Covid-19 Update

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, what signal does the Minister think it sends to the world about doing the right thing when the consequence of South Africa’s excellent science and exemplary transparency is a total flight ban, with potentially devastating consequences for its economy and that of the region, with no apparent mitigating support package from the rich world? What conversations can he have with his friends in the Treasury so that they act to give some support to South Africa and the region?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a valuable point: we should pay tribute to the openness of the South African Government, in real comparison with the openness of the Chinese Government at the beginning of the whole pandemic. It is clear that they have been transparent. It is important to recognise that one of the things about the WHO is that it relies on experts in certain countries to report early signs. I will have a conversation internally and see what can be done; otherwise, it almost acts as a disincentive to report to the WHO. We have to make sure we are not disincentivising others who may wish to report similar cases in future.

Covid-19 Update

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s expertise on mask specification is well known in the Chamber and I bow to his greater knowledge on this. Of course, healthcare workers, social care workers and anyone exposed to those known to be carrying coronavirus should have entirely appropriate and significant protection. I do not know the precise mask numbers, but I would be glad to write to the noble Lord to confirm the current guidelines.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that the comments he just made about the effectiveness of masks are not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense? Will he withdraw them?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I do not accept that at all. The noble Lord does this debate no favours by using that kind of language. The argument I make is extremely reasonable. It is supported by the Chief Medical Officer and the other scientific advisers we have in government. I would like to ask the noble Lord to reflect on the manner of that question.

Covid-19: One Year Report

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of H&O Communications. I remember thinking, immediately before speaking on the debate on the Coronavirus Bill last year, that for the first time since the end of the coalition in 2015 I was heartily glad that I was not in government any more. The scale of the challenges that the Government faced were almost overwhelming. They had to tackle not only a public health emergency unprecedented in our lifetime but a national and international economic crisis as well. Inevitably, the Government made mistakes—any Government would have done—but they also got some things right, most notably the vaccine programme and the rapid deployment of fiscal firepower into the economy to protect employment and businesses. There were some significant gaps, which I will come to later, but overall the Chancellor acted boldly and decisively at a crucial moment and he should be commended for that.

In other areas, the Government’s performance proved to be less impressive. My principal complaint is not about the mistakes that were initially made—as I said, any Government would have made mistakes, even if they were different ones—but about their failure to learn from them. In the debate on the Bill last year, along with other Peers, I raised the position of the self-employed who were facing severe financial hardship. I welcome the fact that the Government subsequently created the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, but it excluded huge numbers of people, as my noble friend Lady Brinton underlined. Most notably, it excluded all self-employed people who trade through a limited company, any who had not traded through two tax years, which particularly impacted young people, and any who had had profits of over £50,000 in one of those previous tax years, even if their business could no longer be carried on at all because of coronavirus restrictions. Despite repeated appeals, the Government refused to listen and provide relief, leaving without support millions who had operated absolutely properly under all the tax and company law rules that exist. If the Government think that those rules are not right, they should change them. They should not penalise the people who followed them.

Another area where the Government refused to listen was protecting people who were required to isolate under the coronavirus rules from loss of earnings. This was not only damaging to the people impacted, particularly the self-employed; it fatally undermined public health. In the absence of proper provision, many inevitably went out to work, despite a positive test, or avoided being tested at all. There can have been few more penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions taken by the Government, because the impact of the virus spreading was further catastrophic damage to the economy. More importantly even than that, an unquantifiable number of people almost certainly and unnecessarily lost their lives as a result.

As I said at the outset, my criticism is not that mistakes were made. It is that the huge amount of good will and cross-party support that existed for the Government at the start of the pandemic was squandered. Hubris rather than humility became the dominant theme, and, in that hubris, the Government failed to listen to others. As a result, instead of correcting initial and understandable mistakes, they persisted in repeating them.

Last year, we granted the Government extraordinary powers, which we would not have dreamed of doing in any other circumstance. In return, we expected them to be used with great care and in the spirit of cross-party unity in which they were granted. That did not prove the case. Instead, advice went unheeded, cronies were rewarded, and the Government’s public health messaging was fatally undermined at Barnard Castle and buried in the Downing Street garden by a special adviser consumed with self-regard and dripping with “The rules are not for me” arrogance.

