Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, let me say clearly at the outset that I am reluctantly in favour of the national lockdown. The pandemic is serious and we need to protect the lives of vulnerable people by following the advice to stay at home when we can, and otherwise to follow the advice on safe distancing, clean hands and face masks. However, that is at a huge cost. It will take years to recover economically, and many will bear the social and emotional scars for a similar period.

I cannot let this moment pass without joining those who are saying that government inaction has made those impacts a whole lot worse. For example, SAGE member and UCL professor of epidemiology Andrew Hayward said about SAGE’s recommendation of 40 days ago:

“We can’t turn back the clock, but I think if we had chosen a two-week circuit break at that time we would definitely have saved thousands of lives.”


He went on to say that an earlier short circuit break,

“would clearly have inflicted substantially less damage on our economy than the proposed four-week lockdown will do.”

The Government should be ashamed and apologise to Sir Keir Starmer MP, the leader of the Opposition, for the attacks that they made on him when he made the right call on a national lockdown after the SAGE advice, which would have saved lives and jobs.

I turn to my main point about children. I am pleased that schools remain open. Children need not only to learn but to socialise and play. We should collectively thank the nation’s teachers for putting themselves at risk by continuing to work in difficult circumstances and with limited testing and support services to assist them. Without teachers’ professionalism, the economic and social scarring of this pandemic would be much worse. However, I ask the Minister, please come back with a slight change to these regulations to allow children to continue to play together safely. Play is an essential part of childhood. Pupils can play together in their bubbles when at school but not with those same children after school, at weekends and in holidays. To parents, that makes no sense. Why cannot children play with others from their same school bubble out of school? That would help hugely their mental health and that of their parents, at negligible additional infection risk.

These regulations are too late but necessary. The Government need to do more, where they can, to allow us the freedom to safeguard our mental health in lockdown. Letting children play is one way in which they could help.

Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 26th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the Bill and the way that it was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, with appropriate detail and clarity, and the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Like them, I agree that it is important to give the authority of a statutory footing to the National Data Guardian, Dame Fiona Caldicott.

I remind your Lordships of my interests in respect of my part-ownership and administration of a company called xRapid. Without wanting to go into any kind of long advert for its technology, it demonstrates why I am excited by health technology. This particular technology uses an Apple iPhone attached to a microscope to allow diagnostics, such as of malaria. It works in the same way that a laboratory technician does: it recognises what it sees through a microscope and gives a diagnosis. To be able to do that the computer has to be trained, which is done by it looking at a series of images so that it can learn what the parasites look like. That is health data which has to be collected in order for the machine to be trained. But I see the huge social benefit of that technology—in the end, of that data being used—to provide much cheaper and much more accessible and affordable access to diagnostics around the world.

I have huge excitement around the potential for machine learning and other artificial intelligence to be able to spread some significant health benefits. I want that excitement to build and for others to share it but I am also aware of the worries that people have about the privacy of their data. I share those worries, especially about the inferences that can be drawn from data when it may not have been collected for a specific health purpose, as in this case, but is then mashed with data that has been collected with consent for health-related purposes. Inferences and intelligence are then drawn from what is found and analysed.

I was supportive of the Data Protection Act, as it now is, but at the time of its passing I also pointed out the limitations as I saw them, in that it is a consent-based regime. It is very difficult to give consent about information if I do not know that you have it, because you have inferred it from analysing various sources of data that I might not know about. That is why I have previously talked in this House about the need for us to explore mechanisms such as data trusts and a statutory duty of care on technology companies, similar to the duty of care that they have in the physical world in respect of environmental protection or health and safety. In that way, they can then be held to account in a more general way for how the technology is used for social good.

Those concerns are good reasons for our needing a National Data Guardian in respect of health. I had some initial concerns about how that guardian would relate to the regulators but as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, in her speech I am satisfied that there would be a reasonable relationship—one whereby the National Data Guardian issues guidance, and the trusts and other health bodies would adhere to that guidance. If they did not, then it might be referred to the regulator.

I also remind the House of my interest as one of the chief officers at Tes Global, a large education business. I guess that my only question—if the Minister is in a position to answer questions when he responds—would be around the remit of the National Data Guardian. At Tes, we hold all sorts of data on teachers’ behaviour but we do not really hold any for children. I understand from my relationship with education the particular sensitivities that we have around the collection of children’s data: how it is held, who it is shared with and what happens when there are data breaches in respect of children. I am aware that there are 25,000 schools in this country collecting data on a systematic basis, many of which are led by people who are struggling to understand their obligations under the Data Protection Act and GDPR. I think that they would welcome guidance from a National Data Guardian, if such a person had a remit that extended to children and vulnerable adults. If the Minister were able to give any thoughts on it, has any consideration been given to extending the role of the National Data Guardian or finding another body that could perform a similar function in respect of children and vulnerable adults’ data as a whole?

