Maternity Services

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Patel]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in response to the Care Quality Commission’s Maternity Survey 2022, published on 11 January.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

My Lords, we are committed to continuing our work to ensure that all maternity services provide safe and compassionate care. We will continue to closely monitor progress in improving the standard of maternity care across the country. We have made significant investment into maternity and neonatal services, with £127 million announced in 2022 to go into the maternity system to help to increase the NHS maternity workforce and improve neonatal care.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The Ockenden report on Shrewsbury and Telford, the Kirkup reports on East Kent and Morecambe Bay, the current report of the CQC, the fact that the CQC fined a Nottingham hospital the maximum amount—£800,000—for a baby death, and the fact that we are now paying out in maternity litigation costs over £1 billion per year all point to one thing: a question of safety in our maternity units. Mothers and babies should not die in our maternity units without care and compassion, but that is what is happening. I am glad that the Minister, the honourable Maria Caulfield, met Dr Kirkup last week, which is a great improvement and progress. I hope the Government will now take seriously the need for zero tolerance of mothers dying in our maternity units and zero tolerance of normally formed babies dying or being damaged in childbirth. I shall keep pursuing this until we get that.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I welcome the noble Lord’s pursuit because that is absolutely the right thing to do. I think we all agree with that, and we would all say that what happened in East Kent and the other examples from the Ockenden report are clearly not something that we are happy with or that we should put up with. The Kirkup and Ockenden reports gave us a north star, a way forward. I am pleased to see that we are making progress on that, but I expect the noble Lord to hold us fully to account because I am holding the department to account on this.

Bread and Flour Regulations 1988

Lord Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Yes, I am very happy to do so. It has been quite a process, as my noble friend says, but we are getting there. As I said, the good news is that the industry is seeing the direction of travel and is responding as well. That is always better when done voluntarily. We are seeing more foods with levels of fortification. We will get there in terms of it being mandated as well.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, there has to be some progress. I think the noble Lord, Lord Markham, is the seventh or eighth Minister to answer this Question, the first being the noble Earl, Lord Howe. To get the scientific facts right, the advice given by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of 1 milligram is based on the surmise that higher doses do not cause any harm. It is wrong science, for which there is no proof, to say that doses as high as 1 milligram mask B12 deficiency. It is completely false and we must not use that. The chief scientific officer of the Department of Health confirmed that at our last meeting, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, may well remember.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

To be clear, I was referring to scientific advice I received today about the potential risk of masking, as I said. It is a concern but, as ever, one of the wonders of this House is the expertise available on tap. I will go back to consult on that and write to the noble Lord.

PPE Expenditure

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Absolutely. I remember well, as I am sure do others, watching the news about planes being diverted to other countries and it being asked how come they were not coming to the UK and what the department was doing to get on top of it. I am sure there was criticism from this House—it was before my time—asking what we were doing as a Government to get a grip of it. Well, we did get a grip of it; we did buy the PPE and it did not run out. Yes, we ended up buying too much of it because, thankfully, the pandemic did not turn out to be as bad as we thought it would. I think we did a sensible thing at the time, and now we are going after all those people who did not keep to their supply agreements, and we are recovering the funds. By and large, with the benefit of hindsight, I think we did a fairly decent job—not perfect but pretty good.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

How long will we continue paying £700,000 a day to the Chinese?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I said, less than 1% of the stock is being held by the Chinese. Most of the money being spent on storage costs is in the UK. Notwithstanding that, we clearly want to get rid of it as quickly as possible. As soon as I came in, I said, “Let’s bite the bullet, write it off, get on with it and dispose of it.” That is absolutely what we are doing. We are accelerating that to the maximum extent. Those accelerations have already saved £200 million this year.

