Hospices: Funding

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for instigating a vital, enriching and at times personal debate about the outstanding work, compassion and care that the hospice movement provides and the perilous state of the funding platform that it sits on. Wonderful examples of hospice and palliative care within the sector have been given. I add my thanks to the staff and volunteers who provide the services, including those at the wonderful St Luke’s hospice in Sheffield, a place where warmth, compassion and outstanding care are given to those at the end of life and the loved ones around them. Indeed, it is a microcosm of the hospice sector. In the last few years, it has been

“‘routinely’ budgeting for annual deficits”,

to quote its chief executive. The ICB funding accounts for just 26% of its £12 million annual budget. The examples of St Luke’s and others outlined in this debate show that unless short and medium-term action is taken by government on funding for hospices, services in some areas will be in serious decline or could collapse.

I say to the Minister that two things could happen, possibly in the short term, regardless of the budget. The first is that when NHS pay increases are made, they should be automatically applied to the in-year contracting values that the hospices receive, so that those extra costs can be absorbed without having to cut services. The other issue is that there should be parity of funding per person who uses a hospice and palliative care, regardless of the setting. It should be an equal base, whether it is in the independent hospice sector or in an NHS setting.

In the medium term, we need to introduce a fair funding deal for hospices and to include palliative and end-of-life care services in the priorities and planning guidance for the NHS. Will the Minister look at that and ask NHS England to implement it?

Investing in hospice care not only enhances quality of life for people who are receiving the care but supports families during incredibly challenging times. To ensure equitable access to comprehensive palliative and hospice care, we must ensure that the Government adopt fair and equitable funding for all who provide services.

Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, this draft statutory instrument proposes amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which will expand access to naloxone, a life-saving medication that prevents death from opioid overdose. In addition, this draft statutory instrument makes amendments to keep the regulations current by updating references to Public Health England and the Health and Social Care Board, following the dissolution of those bodies.

We know the devastating impact that illicit drugs cause. Drugs destroy lives, tear families apart and make our streets less safe. Drug misuse deaths have doubled in number over the past 10 years, and we know that people who die from drug misuse often do so at a tragically young age, often in their 40s. Almost half of drug misuse deaths in 2022 involved opiates such as heroin. These deaths are avoidable. Dedicated drug treatment services provide the path to recovery and this Government are continuing to ensure that treatment is available and of high quality.

However, we also know that over half of people struggling with opiate addiction are not engaged in treatment. These are incredibly vulnerable people who often have multiple and complex needs; they are at increased risk of accidentally overdosing and dying. Tackling this issue supports the Government’s health mission. It will ensure that people can live longer, happier and healthier lives, and it chimes in with our collective efforts to break down barriers to opportunity and create a fairer society.

Naloxone is a highly effective antidote to opiate overdose. It can already be administered quickly and safely by anyone in an emergency, but current regulations specifically enable only drug and alcohol treatment services to supply it for future use without a prescription. That limits the reach of this life-saving medicine.

The draft instrument that we are debating today proposes two key UK-wide changes to existing regulations: first, to expand the list of services and professionals named in the regulations who can give out naloxone without a prescription. That means that professionals such as registered nurses and probation officers will be able to provide take-home supplies of naloxone where appropriate, should they wish to do so.

Secondly, it proposes to establish national registration services across the whole UK. This will enable other services and professionals who are not able to be named in the legislation but who come into contact with people at risk of overdose, including housing and homelessness services, to register and procure naloxone.

There is a positive background to these changes. The Department of Health and Social Care consulted on them at the beginning of this year and received over 300 responses spanning a range of organisations and professionals from across all four nations of the UK. Of these responses, approximately 95% agreed with the proposals that are set out. This demonstrates the level of interest in this important issue and the breadth of support for the changes we are seeking to achieve.

These changes have also been called for by experts in the sector such as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in its review of naloxone in the UK. In addition, Dame Carol Black recommended naloxone provision as an important harm reduction measure in her two-part independent review of drugs.