A Government who respected the spirit of unity, which the Minister referred to in his opening remarks and which allowed the Bill to pass so rapidly into law last year, would have returned this year with a replacement. It would have been proportionate to the situation we currently face, compared to the emergency we encountered last year, and it would have removed the obnoxious powers that have so damaged civil liberties. This time last year I swallowed hard, put my trust in government and voted for draconian legislation in the face of the emergency. That we are back here a year later with a contemptuous take-note Motion, which prevents us making any of the many necessary amendments to the legislation, underlines the extent to which the Government have betrayed that trust. They will not have it again.

Covid-19

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I completely endorse my noble friend’s comments. I am personally extremely committed to travelling. I would fight for the right to travel and I believe in its value. I am extremely grateful to the airports, the airlines, the hospitality industry and all those involved in travel for the huge contribution they have made to the sum of human wealth and experience. It is heartbreaking that we are having to bring in these measures and it is done with huge regret. The cost and implications for the businesses and employees involved is extremely harsh, and we regret it enormously. It is simply a fact of the fight against this pandemic that it is necessary. I cannot confirm for sure that details of a timetable for airlines will be in the schedule in the week of 22 February, but I assure my noble friend that we are in constant touch with both airlines and airports. Their arguments to us are extremely well made and their plight is understood and sympathised with, and when the time is right we will do everything we can to support the travel industry in getting back to where it once was.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

The Minister told the House in his earlier response to the Front Benches that there was no point in securing our borders before the new variants emerged. Was that not exactly when we should have closed the borders in order to prevent the new variants arriving in our country, rather than shutting them once they had? Why did he suggest that the new variants were unexpected when, as I understand it, mutations were always highly likely, if not inevitable?

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

The virus mutates all the time and minute variations have happened from the very beginning. However, this virus has been unusual in not having profound mutations; it had not changed its seriousness, its transmissibility or its escapology in a meaningful way until the end of last year. Those were not—how shall I put it?—completely unexpected, but they had not been identified before. When they were identified, we changed our tactics, our strategy and our approach. Our determination to keep out variants of concern is manifested in these proposals, and we have moved extremely swiftly to enforce border control as the threat has mounted.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, at the outset of the pandemic in Europe, medics from south-east Asia, who had the most experience of the virus and consequently the best understanding of it, made it crystal clear that the wearing of face masks, while no panacea, was one of a number of important measures in combating it and in making people less vulnerable to other seasonal viruses such as the flu. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, set out comprehensively how cloth masks in particular can be highly effective as part of a wider approach. She also made an important point about the reduced effectiveness of disposable masks and the ecological damage that they do. For some reason, at the outset of this pandemic we chose to ignore the advice from south-east Asia, preferring to reinvent the wheel because we somehow thought that we knew better.

At a time when the Government were closing businesses, restricting travel, preventing children and grandchildren seeing their parents and grandparents, and confining people to their homes—the greatest interference in British people’s civil liberties since World War II—for some reason they would not take the simple step of requiring, or even just requesting, that people protect themselves and others by enduring the minor inconvenience of wearing a face mask. It was not until 11 May, nearly two months after the lockdown, that the Government first advised the public to wear face coverings. It was not until 15 June that they were made mandatory on public transport, three months after the lockdown began, and it was not until four months later that they were required in shops, supermarkets and transport hubs—and even later in hospitality venues.

The Government preferred to spend their time focusing on grandiose claims about world-beating apps that never arrived, rather than on adopting and enforcing effective infection control, including masks, and, as the Minister said, handwashing and social distancing. They have only recently started focusing their public messaging on these three basics together—“Hands, Face, Space”—when those should have been there from the outset. It is impossible to know how many lives would have been saved if we had listened to advice from our colleagues in south-east Asia much earlier, but what is unforgivable is that today we still lag way behind in the measures we have taken and the means of enforcement.

The regulations we are discussing, which require face coverings to be worn in taxis and private vehicles, came into force only on 24 September. It is extraordinary that it was not a requirement from the outset. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Emerging data has demonstrated that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers as more likely to be vulnerable to Covid-19”.


I am very surprised that it has taken over six months to arrive at what seems a reasonably self-evident supposition, because of not only the disproportionate number of drivers from more susceptible groups, as referenced in the Explanatory Memorandum, but the confined space in which they operate. I understand that even under these regulations, the requirement is upon passengers and not drivers. This seems an unfathomable policy decision and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain it in his reply.

