Domestic Abuse: General Practitioner Charges

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord O'Shaughnessy
Thursday 15th November 2018

(5 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - -

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the general practitioner contract negotiations for 2019–20 to end charges for the provision of evidence of domestic abuse.

Lord O'Shaughnessy Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Department of Health and Social Care has put this important issue forward as part of the general practice contract negotiations for 2019-20. While the progress of those negotiations is not discussed publicly until an agreement has been reached, I can reassure the House that the Government are committed to dealing with this issue.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, survivors often need to provide evidence of abuse when applying for legal aid and for anonymous registration, and a letter from a GP is an acceptable form of evidence. GPs are able to charge survivors for this letter—in some cases over £150—and this is unacceptable. Can the Minister confirm, without question, that it is the official position of the Government to stop charges for these letters being made and that, either through the current negotiations or legislation, these fees will be banned?

Lord O'Shaughnessy Portrait Lord O'Shaughnessy
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree with the noble Lord. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of these letters being charged for. They have been identified by the Ministry of Justice and MHCLG as barriers to accessing support for victims of domestic violence. That cannot be right, and we are seeking to end that situation. GPs are independent contractors and therefore have that freedom unless it is specifically prohibited in their contracts, and that is what we are seeking.

Grenfell Tower: Toxins

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord O'Shaughnessy
Monday 15th October 2018

(5 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

Lord O'Shaughnessy Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, human biomonitoring—the measurement of chemicals in biological tissue such as blood or saliva—cannot be used to determine whether those who were exposed to contaminants in the incident 16 months ago suffered any damage. That is because results from this type of analysis provide information on total exposure over many years which could be influenced by a multitude of factors not related to a specific period of exposure. In addition, there would not be a baseline—that is, results prior to the fire—against which to compare new results. Consequently, Public Health England does not recommend human biomonitoring in this scenario, although other environmental monitoring continues to take place.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - -

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is true that Professor Anna Stec, a world-leading expert on toxicology, has privately urged Public Health England and the Department of Health to organise a range of tests to ensure that any potential health risks can be properly assessed and that Public Health England has decided not to do that until receipt of Professor Stec’s report some time next year? Is he also aware of reports of what is being called the “Grenfell cough”, which Professor Stec has said seems to indicate a high level of atmospheric contaminants?

Lord O'Shaughnessy Portrait Lord O'Shaughnessy
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Government are of course very concerned about all the consequences for mental and physical health that may result from the Grenfell fire. As the noble Lord will know, there has been a huge concerted effort to try to ameliorate those.

The noble Lord asked about environmental monitoring. Since summer 2017, monitoring has been ongoing, with weekly reports published by the London Air Quality Network, which is operated by King’s College London and is, therefore, at arm’s length from government. The reports provide information on the levels of particulates, asbestos and other contaminants in the air. The London Air Quality Network has found no evidence that the levels are above average for London, but monitoring continues. Public Health England is in discussions with the local authority and the local NHS trust to make sure that any signs of public health threats, from whichever area they emerge, are looked into seriously. However, we have not yet had those findings from the professor, and Public Health England is very keen to see that information as soon as possible.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord O'Shaughnessy
Monday 18th April 2016

(7 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord O'Shaughnessy Portrait Lord O'Shaughnessy
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I was not intending to get involved in this debate but the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, spotted me slinking out. Having been singled out, I will respond briefly. Unfortunately my notes have been whisked away, but my point was that there is a certain set of assets—council and social homes—and we all think the number of them should be increased. But we have to think about the distribution of those assets to the most needy households. That is a reasonable principle on which to found a welfare state. If a tenant is about to leave after a short tenancy they are, by definition, in less need than somebody who is on a waiting list.

Secondly, I checked the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the response to it stated:

“Local authorities do not receive subsidy from the Exchequer”.

That is a very important distinction. The new houses are being funded not by a grant from the Exchequer but by revenue from other council and social homes, coming via local authorities. I consider this to be public money. So again it is a question about the distribution of public money and how the asset that has been created is used for the benefit of the neediest.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - -

We may need to carry this on outside the Chamber. That is not a taxpayer subsidy: the money is coming from local authorities.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord O'Shaughnessy
Tuesday 8th March 2016

(8 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - -

On that point, I am a member of a planning committee. Most of the planning matters go through under delegated powers; very little comes through committees now. I do not see this delay.

Lord O'Shaughnessy Portrait Lord O'Shaughnessy
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I knew that I would run into trouble when I mentioned planning and local authorities, given how many noble Lords represent, or have represented, local authorities. Page 21 of the impact assessment states:

“In June 2015, 68% of respondents in the quarterly survey of homebuilders, conducted by the Home Builders Federation—

which, obviously, may have a dog in the fight—

“considered planning delays a major constraint”.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark
- Hansard - -

I thank the noble Lord for that. I can see that we are not going to agree on this because I just do not see the delays that he referred to. This is an issue for regional planning committees and planning departments. Certainly, in Lewisham many plots of land have multiple planning permissions but they are not being built on. That is the problem.