Allowing more services and professionals to supply naloxone will mean easier access to it for people at risk, which in turn will mean lives saved. With the growing threat posed by synthetic opioids, which are often more potent and more deadly, the importance of this work only continues to increase as time goes on.

I want to provide reassurance that, with these changes, there is no compromise on safety. Naloxone is very safe and effective, even when administered by a layperson with no prior experience. It has an effect only if the person has been taking opioids and it is already widely used across the UK and internationally.

We are taking steps to mitigate against any very limited risks associated with wider access. We will provide updated guidance for services in scope, and we will set out robust requirements for training and safeguarding. I reassure the Committee that the intention of these changes is not to create additional burdens for services, particularly as we are aware that many of those in scope will already be facing pressures. These new powers are enabling, not mandatory. They provide an opportunity for increased provision, based on local need, but they do not make any requirements.

Finally, addiction is not a choice. It is often fuelled by wider issues, such as trauma and housing instability. This is a complex public health issue and must be tackled as such. We must change the narrative on addiction to one that is about the prevention of drug use, the reduction of harm and enabling recovery. The changes we are discussing here will save lives. On this basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the rationale for this draft statutory instrument so well. I agree that this is a step forward in the ongoing battle against the devastating impacts of opioid overdoses. As she said, opioid overdoses have reached alarming levels, claiming thousands of lives every year. According to the latest statistics, opioid-related deaths have surged alarmingly in most regions. This is not merely a statistic. This is about the loss of lives, families shattered and far too many left to grieve, so it is important to take further action that is effective and wrapped in compassion. The temporary measures taken in Scotland show that the changes outlined in these regulations work and will save lives.

Naloxone, when used in the right place at the right time, is a life-saving medication. This draft statutory instrument will facilitate local supply networks, ensuring a broader distribution system and therefore more effective use of naloxone, empowering, among others, healthcare professionals, the police, prison and probation staff, and people in the youth justice system to facilitate the supply of this life-saving drug.

In response to one of the issues that the noble Baroness raised, a question occurred to me. As this will not be a mandatory provision across the country, how will the Government monitor lives that could be saved but that may not be saved because of a lack of take-up of this in certain towns, cities or regions? It could end up that a life will be saved if one body decides to do this, while a life could be lost in a neighbouring county, city or town if that does not take place.

One of the key provisions in this draft statutory instrument is the move to enable the friends and family of those at risk to administer this drug. Allowing those closest to individuals at risk to carry and administer naloxone creates a lifeline that will, literally, make the difference between life and death.

I listened to what the Minister said about setting up local naloxone providers and supply co-ordinators, and I have read the draft statutory instrument and the explanation—but I am still not clear about what regulatory oversight of these bodies will be in place. Who will be the regulator and what powers will they have to deal with the improvement or, indeed, withdrawal of such a service if it is deemed that the local provider is not carrying out the rules laid down in the draft statutory instrument?

Clearly, the broader implications of these amendments are not merely about the use naloxone but about standing with those who struggle with addiction, and their families. These amendments are an essential evidence-based response to the dramatic increase in opioid use and overdoses. By enabling greater access to naloxone, they will help to save lives.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the provisions in the regulations before us so well. This debate touches on a vital aspect of this country’s public health. Opioids are a pernicious threat to our society, a destroyer of lives and a menace to our streets. The ONS reported that 2022 was the deadliest year since records began for drug-related deaths in England and Wales. Of those, opioids accounted for the largest number of mortalities, at 46%. That is 2,261 people dying every year from opioid toxicity. In Scotland, the statistics make for even starker reading. According to the National Records of Scotland, in 2023, opioids were implicated in 80% of all drug deaths.

So we have a problem, but we also have a solution. As noble Lords will be aware, naloxone is a highly effective treatment for opioid intoxication and has been successfully deployed to prevent death from opioid overdose. I am immensely proud that it was a Conservative Government who launched the consultation on proposals to expand access to this life-saving medication, which concluded in March. The regulations laid before your Lordships are the outcome of that process, and I welcome their positive measures.