The second set of regulations, as we have heard, require face coverings in theatres, bars, restaurants and pubs, except when seated. These did not come into force until a day later—not until 24 September. Again, what was the Government’s rationale in applying such a basic public health measure so late in the day after we started to reopen the economy?

Finally, on enforcement, over the past weeks, the penalties for failure to wear a face covering that are displayed at London railway stations, such as the ones I have seen at Waterloo and Clapham Junction, have moved from £100 one week to £3,200 the next and £6,400 the week after that. Who thinks this sort of thing up? Do they not realise that, far from making the public think that the Government are getting a grip, it makes them think that the law is a joke—doubly so, because they can see that enforcement appears almost entirely absent? I know now, although only from reading the regulations, that the £6,400 figure is a maximum for repeated offences. But as far as I am aware, the public are not avid readers of statutory instruments, so they will not know that. They will regard the fine displayed as frankly absurd—as I did when I saw it. As enforcement seems to be most notable for its absence, it is hard to imagine anyone being challenged enough times for the maximum fine ever to be applied, so what is the point? In that context, can the Minister tell us how many fines of £100—the minimum—have actually been issued and what is the maximum fine that has so far been employed?

As the Minister stressed, face coverings are no panacea, and as my noble friend Lord Greaves said, we often do not have the evidence that we would like when making decisions. But if we are going to get ahead of this disease, we are going to have to act much faster. Sometimes we are going to have to use our common sense and act ahead of having all the evidence that we would want. We need to have an enforcement regime that is proportionate and effective, with a verifiable system of exemptions.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Oates Excerpts

Friday 24th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I have four questions for the Minister.

First, why were face coverings not mandated at the same time as the relaxation of these rules or the earlier decision to allow non-essential retail to open? Indeed, why were they not mandated from the outset when the medical advice from south-east Asia, which had the most experience of the pandemic, was that they were a key element in tackling the coronavirus?

Secondly, on 14 July, when the Secretary of State announced that they would become compulsory, he told the House of Commons:

“The death rate of sales and retail assistants is 75% higher among men and 60% higher among women than in the general population.”—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/20; col. 1395.]


Was he aware of those statistics when these regulations, and those allowing shops to open, were being considered? If not, what assessment was made of the risks to staff?

Thirdly, in the light of these shocking figures, can the Minister explain why it has taken 10 days for the mask mandate to come into effect? Finally, what assessment has been made of the number of deaths that could have been avoided if face coverings had been compulsory from the start of lockdown?

Draft Human Tissue (Permitted Material: Exceptions) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest: until recently, I was a non-executive director of NHS Blood and Transplant.

I welcomed the Government’s decision to support the deemed consent Act in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and remain fully supportive of the move to deemed consent. Every year, hundreds of people die while awaiting a transplant, as the Minister said, and hundreds more come off the waiting lists because their health has deteriorated to the extent that they cannot receive a transplant. Anything we can do to reduce those tragic numbers is welcome. Deemed consent is not a panacea, of course, but the evidence from Wales is that, combined with an effective communications plan and, most importantly, a public debate and family conversations, it can mark a profound shift.

The Minister is aware of my concerns about the timing of bringing deemed consent into effect and the impact that it may have on public awareness, so I will not dwell further on this point in the limited time available. However, I hope that he will be able to tell the House what advice and representations his department received on the wisdom, or otherwise, of this decision.

Specifically, I want to ask him about NHSBT’s excellent advertising campaign and the Government’s assessment of its effectiveness in the light of the Covid-19 crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Have the Government considered the impact that the current health crisis may have had on the ability of advertising to cut through? I would also be grateful if the Minister could tell the House why the draft codes of practice were not published online at the same time as the laying of these regulations—a matter highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The Minister will be aware of the immense sensitivities around these issues. It is not good enough for the Government to drop the ball in this way. I am not sure if this is a result of the timing of the regulations, as the DHSC was obviously struggling to address the impending Covid-19 crisis at the time, but we need an explanation from the Minister. Sadly, as he pointed out, the transplant system is unable to work effectively during the Covid-19 crisis, but it is hoped that these life-saving and life-changing operations can resume as soon as possible.