Times Health Commission

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned different reports and said that the Government will be willing to implement good advice. The House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS also published a report, with clear recommendations. Will the Government implement some of those recommendations, even now?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I mentioned, we are working on and taking good ideas from there. I know that it is one of the inputs being considered in all this.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am pleased to say that there are promising new vaccinations. The current vaccination unfortunately requires monthly injections, which is why it is not very effective, and costs £2,000, so it is not an effective way ahead. A new injection, nirsevimab, has just been licensed which is showing in tests to be 75% to 80% effective and immunises people for six months, so we are hopeful that it is the way ahead. The JCVI is currently conducting a study on it, and we are hoping its recommendations will suggest a good way forward.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, two days ago Moderna from the United States announced that it had used messenger RNA technology to develop a vaccine for RSV. The report was of a late-stage trial and the vaccine has an efficacy of 84% for adults. There are similar results from both GSK and Pfizer, with an efficacy of 66%, but we already have antibody prevention treatment developed by AstraZeneca and Sanofi for prevention of RSV in children and young infants. That has been approved by the European Medicines Agency, and the Moderna vaccine is seeking FDA approval. Why does none of these have market authorisation in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I can report best on nirsevimab, which has just been licensed, is shown to be 75% to 80% effective in the trials and has the approach of immunising people for six months. I am aware of Pfizer developing a maternal vaccination for whooping cough, which will give the baby immunisation through the mother. The House will also be aware of the recent announcement we made with Moderna on the investment in new R&D facilities here, so that we are at the forefront. I hope the noble Lord can see that we are looking at all these new innovations and will roll them out.

United Kingdom: Future Pandemics

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right that we led the world in sequencing the genomes of Covid-19, particularly identifying the variants worldwide. But since we have now closed down many of our sequencing facilities, how can we surveil internationally, particularly for emerging variants? For example, XBB1.5 is now emerging as the variant causing most of the infection, probably including in England. What is our surveillance mechanism for sequencing?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Given the detailed nature of the question on sequencing, it probably deserves a detailed response. I will happily write on that. The 100 Days Mission—to deploy effective diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines within 100 days—is all about having UKHSA ensure that we have a preserved capability to act when we need to.

NHS Winter Pressures

Lord Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

The Minister may not agree, but the NHS is in crisis. He may say that the situation is “challenging”, but it could not be more challenging. Although infection rates related to Covid, flu and other infections may have exacerbated the situation, the genesis of the crisis is not of today’s making. It has been in the making for years. It is related to lack of capacity. Does he agree that the emergency measures now being put in place are not likely to work? If they are not likely to work, what is plan B? Importantly, what is the long-term plan to ensure that this does not continue into the spring, summer or next winter?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I absolutely think these measures will improve the situation; I would not be putting them forward if I did not believe that. At the same time, just as we put out plans in October and are amending them now, I will continue to amend our plans. I think that is a flexible, responsible approach: you have a plan, you adapt that plan, you invest and you continue to improve. That is what we will continue to see and do; we will see those improvements go through this year and into the next.

Dentists, Dental Care Professionals, Nurses, Nursing Associates and Midwives (International Registrations) Order 2022

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has effectively declared my interest for me. However, just for the record, I declare that I am chair of the General Dental Council and have been for the last 15 months or so. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing and bringing forward this order. I think we will all benefit from the fact that he has some familial insight into the issues that we are looking at here and in other matters.

I hope that the Minister will accept that this order has been quite a long time coming. It was already long awaited when I was appointed 15 months ago, and the discussion has been going on since at least 2017. This particular order has been introduced twice in the past few months, before the present order; it had to be withdrawn and introduced again, for various technical reasons.

I start by saying clearly that the General Dental Council welcomes this order. However, I want to take this opportunity, in Grand Committee, to make it clear what this order does and does not do. As I think has been said by all noble Lords who have spoken so far, internationally qualified dental professionals make a vital contribution to the UK dental workforce. In recent years, more than one-third of newly registered dentists have qualified overseas, and current workforce pressures would be immeasurably greater without the contribution that they make. However, the current processes for international registration are cumbersome and inefficient. Existing legislation imposes considerable constraints on the GDC’s ability effectively and efficiently to assess the skill and knowledge of internationally qualified dental professionals. For dentists, there is an overseas registration examination with a very rigid structure and, because of the statutory framework, a very limited range of providers. This results in places not always being available for candidates who want to sit the exam.