I will take this opportunity to ensure that the Government have taken all the necessary considerations. As the second report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, there is no indication of the costs associated with the instrument. The Department of Health and Social Care told the scrutiny committee that services that wish to widen the availability of naloxone would have to do so out of their own pocket, which, given the financial pressures already faced by such providers, may limit the efficacy of the provisions laid before us.

For these regulations to have the desired effect—that is, of course, to reduce opioid-related deaths—access to naloxone products must also be expanded. What is the point of increasing the number of people who can administer the drug if they are unable to procure enough of the medication? Furthermore, will service providers be able to afford the necessary training for the administration and storage of the drug? Would this not somewhat undermine the efforts of the regulations? In the light of these concerns, can the Minister confirm that funding will not impact the rollout of these provisions?

Although Regulation 8 does make provision for training, clarification is required. Naloxone can be administered by three different routes: intravenously, intramuscularly and by intranasal spray. Obviously, the first two require injection, which is a medical procedure for which specific training is required. The NHS, rightly, sets stringent guidelines on who is permitted to provide such services, so I think noble Lords could benefit from assurances that the IV and IM methods of administration are permitted only by medical professionals with full phlebotomy training.

Further to this point, I highlight that intranasal spray administration is, of course, the most effective method of widening access to the drug. Intranasal applicators can be used by the full range of providers specified in these regulations and can be easily distributed into the community. They therefore allow for a rapid response to an individual experiencing an opioid overdose and, I hope, should have a greater impact in reducing mortality rates. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will pursue greater distribution of the intranasal spray to complement this regulation?

I conclude by saying that we are pleased that His Majesty’s Government have continued the policy initiated by the previous Conservative Government by laying these regulations before us. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions I have laid out.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who I do not believe I have had the opportunity of welcoming formally to his new Front-Bench role. I am delighted to do that today; he is most welcome. I very much look forward to working with him and hope that he enjoys his role. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, as ever, for his contribution.

I am pleased that both noble Lords, on behalf of their Front Benches, have been so positive in welcoming these regulations. I certainly agree with the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: in doing this today, we are standing with those who struggle with drug use and with those around them—the communities, their families and their friends. It is with that motivation in mind that we are doing this.

I will of course write to noble Lords if there are any points that I do not manage to cover adequately. To pick up some of the points, however, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked who will regulate. As part of the legislation, as I said in my introduction, there will be training and data-reporting requirements attached to both routes for new providers. Those new providers could be the emergency services, for example, and they will have to report on levels of prescribing so that effectiveness and safety can be monitored. That will absolutely be required of them.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister might not still welcome me to my place now but although I understand that, my point was: what powers do those whom they report to have in ensuring compliance? That is the bit I did not get from reading the regulations.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I am rather embarrassed after the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has spoken so volubly and over-kindly about the work we did together. I have to say that when he was Dafydd Wigley MP his amazing attempts to help us subvert Enoch Powell’s Unborn Children (Protection) Bill meant sitting all night several nights running to prevent that legislation going through, even though there was a big majority in the House of Commons. It is a remarkable story that has never really properly been told, but perhaps it should not be told. I cannot divert the Committee now, but one of the extraordinary things was that by the end of that I had remarkable respect for Enoch Powell, which I never expected. He behaved in an extraordinary way and with great dignity, even when he was losing. He was not quite as prejudiced as people made out. I think he was intellectually challenged by what he was seeing in front of him.

I return to the amendment, the business in hand today, which is essentially the issue with HIV-positive patients. We were the first people in the world to treat people who were HIV positive back in the 1980s. We had a baby as early as about 1986, possibly 1985—I cannot remember. It was a long time ago. That was before the regulations. We were aware that there was a small risk of transmission, but with caesarean section and so on the risk was so minuscule that we felt it was worthwhile. It got a lot of adverse publicity, until it was copied by a lot of other people, and it went on to be accepted. However, I accept completely that what the Minister is recommending is safer, but there are just a few questions I would like to ask her.