When they do, the Government need to be aware that legislation alone will not meet the demand for transplants. What is required alongside the legislation is adequate resourcing of the transplant apparatus throughout the NHS. This is not a matter that can be delivered by NHSBT alone; it requires a whole-system approach. I hope that the Government take that fully into account. I also hope that the Government recognise the importance of new machine perfusion techniques to make the best use of donated organs, that these techniques will be properly funded, and that British ingenuity and innovation in this regard will be backed.

We also need to ensure that transplant medicine remains an attractive field for new entrants into the medical profession. It can be a tough life, with specialist nurses and transplant and retrieval surgeons on call at all hours—ready to travel often significant distances to retrieve an organ and save a life—and specialist nurses in organ donation playing an unparalleled role in helping grieving families at times of great distress and ensuring that the process works at every level.

I cannot pay sufficient tribute to the dedication of specialist nurses and transplant surgeons and the difference that they make to so many lives. They need to be properly recognised for the amazing job that they do. Most importantly, however, we should recognise organ donors and their families, who give the most precious gift available: the gift of life.

Covid-19: Extent of Infection

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell]

I reassure the noble Lord that testing has been opened up to all care homes. I pay tribute to the CQC, which played a pivotal role in providing access to Britain’s 12,000 care homes in this regard. Mass testing is an option that we are looking at, but I remind the noble Lord that South Korea, where there is an extremely energetic track-and-trace facility, carries out on average 20,000 tests across the country—fewer than we do in Britain on an average day.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, we all understand the immense pressure that the Minister’s department is under, but does he agree that it is unacceptable that capacity is still only at 38,000 tests a day and that much of that very limited capacity is not being used, not least because the testing centres are often in out-of-the-way places that NHS and care staff cannot easily reach? Was an assessment of public transport accessibility made before these centres were chosen, and will the Minister’s department now urgently work with drive-through restaurant chains and other accessible venues to ensure that testing centres are in places that NHS and care staff can easily attend?

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord raises a completely valid point on the accessibility of drive-in centres. They suit some people but not all, as he rightly points out. That is why we have brought in at-home testing arrangements, delivered mainly by Amazon. They started on Monday, and we are very ambitious for both their scale and their scope, particularly for the demographics of which he speaks.

Coronavirus Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard - continued) & 2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

As many noble Lords have noted, this Bill contains unprecedented powers, but we recognise that it comes before us in unprecedented times. Its purpose is to protect the lives of the public and to provide the National Health Service with the best chance of minimising the death toll from this virus. We owe NHS staff, the staff in our care services and all key workers who are working so hard and taking many risks to keep all of us safe, an immeasurable debt of gratitude. Among all the debts that we as a country will run up in tackling this virus, that will remain by far the greatest debt.

I support the Government in bringing forward this Bill. My noble friends and other noble Lords have set out a number of concerns about some of the measures it contains, which I share, in particular covering the duration of the powers and procedures for bringing them to an end, the variants to the social care duties of local authorities which were spoken about so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the changes to sectioning powers, the wide powers to detain people under Schedule 20, the issues around prisoner management, immigration detention, the hostile environment and data sharing. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the important questions which have been raised in these respects on all sides of the House.

Personally, I would have preferred a Bill which was of a much shorter duration—perhaps three months, as my noble friend Lord Scriven suggested—with robust arrangements for scrutiny and review, but which also contained further powers in three specific areas. The first is the powers to regulate the food supply industry, including retailers; secondly, the powers to support the self-employed and to protect renters from eviction; and thirdly, the powers to direct both supply and labour across the economy to ensure that we can meet the urgent demand for critical equipment and, going forward, for the manufacture of a vaccine, when it is discovered—hopefully, in the near future.

At the weekend, an elderly woman asked specifically that I raise with noble Lords her experience of trying to shop for essential food items last week. She went to a dedicated shopping hour for the elderly in a major supermarket in my home town of Surbiton. She had to stand in a long line of people packed close together; the majority of them not elderly. When the shop opened, the staff had no powers to prevent people who were not elderly from entering the store. As a result, she was pushed and jostled in a congested and unsafe environment as she tried to shop. She has a husband at home with underlying medical problems and she is desperate about how she can look after him and keep them both safe.