Quite properly, nothing in this order reduces the high standards required of international candidates seeking to join the UK register. I am sure that the Minister will want to reaffirm that that remains the Government’s priority. Certainly, public protection is, and remains, central to the purpose of the General Dental Council. The standard applied to international candidates is, and should be, equivalent to that applied to people who register based on UK qualifications. Nobody will want to see those standards compromised, least of all the GDC, and the changes made by this order protect those standards but will enable modernised and more flexible approaches for assessing whether candidates have met them.

The order brings in some immediate changes, 21 days after it has been made—so we are probably talking about March this year. From that point, a number of changes will happen immediately. At the moment, the overseas registration examination is in two parts: the first is effectively a written process, and the second a practical test of skills. It is a requirement of the existing legislation that the second part must be concluded within five years of the first part. During the Covid pandemic, part 2 exams had to be suspended and, through no fault of their own, some candidates missed the opportunity to take part 2 because the five-year time limit had expired and therefore lost the opportunity to be registered, because you cannot simply start again. Those affected will now have restored to them the opportunity to sit the second part of the ORE. That is welcome, and it addresses an injustice for those affected as a consequence of the pandemic.

The second immediate change, which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has referred to, is that new applications to the dental care professional register must be based on the primary qualification appropriate for the professional title being applied for. That stops a loophole whereby applicants who are qualified only as dentists have been seeking to register as a DCP. The Committee needs to know that there has been a flood of such applications in the last year: some 1,075 international candidates for registration as DCPs have been approved, which is more than the total number currently on the DCP register from any source. That enables them to practise in this country without going through the more appropriate ORE process for registration as a dentist. There is also now a considerable backlog of applications all seeking to make use of the loophole before it is closed to new applicants 21 days after the order is made. This change is important and overdue. The lack of clarity about what individuals are qualified to carry out in terms of their professional duties is not helpful, and therefore the loophole needs to be closed. The delays and the flood of applications to try to avoid the deadline are causing considerable operational issues for the GDC in managing all overseas registration, and indeed registrations of UK-qualified dentists.

At the same time, the order is going to give the GDC some new powers, although they will take some time to have practical effect. The requirement for assessments of international dentist applications to be conducted by a dental authority—effectively, a dental school—will be removed. Over time, that will give the GDC much greater flexibility in procuring providers and potentially in designing new assessment models. For example, it might be possible to look at the question of whether the first stage of the overseas registration examination has to be taken in this country or whether it could be taken overseas. That flexibility will be sensible, given the current problems in finding suitable providers. However, it is important to stress that this will not have an immediate effect while current contracts remain in place.

The GDC will also gain the power to make detailed rules about how applicants should be assessed. There will be a requirement to consult on these rules and, critically, the current requirement for Privy Council approval will be removed. The practical effect is that the rules can be more flexible and responsive to changing environments, not the least of which is that the fee can reflect the cost, which at the moment is not necessarily the case until it has received Privy Council approval.

The point is that the order is a vital enabler of reform but does not in itself deliver it. Removing the overly prescriptive constraints is a vital first step towards creating a more effective system but it does not and cannot provide an immediate increase in the dental workforce. The rule-making powers in the order do not come fully into effect for 12 months, and even then it will take time to develop new approaches, consult on new draft rules and procure the supply of the necessary services. Alongside that we have the continuing uncertainty about the different provisions that currently apply to people who can currently benefit from the continuing recognition of EU qualifications. If the Government choose to close that route as a result of the review that they are required to undertake this year, significant additional capacity will be required in the GDC’s assessment processes. Any indication today from the Minister as to whether the existing arrangements for applicants from the EEA will continue would be most welcome.

The order provides provisions for the GDC to explore alternative processes for the recognition of international qualifications. Incidentally, it should not be confused with the powers included in the Professional Qualifications Act that allow for the mutual recognition of qualifications through international agreements: they are outside the scope of this order.

