to bring about this much-needed change. The Minister in the other place has made a good start, and we hope to see further progress.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is another week and another traumatic and difficult-to-read report about the state of maternity services. Behind it are thousands and thousands of women and families deeply affected by these service failures. I thank them all for their contributions to this report, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.

Women are not being listened to, heard or believed, with serious consequences for safety and quality of care. Racism and discrimination are embedded throughout the maternity and neonatal system. Services are not responsive to the changing profile of women giving birth and the increase in medical interventions during birth. Antenatal, birth and labour, neonatal and postnatal services are just not joined up. From Somerset to Blackpool, the safety of having a baby has become a lottery. Women are silenced and staff who raise the alarm on unsafe care or systemic discrimination are crushed by a culture of fear. We need to see genuine accountability throughout the NHS and the investment necessary to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a national maternity commissioner, but can the Minister confirm that this post will go to an independent expert and not a political appointee? Will the Minister reassure us that action will be taken before December, rather than waiting for the taskforce to report on its plans? Will the Government guarantee safe staffing at all hours in every maternity ward in the country, so that no woman has to give birth in an unsafe unit?

This inquiry has, once again, raised the issue of poor bereavement support across the NHS after pregnancy or baby loss. The national bereavement care pathway seeks to resolve this by ensuring high-quality and consistent bereavement care across the UK. The trauma of baby death and pregnancy loss can last a lifetime. Parents’ memories of the care they receive at that moment will stay with them for ever. Good bereavement care can help parents and families navigate their bereavement journey, while poor care can just add to the trauma of loss.

The first moments after a baby dies can be the only opportunity parents have to make memories with their baby, and there is only once chance to get this right. After a baby dies, parents often face really tough decisions, and they cannot make informed decisions about their baby without clear and compassionate communication from healthcare professionals. I therefore ask: will the Government roll out all five national bereavement care pathways, including for miscarriage, and actively monitor implementation across the health system? Will they ensure that suitable bereavement rooms are available in all trusts, not as a “nice to have” but as part of dignified trauma-informed care? This would be a step change for so many families.

There is so much more I could say on a topic that has shocked us all. All families, wherever they live and whatever their ethnicity, must be supported to have their babies safely. This has clearly not been the case for too many years. This is the point where things must change, and I really look forward to the Minister’s response.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Debate between Lord Kamall and Baroness Pidgeon

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement on the report, which raises many troubling issues. I add my thanks to Donna Ockenden and her team for their extraordinary work in conducting what has been the largest review of maternity services in the history of our NHS. Our thoughts are with the thousands of mothers, babies, fathers, partners and families whose experience lies behind this report. It is only because of their courage and determination that these failures have finally been brought to light.

When, in the past, I have spoken to families who feel that they have lost a relative or friend due to medical negligence, they often say to me that they are reluctant to pursue justice, since it adds to their grief. They also point out that they often face hostility for raising concerns, as they are seen to be criticising the NHS. This is a terrible indictment. No organisation, including the NHS—perhaps especially the NHS—should be above criticism. The findings expose years of failures in leadership, governance and culture, not just a few isolated cases of clinical failure. Women were not listened to, families were dismissed, and staff were unable to raise concerns in an environment where bullying and intimidation were embedded. Most disturbing of all, the report noted that evidence of these failings already existed, yet action was repeatedly delayed or avoided.

However, we on these Benches wish to be constructive in our response, since maternity safety has challenged Governments of all political persuasions. Will the Government and the healthcare system introduce measures that genuinely improve safety and strengthen accountability, and will they listen to women and families? If so, they will have our support. But the real test will be whether the report leads to meaningful and lasting change across every maternity service in England, because, regrettably, many of the report’s conclusions are not new. Previous inquiries in Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury, Telford and East Kent identified many of the same underlying themes: women not being listened to, poor communication, inadequate staffing and weak governance. This report must become the point at which recommendations are accepted and demonstrably delivered.