First, what would happen if the recipient was already HIV positive? Is there some regulation? That was something we faced nearly 40 years ago. I should like her to explain because I am sure things have moved on with the legislation, and I am not now clinically in practice, although I am still active in research. Secondly, I am concerned that the Minister should argue that this is just a matter for private practice. That is not acceptable. This should be available under the health service. The fact that somebody has a problem with HIV should in no way discriminate against their getting or giving proper treatment to a friend, relative or other person. I regard that as an essential human right. I suspect that there might be some reason to question that.

Unfortunately, one of the terrible things that has happened in Britain is that at the moment human in vitro fertilisation has become colossally expensive. The Minister gave a figure of £1,000. I regret to say that in London that would be almost impossible. I suspect that most people getting donations of this kind would be spending far more than that, even though it may not be clear. Clinics do not declare what they charge. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority claims that it has no power to deal with the price of IVF. That is important to consider. I hope that the Minister will at least address that issue because undoubtedly—I beg her for obvious reasons because she will have sympathy—there is massive exploitation of women going through in vitro fertilisation. Every week, I get stories by email that suggest that what is happening not other than somewhat under the table, so that is the other issue.

The Minister made no mention of counselling. When the Bill was initiated back in 1990—it was passed first in the House of Lords, of course—there was a clear discussion during that debate about the need for counselling. It was repeated in the House of Commons as well—I see the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, nodding—and it was written into the workings of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It is therefore important that proper counselling is part of this, and it should be written in in some way so that there is some understanding that it should be there.

The issues with HIV are always of concern, certainly in IVF. Suppose that somebody who was negative suddenly becomes positive again, which is not impossible, even though they may have had retroviral treatment in between. We ought to be aware of those things with this instrument.

Having spoken at great length on what seems quite a trivial matter, I have probably wasted the Committee’s time a bit. I am completely in agreement with the aim of what is undertaken here. I do not think there is any need to change the wording or anything like that, but what I am talking about must be considered. I thank the Minister, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his extraordinary work 40 years ago, which is still remembered and greatly appreciated.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Winston, I disagree with him: he never wastes the Committee’s time with his knowledge and expertise in helping this field move forward. After listening to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Winston, I think that this statutory instrument is not just a one-off regulatory update; it represents a continuation of the journey in the realm of reproductive rights, scientific progress and ethical standards in this part of healthcare. It is important that both noble Lords asked us to look at these amendments in the context of that journey.

The landscape of reproductive rights technology has evolved dramatically—particularly recently—with advancements in IVF, genetic screening and other reproductive technologies. We have the potential to transform countless lives in this field. I note that the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Wigley, say that some people are perhaps debarred because of the lack of provision on the NHS. In a wider debate in a wider context, I am sure the Minister would want to take up the discussion and debate that when we have the time.

However, we must note that progress comes with challenges, especially regarding ethical considerations and access to these technologies. These amendments seek to address some of those concerns so that couples made up of two women and those living with HIV have a better chance, or a more equal chance, of accessing this kind of healthcare and technology. These regulations are a step forward in this area in health provision and help to promote equity so that more people can pursue their dreams of parenthood, notwithstanding the issue of where they get that provision, whether in the private sector or the NHS.

As the Minister said, it is essential that these regulations highlight the importance of supporting diverse family structures in 2024. These amendments recognise that families come in various forms and that reproductive technologies should be accessible to all families on an equal basis.

Over the past couple of days, I discussed what was coming before the House with friends, and some people raised concerns, interestingly, about the implications of the use of gametes from people living with HIV. Therefore, it is crucial to understand that the amendment does not advocate unrestricted access without proper oversight. It promotes a balanced approach that prioritises ethical standards while facilitating innovations in HIV medicine. Advancements in HIV treatment have not only significantly improved health outcomes for individuals living with HIV but have made it safe to include people living with HIV more broadly in these amendments.