It is not enough for us all to decry the obvious selfishness and irresponsibility of those who act in this way. What this elderly lady wanted from the Government was not more censorious words but actions to enforce and protect. I therefore hope that the Government will consider introducing powers to direct food retailers and the supply chain to ensure that there are sufficient supplies in the shops, because the actions of some of these people are driven not just by greed but also by fear. They should also allow police or designated council officers to enforce dedicated shopping hours for NHS staff and the elderly and, if required, powers to require controls on the price of goods and the quantity that may be sold to individuals.

Secondly, the Bill needs to provide sufficient statutory authority for the measures that the Chancellor will need to take in the coming days and weeks—in particular, the urgent need to provide support for the self-employed. I raise the specific case of a self-employed neighbour who is working in NHS hospitals constructing the additional wards and isolation partitions needed to expand NHS capacity to deal with the crisis. He is taking risks every day by going into hospitals and yet, when this work is completed, his only recourse will be to the benefit system. That is no way to treat someone who is doing so much to ensure that the NHS is able to cope with the virus.

That is a particularly resonant case but, all over the country, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, highlighted, self-employed people are seeing their livelihoods disappear overnight due to government restrictions. It is right to impose those restrictions, but we must stand by the self-employed who are impacted by them just as the Chancellor stood behind those in employment. The Bill should also contain powers to introduce a rent holiday and impose a moratorium on evictions in the rented sector for rents not paid during this crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned. We cannot have one rule for owner-occupiers and another for renters. That is the way to division, not unity.

Thirdly, the Government need greater powers to direct both supply and labour across the economy to ensure that we can meet the demand for critical equipment, testing kits, personal protection equipment, ventilators and any other equipment needed to fight this virus and protect NHS staff and other frontline workers and volunteers while we do so. Cabinet-level Ministers of supply and labour should be designated to direct this work and, in time, to ensure that we have the manufacturing capacity for the vaccine that we hope will be discovered very soon.

The Bill contains unprecedented powers that in normal circumstances this House would not dream of entertaining. But these are not normal circumstances. Therefore, with a heavy heart, a plea to the Government to shorten the duration of powers in the Bill and to review the procedures for renewal, I support the Bill and commend the hard work and dedication of Ministers and civil servants in assembling it so rapidly. Most importantly, I thank once again all our frontline NHS staff and all key workers who are working to keep us safe.

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill

Lord Oates Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 23rd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking on this Bill, I should first declare my interest as a non-executive director of NHS Blood and Transplant, as set out in the register of Members’ interests.

There are many people who deserve credit for their role in this legislation, but as a number of noble Lords have said, the most profound recognition and honour should perhaps be given to Keira Ball and Max Johnson. Keira, as many noble Lords will know, died tragically at the age of nine in a car accident. During a time of unimaginable grief and shock, and with his wife also seriously injured, Keira’s father agreed to organ donation. Keira saved the lives of four people through that precious gift. One of those patients, as we know, was Max Johnson, who received her heart. His campaign was instrumental in inspiring this Bill that we are debating today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, stated, we also owe a huge debt to Geoffrey Robinson and Dan Jarvis, who introduced the Bill in another place. We also owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has brought this Bill before this House.

As many noble Lords have also recognised, every year hundreds of people continue to die while awaiting a transplant, due to lack of availability of organs. Hundreds more come off the transplant list because their health has deteriorated so greatly that they cannot receive a transplant. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Ribeiro, and other noble Lords are of course absolutely right that the Bill on its own will not change that, but the experience in Wales demonstrates that such a Bill, accompanied by effective communications—and most importantly, a public debate and family conversations—can mark a profound shift. The latest figures from Wales have shown such a shift, and I pay tribute, as other noble Lords have, to my noble friend Lady Randerson for her part in that process.

Already, there has been extensive engagement from the public in England as a result of this Bill being brought forward. Over 17,000 people responded to the public consultation, a figure that is well in excess of normal response rates to government consultations. NHSBT’s ongoing public surveys indicate that over 80% of the UK population supports organ donation. As part of the consultation process, NHSBT also undertook work to seek the views of those who are most closely involved in the donation process: intensive care clinicians; clinical leads for organ donation; and specialist nurses for organ donation. Over 700 responses were received. The results show that over 76% of respondents supported the change in legislation. There are also many people who not only responded to the formal consultation but who have given further help to review and scrutinise the Bill to ensure it achieves its objectives without adverse or unintended consequences. The contribution of the faith communities has also been critical.