I very much welcome the Bill and hope that it proceeds quickly, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. We should get this on to the statute book quickly so that these protections can be put in place and it becomes part of a range of what has to be ever evolving legislation where we, as policymakers and legislators, are continuously keeping an eye on an ever evolving technological landscape. That will allow us to live in a society which can realise the excitement that I have around health technology and other social technologies, with the confidence of knowing that our rights as individuals in respect of the privacy of our data are being maintained.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

267D: After Clause 97, insert the following new Clause—
“Parental bereavement leave
In the Employment Rights Act 1996, after section 57A there is inserted—“57AA Parental bereavement leave
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee who satisfies specified conditions—
(a) as to duration of employment, and(b) as to relationship with a child,to be absent from work on leave under this section in consequence of the death of a child.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall secure that, where an employee has a right to leave under this section, he or she is entitled to a leave period of at least 2 weeks.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall secure that an employee who exercises his or her right under subsection (1)—
(a) is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as may be prescribed, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied if he or she had not been absent,(b) is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as may be prescribed, by any obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1)), and(c) is entitled to return from leave to a job of a prescribed kind.(4) In subsection (3)(a) “terms and conditions of employment” includes—
(a) matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under his or her contract of employment; and(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.””

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 267D, which would add a new clause after Clause 97, is about parental bereavement leave. The amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave as a consequence of the death of their child.

It may come as a surprise to many that there is no statutory entitlement to such bereavement leave, but that is the reality. The other elements of the proposed new clause are there for your Lordships to read. The current legal position, for those who do not know it, is that at present parents may be entitled to time off for dependants—there is a legal right to unpaid leave to cope with family emergencies, to which some reference has been made. There is no upper limit to the amount of time specified. It should be “reasonable” and should be only the amount that is sufficient to deal with the situation. The government guidance says:

“There is no set amount of time allowed to deal with an unexpected event involving a dependant—it will vary depending on what the event is … In most cases, one or two days should be sufficient to deal with the problem”.

Clearly the bereavement of a child is a problem that would need more than one or two days. Everyone’s grief is different, so quantifying this is slightly challenging, but I contend that we need to give everyone some certainty that they are entitled to a minimum amount of leave on a paid basis. In my mind, that is two weeks, which I will talk about in a moment.

Having said all that, I also want to pay tribute to Lucy Herd, who I first met two and a half years ago when recording an edition of “The Politics Show” in the BBC’s Southampton studio—occasionally, appearing on these shows does some good. Lucy, who I talked about in my contribution at Second Reading, suffered the loss of her child, Jack, in an accident in the garden. He drowned in their garden pond. Her husband, who at the time was in Australia, was given the opportunity to fly back. Obviously it takes a while to fly from Australia to Cumbria, but he was not able to stay around for very long because his employer needed him back at work within a week. As a result of that experience, Lucy started campaigning, supported by the Lullaby Trust, Bliss, Cruse, Child Bereavement UK, the Childhood Bereavement Network and others. She has discovered that hers is not an isolated example of people suffering from unsympathetic employers. I think the vast majority of employers are reasonable, but clearly there are examples where some are not. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting Lucy last month to discuss this, and to my noble friend Lord Stevenson for accompanying her. Unfortunately, because of my caring responsibilities—I listened to the debate on the previous amendment with care—I was not able to attend.

Recently, in the course of her campaign, Lucy put up a petition on the Change.org site. I looked through the comments that people are allowed to leave as they sign these petitions. There are many moving comments, two of which really stood out as examples that demonstrate that this is not an isolated case. The first was from Karen from Birmingham, who said:

“I got only 6 days compassionate leave when my 6 year old daughter died. A day for every year she lived. Disgusting! And that was the ‘caring’ NHS!”.

The NHS was her employer. Also from Birmingham was Ian, who said:

“I lost my daughter Megan on the 13th September 2010. She had a brain tumour. The work (the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham) gave me 6 days companionate leave which was good I thought then told me to go off sick until my grieving eased. When I returned 4 weeks later I was called to a meeting with my manager and the personnel department and given a written notice for being off after my daughter’s death”.

That is how in some cases the NHS might treat people who are suffering in this circumstance.