These regulations champion access, ethical standards and innovation in reproductive health. Notwithstanding the questions asked by the noble Lords, I have no questions because we support this SI. We believe it not only empowers individuals and families but fosters a reproductive healthcare service that values inclusivity, diversity and ethical progress.

NHS: Independent Investigation

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad we are having this debate on the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, even if the tone set by the Statement—which I am sure noble Lords have read—is, as far as I am concerned, rather regrettable. It is regrettable because the noble Lord, as one would expect of that most distinguished man, has produced a thoughtful and carefully argued diagnosis and set of prescriptions for the NHS. It would have been better to treat those findings on their own terms rather than as an excuse for a highly charged political rant. Having said that, I hope that, in this House at least, we can maintain debate on a rational and civilised level.

There are indeed problems in the health service that are there for all to see and others that are less immediately visible. These problems are real and indeed require sustained remedial effort. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, attributes them to a mixture of causes, one being inadequate central government funding. I do not expect the noble Lord to be an apologist for the previous Government, but it would have been nice if he had acknowledged more fully that, despite so-called austerity, health service funding rose in real terms in every year since 2010 and in the last five years by nearly 3% in real terms per annum. The problem, as Sir John Bell has pointed out, is not a lack of money: it is that too much of the money has been sucked, suboptimally, into acute care settings and not enough into the community. The noble Lord goes on to say that very thing. But let no one conclude from that that community funding has been neglected. The last Government oversaw the opening of 160 community diagnostic centres. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, this is the largest central cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the NHS.

Is there more to be done? Yes—but the results are there and proving their worth. The NHS is currently treating 25% more people than it did in 2010. It is delivering tens of millions more out-patient appointments, diagnostic tests and procedures than it did when the coalition Government came into office. Some of the community services are being delivered by staff employed by acute trusts—the statistics tend to hide those numbers. Yes, we can talk about the need for greater productivity, but this progress—it is indeed progress—is all down to the efforts of the dedicated clinical staff across the health service on whom we all rely, and who are more in number than at any time in the service’s history.

Please do not criticise the last Government for focusing on the numbers. The imperative of planning ahead to train the right number of staff for the right care settings was amply fulfilled in the last Government’s workforce plan—a publication heralded by the NHS chief executive as

“one of the most seminal moments”

in the NHS’s history.

Can the Minister nevertheless say, despite the fact that the report is not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, whether the Government will embrace the workforce plan and take it forward as the NHS clearly wants and needs? Can she also say whether the Government will adopt the productivity plan announced in the last Government’s Spring Budget? That plan—again, unaccountably not mentioned in the report—would deliver the “tilt towards technology” that the noble Lord rightly advocates, with a big productivity gain to boot.

I said that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi’s report was carefully argued, but not all of it is well argued. I cannot allow his colourful statements about the 2012 Health and Social Care Act to go unchallenged. To attribute the NHS’s current difficulties and challenges in large part to that Act is, frankly, ridiculous. What that Act did was to complete the process that the noble Lord himself started, which was to ingrain quality into the commissioning and delivery of healthcare based on clearly defined standards and outcomes, meaning that providers would be competing with each other based on the quality of care and treatment that they delivered to patients.

The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, now says that we need to move away from the whole idea of competition, but I suspect he has misled himself, because he goes on to say:

“The framework of national standards … incentives and earned autonomy … needs to be reinvigorated”,


along with patient choice. What is that framework if it is not a framework of healthy competition between providers based on quality? Therefore, what role does the Minister see for competition alongside collaboration —I do not think the two are mutually exclusive—in driving up the quality of NHS care?

I have a few final questions. We are told that a 10-year plan will be produced based on the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi. Whose plan will that be? Will it be the Government’s plan, and if so, how will the Government avoid what might look like a prescriptive top-down set of instructions to the health service? Does the Minister think it important that the NHS takes ownership of the plan and, if so, how will that be achieved?