Enabling the recognition of international qualifications is not as straightforward as it might at first appear—and there is certainly no quick solution. New processes for the quality assurance of education and training to secure public protection will be needed, alongside new fee structures. This type of recognition may need to be specific to an institution and qualification. It is not, therefore, a quick solution to workforce challenges. The approach taken would have to be fair to those who undertake the UK qualifications, and indeed to the institutions providing them. Also, any route to recognition would need to be applicable globally and take into account the very different standards and approaches to qualifications around the world.

The key point is that none of these changes will solve the wider problems of access to NHS dentistry. The role of the GDC is to register dentists and dental care professionals who are fit to practise in the UK. But there is a separate process before they can work in the NHS. They still need to go through the performers list validation by experience process to practise in the NHS for each UK nation in which they want to practise. So streamlining the ORE process does not in itself deliver more NHS dentistry. I appreciate that the Minister did not assert that that would be the case, but I have heard that view expressed in various quarters, perhaps by former Ministers, which makes it necessary to reinforce the point.

More significantly, if the NHS dental contract fails sufficiently to incentivise UK-qualified dentists to provide NHS dental services, it is not immediately obvious that overseas-qualified individuals faced with the same set of incentives will choose differently from their UK-qualified counterparts. The BDA in a recent briefing warned that

“NHS dentistry is facing existential threat”,

that even before the pandemic

“only enough dentistry was commissioned for half the population in England”

and that the proposed package of changes to the NHS contract announced by the Government in November was “modest” and “marginal” and would

“do little to arrest the exodus of dentists from the service, or address the crisis in patient access.”

Those were the BDA’s words, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance on the nature of the discussions that will take place on the future of NHS dentistry and the NHS contract.

To conclude, these changes in the international registrations order are welcome, but they will not address the fundamental issues.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, because many of the points I might have made were more eloquently made by the noble Lord who just spoke.

The only thing I will say is that, from my experience when I chaired the previous assessor of postgraduate medical training, the Specialist Training Authority, which was established following the EU rules, the same problems occur in recognising equivalence of training. It is easier to recognise a qualification, but when you recognise equivalence of training, it has to take into account, as already elucidated, not just the knowledge but the experience and skills that practitioners can have.

It is even more difficult when you try to certify somebody or accredit somebody with a qualification that is highly specialised—including in dentistry. For instance, they might not be a general dentist but you might want to recruit them because they have specific, high-quality training in a very specialised area. Assessing their equivalence is then made that much more difficult. So the points are well made about an order that I welcome for its simplicity—but it does have drawbacks that need to be addressed, and one way to do that would be to give the General Dental Council more authority to implement its own processes to assess qualifications, experience and training.

I turn now to the nursing and midwifery side, which is a slightly different issue. We should distinguish between qualifications and certifications. While we train nurses as graduate nurses—and that applies to midwives too—not all countries have graduate programmes in nursing and midwifery. They are trained and certified to be fully trained midwives, and having the Nursing and Midwifery Council to assess qualifications, experience and training makes it that much more difficult.

National Health Service (NHS Payment Scheme—Consultation) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by wishing everyone a happy new year and welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, to his position. It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss these draft regulations.

The Health and Care Act 2022 marks an important step in the Government’s ambitious health and care agenda. Noble Lords will be fully aware of how wide-ranging a piece of legislation it is. I think we can all agree with its overall objectives; making it easier for health and care organisations to provide joined-up care is vital.

With the introduction of integrated care systems came the opportunity to review how the financial frameworks in the NHS worked and tailor them to make them consistent with the new integrated approach. The Health and Care Act replaces the NHS national tariff payment system with the NHS payment scheme by inserting new Sections 114A to 114F into the Health and Social Care Act 2012. As with the tariff, the NHS payment scheme will set rules around how commissioners establish the amount to pay providers for healthcare for the NHS. It does not set the amount of money available but intends to make sure that available resources are used as effectively and efficiently as possible.