I contend that this is not an isolated case. I was pleased today, following Prime Minister’s Questions in the other place, to hear that this was raised by Tom Harris MP, who asked the Prime Minister whether or not he would commit to amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to at last give British parents the legal right, and the time, to grieve. I was pleased at the Prime Minister’s response:

“The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I am happy to look at that, having suffered that experience myself. As a Member of Parliament, it is possible to take a little bit of time to stand back and come to terms with what has happened, because colleagues and the people who help us are ready to step in and do what they can. He has raised an important point; let me look at it and get back to him”.

So the Prime Minister gives us some encouragement. As I understand it, he took two weeks’ bereavement leave. In informal conversations, the CBI, which does not have a formal policy on this, has suggested that two weeks’ paid leave might be reasonable.

Bliss, the charity that campaigns,

“for babies born too soon, too small, too sick”,

as its strapline says, has also been in touch and is strongly supportive of this amendment. Many people think that for children who are stillborn, who die in a cot death or who die early on in their lives, maternity leave can be used, so that this is not such an issue. Bliss has said to me that there are emotional reasons why parents might feel more comfortable taking bereavement leave rather than maternity or paternity leave, because it is a focused recognition of their loss. Removed from the emotional associations of parental leave without a child, they can feel more able to take the leave that they need. Ensuring that they are entitled to bereavement leave would also help them, when dealing with employers and other outside agencies, to be clear about their situation and ensure that they get the appropriate support. Although Bliss has sent me some bad examples, it has also sent me some very good examples of how employers can work sympathetically with people who have been through this extraordinary trauma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

My Lords, I shall be very brief because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, should be speaking elsewhere at this minute, I believe.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

No, I am fine.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland]

I support the amendment. I work with an organisation for children who are born with half a heart. Some of them therefore die but, luckily, more live now than did in the past. The variety of responses from employers to those bereaved families is extraordinary; I shall not go into examples because of the timeframe. The Minister might well say that we need a change in culture, as indeed we do, but one way of achieving that is by having something like this on the statute book. I therefore support the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this brief debate, and to the Minister for the sensitive way in which he has responded. We can all agree on what we think employers should do. We can agree that employers should have a policy so that, if these tragic things were to happen to a member of staff, they would have tried to anticipate how best to deal with it. We can agree that parents are best placed to make some of those judgments for themselves. However, “reasonable” has a very wide interpretation. We should use this opportunity to narrow that interpretation. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for announcing that he will bring forward concrete proposals about a timetable on Report. We shall certainly return to this issue then, in part to allow him to do so. In the mean time, if he wants to work with me on his own amendment then I would certainly wish to do that.

I remind him that this amendment seeks to give him powers. He could then use his mechanism of a concrete proposal and a timetable to work out how he should consult best to use those powers. Between now and Report, working with my friend Tom Harris in the other place, we shall liaise with the Prime Minister’s office to see how he reflects on this issue. I hope that we can come away with as happy a result out of these sorts of tragic circumstances as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 267D withdrawn.

Department of Health: Arm’s-length Bodies

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the cost of organisational changes required to implement the proposals to reform the Department of Health’s non-departmental public bodies; and whether the cost will be allocated to that department’s budget.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the Government have announced that administration costs will reduce by a third in real terms across the health sector. This will impact on the Department of Health’s arm’s-length bodies. Currently, we cannot determine the exact costs, as they will be affected by how the reduction is distributed across the health sector and how much is met by levels of natural wastage. The department’s spending review settlement will meet these costs.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I thank the noble Earl for that reply. He will, I am sure, have listened carefully to the debate last week on the Public Bodies Bill. He will have heard half a dozen of your Lordships raise concerns about two health bodies in particular—the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Both have the schedule of Damocles hanging over them; both need independence and sensitivity; and both cost the public purse very little. Will the noble Earl now follow the precedent set by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, when she announced during Questions last Thursday that Ofcom will not be scrapped and was being pulled from Schedule 7. Will he do the same for the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we will obviously have an opportunity to debate these matters in Committee on the Public Bodies Bill, but I would just make a couple of general points. There are clear synergies between some of the functions performed by the HFEA, the HTA and the Care Quality Commission—they all license treatment. In addition, there is significant read-across to the potential scope of a new research regulator. All political parties at the election were agreed that we have too many of these bodies—too many quangos—and we have to reduce the cost of administration across government as a whole. We can debate at greater length the merits, and perhaps demerits, of the Government’s proposals. I look forward to that debate.