I have four questions for the Minister. First, can she outline whether the national implementation plan will include clear milestones and regular public reporting, so that Parliament, families and clinicians can judge whether progress is being made? Secondly, how will boards be held accountable for creating an environment and a culture in which openness and patient safety genuinely come first? Thirdly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that maternity services have the workforce training and leadership they need to provide safe care? I understand that the former Secretary of State felt that there should be more of a focus on technology than recruitment. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but can the Minister explain how this would work in maternity care?

I also welcome the Government’s recognition of the distressing findings on mortuary services. The treatment described in the report represents a lack of dignity and compassion towards bereaved families. The actions announced are important and I look forward to the Minister reassuring the House that the lessons from these failings will be embedded across the NHS and not just confined to Nottingham.

Fourthly, the Minister will be aware that Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, is increasingly frustrated that, having proposed a system for redress and compensation for those poor victims of valproate and pelvic mesh, there has still been no movement from the Government. Can the Minister update us on that?

No woman’s experience of pregnancy or childbirth should be determined by their ethnicity, background, language or confidence in navigating the healthcare system. This report highlights clear disparities. The evidence of racism and discrimination identified in the review is deeply concerning and underlines the importance of ensuring that every woman receives safe, personalised and compassionate care. This is not asking for special treatment for anyone; it is about making sure that patients of all backgrounds are treated equally.

Trust in our maternity services will not be rebuilt through apologies alone. It will be rebuilt when women know that they will be listened to, when families see concerns acted upon rather than dismissed, when staff are empowered to speak up without fear, when boards are judged by the safety they deliver and when Parliament sees clear evidence that today’s commitments have become tomorrow’s reality.

The families of Nottingham and other maternity scandals have carried this burden for far too long. They should never have had to fight so hard simply to be heard over many years. They now deserve our determination that this report marks a genuine turning point, and, if the Government achieve that, they will have the support of all Benches. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement before us today from the Secretary of State in the other place is distressing reading, as is the report by Donna Ockenden. This review shocks us all to the core and must shake the Government into real action at every level of our health service and its regulation. Staff concerns were dismissed, a board did nothing and regulators failed in their duties. There was a simple refusal to listen to women and their families, causing such loss, trauma, negligence and damage, alongside bullying, organisational failures and the horrendous misplacing of bodies. Words just cannot express this horror. What brave and resilient families to keep fighting for justice; I thank them all.

I heard the deeply moving testimony at the press conference last week about the mental health legacy for bereaved parents. One explained how she had lost all trust in the NHS and had the constant, triggering experience of having to engage in her daily life with the organisation she holds responsible for the loss of her baby. It is hard to imagine.

This review, and the upcoming wider review from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, must draw the line. This has to stop. Mothers, babies, children and families must have confidence that they will be provided with first-class maternity services, wherever they live in our country. There must be quality services that meet their needs whatever their age or background, with respect and dignity at the heart.

I welcome the taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State. It will be crucial to ensuring the implementation of recommendations at every trust and to ensure that whistleblowing throughout the NHS works. An independent patient voice must remain part of our health service to help hold NHS trusts to account. We will revisit this point with the NHS Bill later this year.

I understand that, in 2018, over 50 members of staff wrote to the chair of Nottingham’s board, stating plainly that there were significant safety concerns. The letter was not even discussed by the board—it went to a sub-committee and was buried. In 2023, the chief executive found that the trust had never formally investigated staff shortages. I cannot get my head around this, as someone who has sat on many different boards over the years. This is not good practice. I therefore ask the Minister what urgent work the Government are undertaking to assess the competence of NHS trust boards. What changes may take place to strengthen them and to ensure that they carry out their serious role and responsibilities thoroughly and robustly?

The Government must also take action to strengthen whistleblowing powers in the NHS. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place have tabled amendments to the Health Bill which would provide new powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health failings. Will the Government look to support those amendments to strengthen whistleblowing in the NHS?

Finally, families need to have confidence in their local maternity services, and those services need to all be at the highest standard. Will the Government commit to a maternity rescue package to deliver this, including one-to-one midwifery care for every woman in labour and consultant obstetricians present 24/7 on every labour ward?

A big step change is needed to transform maternity services across the country that every family and every individual can have confidence in. I look forward to the Minister's response.