Before a new payment scheme can be published, NHS England has a duty under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to consult on the proposals for the new scheme, as it did with the tariff. NHS England is required to consult each integrated care board, each relevant provider and other such persons it considers appropriate. It opened the consultation on the proposals for the 2023 to 2025 payment scheme on 23 December 2022, which is scheduled to close on Friday 27 January 2023.

This brings me to the purpose of these regulations, which is relevant to how those consulted respond and what this means for NHS England. The purpose of this SI is to set these objection percentage thresholds at 66%, which will be reached if the requisite percentage of either integrated care boards or providers object. I believe this is a proportionate level to ensure that a qualified majority can require NHS England to reconsider its proposals, while minor objections cannot stop them. I also consider laying these regulations to be a relatively administrative process. The objection percentages are not changing compared to previous consultations on the tariff; we are maintaining the status quo with 66%. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. I too wish everybody a happy new year. My question is quite simple, and it reflects the discussions we had during the debate on the Act that we passed: is 66%, which is two-thirds, too high a level for the objections? It is a higher order to achieve than, let us say, 60%.

While we await the tariff, I reiterate, so that it is on record, that the important bit is not the level at which the trusts and ICSs can object but how the tariff will vary according to the needs of the population. When we had the debate, we focused on existing inequalities in health and how to minimise and reduce them. One way of doing that is to address the needs of the population who have greater need in healthcare, and therefore the tariff needs to be different. It is a high order to require 66% of ICSs, trusts or providers to object.

I would like the Minister to confirm that the tariffs will reflect the need for the levelling-up agenda to improve healthcare, particularly in more deprived populations, and to comment on why 66%, which is two-thirds, was chosen.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to take the reins from my noble friend Lady Brinton, starting with this short but important statutory instrument. I echo the happy new year wishes and thank the Minister for his welcome. I understand that a key function that we perform in this House is to ensure that legislation is implemented in the way that Parliament intended as we put flesh on the bones of primary legislation through statutory instruments such as the one we are considering today.

Today’s statutory instrument is a small element of an important part of our modern health service infrastructure: the mechanism for pricing services within the NHS’s internal market. It was a prompt for me to read more pages of tariffs and rules than I ever intended or wished to do, which is mind-boggling and fascinating in equal measure. The subject of our debate today is not the substance of the payment scheme but rather the trigger for when the scheme might be reviewed if there are objections.

As the Minister pointed out, the Government’s intention is to maintain a 66% objection rate for triggering a further consultation period, which is unexceptional as it maintains the previous level. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I am curious as to why 66% was picked, particularly as I understand that it will not trigger a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority, which would have been a major step, but simply a further consultation period. There may be an argument for why a 51% or 60% threshold would not be appropriate, given that the threshold triggers something less significant than the previous regime.

I am also curious about the experience that we have had over the last decade or so while the other tariff scheme has been in place. Does the Minister have data on the levels of objections received in previous consultations? I suspect that they were much lower than the level we are talking about here but, as we review the scheme, it would be interesting for us to understand whether we were previously getting 10% objection levels, or 50%. I assume that there must be some experience of that within the National Health Service.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I would like more words about why 66% remains the effective level, and some information about objection levels we have experienced previously. That would be helpful to put our minds at rest, but I think we are all broadly supportive of the instrument as it stands.

Plastics: Health Research

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The phrase I used was that there is “limited evidence” in this space. I reiterate that if a good research proposal is put forward, funds are available there. The only point of difference on this is that I do not believe we should ring-fence a definite amount each year when the evidence does not yet exist that it is a health risk.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister suggested that his scientific advisors told him that there was no evidence. Finding “no evidence” does not scientifically prove that there is no evidence. It has been said several times that if a scientific proposal was put forward, it would be looked at. Accepting that plastic pollution is a problem, should the NIHR not put out tenders inviting research proposals?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, my wording was “limited evidence”. There are many demands. It feels as though every day I am up here being asked to spend money on something else. As a responsible Minister, I must prioritise spend in areas where it is needed. At the moment, I am being guided by the science, which tells me that there is very limited evidence in this space. If a good proposal is put forward, we will welcome it and look into it. Until then, this is not good use of public money.