So the Bill has the support of the public, it has stakeholder support and it has medical and nursing support, and that support will need to be honoured by doing everything possible to make sure that every family of every single potential donor is approached and, where consent is in place, that every single organ that can be safely transplanted is transplanted. First, there is the importance of the communications strategies and campaigns, which have been spoken about already as having been important in Wales, that can raise awareness of the change in the law and encourage conversations in families, so that people have an understanding of the new legislation and also have reassurance that the decision still lies with the individual. Secondly, there is a need to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to manage the increase in donation and transplant activity. Medical and nursing teams need to be able to keep pace with the anticipated rise. Thirdly, we need to ensure that everything is done to use all organs that are donated.

It is anticipated that the change in legislation will increase the availability of organs from donors after circulatory death, from whom currently fewer organs can be successfully transplanted. Organ usage from these donors can be dramatically increased if the retrieval teams are able to use technologies that preserve the organs. For example, between February 2015 and July 2018, the introduction of machine perfusion for hearts led to 66 additional hearts being available for transplant. Service evaluations for the use of abdominal organ machine perfusion also demonstrate significant increases in the number and quality of organs that can be donated. Using these new technologies will help ensure that no potential for a safe transplanted organ is missed.

The fourth and final approach needed to deliver successful change is to continue to publicly recognise and celebrate organ donors in the way that a number of noble Lords have already mentioned. Organ donation is the last, greatest gift that anyone could possibly give. It is giving the gift of life and it must continue to be celebrated, even when this Bill is passed.

During the debate over the proposed changes to the law, a number of important issues have been raised by the public and a variety of stakeholders, particularly around family and faith. The public and stakeholders have been very clear that it is vital that the family should continue to be involved in discussions regarding organ donation after a change in the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made clear, that must, and will, always remain the case. The next of kin of potential donors will always be approached prior to donation. If the family is not present when the patient first enters hospital, the NHS goes to great lengths to find them. That starts when the ambulance crews first arrive at the scene and continues until the next of kin can be found. If necessary, the police are asked for their help, and other records such as passport applications are checked to identify next of kin. Where there is no family, others are approached, such as friends of long standing.

Family discussion is vital for three reasons. First, it is the right thing to do. Secondly, speaking to families is necessary to determine whether their loved one would have wanted to donate, and that will continue. Thirdly, information is needed from the family regarding past medical and lifestyle information. Without this, it is much more difficult to determine whether it would be safe for retrieved organs to be transplanted.

Many noble Lords have paid tribute to the specialist nurses and highlighted their importance in this process. They are vital, and anybody who has had the privilege of speaking with them about their work will know their dedication to the very difficult job they do, in such a professional, sensitive and caring way. They ensure that, as far as possible, the family are given sufficient time to consider organ donation. NHSBT data shows that family consent rates are significantly higher if a specialist nurse is involved in the family approach.

Families are also aided by knowing whether their loved one had recorded a decision on the organ donor register. The consent rate is 92% if the family know that their loved one had recorded a decision to donate on the register. It will remain important to encourage people to register a positive decision. The family will always be asked for their views on whether any special considerations should be taken into account, including whether their loved one had a particular faith or beliefs and whether the family would like to speak to a faith leader or counsellor.

Finally, there are strict policies and protocols in place to safeguard the process, with many checks throughout the donation, retrieval and transplant process. Consent is checked on multiple occasions, by several different medical, nursing and support teams. NHS Blood and Transplant is audited and inspected on this aspect by the Human Tissue Authority.

In conclusion, it is absolutely right to say that this Bill, in itself, is not a panacea, but it is an important contribution. It will help start the debate and deliver—in the way that has been shown in Wales—profound changes, we hope, in levels of donation. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to all those who have brought this Bill forward. I recognise the work of officials in the Department of Health and Social Care, and the great work that has been done by the Minister in another place, Jackie Doyle-Price, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy. Most importantly, our tributes, thanks and recognition should go to the donors and their families, whose decisions are the gift of life. We hope that this Bill will allow far more people to benefit from such donations.