In essence, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, believes that we need to get from point A to point B—in other words, from acute settings to community settings; from tired old premises to brand new ones; et cetera. Does the Minister agree that we cannot transition from point A without first finding the money to create a functioning point B? In other words, will she and her fellow Ministers urge the Chancellor to commit to the capital expenditure necessary to achieve that?

Lastly, I quote the noble Lord, Lord Darzi:

“The vast array of good practice that already exists in the health service should be the starting point for the plan to reform it”.


Does the Minister agree with that and, if so, how does she reconcile those sentiments with the Government’s mantra—which is so discouraging to the men and women of the health service—that the NHS is “broken”?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House. You do not have to be a mastermind to realise that the NHS is straining at its seams. It is only down to the great work of the many thousands of people who work in the NHS that millions of people get great care, even though some fall between the cracks.

The Darzi report is a very good medical history and it gives a diagnosis, but we all know that the treatment plan is going to be the important point if we are to deal with a reformed, new and productive NHS. There are some welcome themes in the report that are not new. Those who know the previous Darzi report will see have seen some of them before: prevention; moving resources from hospital care to primary and community care; dealing with the wider determinants of health; improvements in and parity for mental health; and a bigger role for public health.

I understand that the Minister will answer many questions by saying that we need to wait for the 10-year treatment plan, and probably the Budget, before such specific questions can be answered, but I have a few general questions for the Minister, to get at least a sense of the direction that the Government wish to take.

Is it the Government’s intention to restore the public health grant back its 2014 levels? Are there any general views about looking at changing the structure of public health, nationally or locally? On capital, what is the Government’s thinking about the general theme of allocation to hospital and non-hospital services, and how will this be managed and monitored? On data, what is the Government’s thinking on the workforce plan, particularly when there is a huge imbalance when it comes to digital and data between the private sector and skills within the NHS? That is not to say that there are not some good skills within the NHS, but there is clearly an imbalance.

Welcome as it is that the report talks about moving resources from hospital to non-hospital settings, I was a manager in the health service in the early 1990s and I know that this has been said since at least the 1970s. What are the Government going to do to be able to move resources from sunk costs in the acute sector into other sectors? What mechanisms will be put in place? How will this be monitored? More importantly, who will be held accountable for making sure that it actually happens? How will the new neighbourhood approach affect the existing workforce plan? If a new health service is anticipated, what will the effect be on the workforce plan and the implications for capital allocation?

We all want to see a productive and effective healthcare system that improves peoples’ health and independence, but that cannot be brought about if we do not have a strong, effective, well-funded social care system. I do not understand why social care has been kicked down to the next Parliament, or how we are going to solve the health and well-being of the population without that being done. If the major reforms of social care are in the next Parliament, what steps are the Government going to take in this Parliament to deal with the social care crisis?

I look forward to the Minister’s answers, but, more importantly, to the 10-year treatment plan’s arrival in the next few months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for their opening observations. I will seek to deal with as many of them as I can; I am sure a number will be iterated in the course of the Back-Bench contributions.

I start by expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—my noble friend, if I can call him that—for what I regard as an open, honest and thorough review. He is known as a man of great service, not just to your Lordships’ House but to the National Health Service. He has served Labour and Conservative Governments with distinction. As noble Lords will be aware, he is an eminent cancer surgeon who has driven innovation and speaks up for staff and patients. It is not surprising to me that the Secretary of State asked him to conduct this review, tasking him to provide what we might refer to as hard truths, warts and all. I realise that when one asks for that it can be uncomfortable, but I hope that we in your Lordships’ House can sit with discomfort in order to find a way forward for the National Health Service.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the terminology that the NHS is “broken”. I understand that that is uncomfortable to hear, but when I speak to NHS staff they recognise that terminology. We are at great pains to say that we are not being critical of NHS staff, but unless we start in an honest and open fashion we will not be able to—as the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, referred to—restore the trust that is necessary. As the Secretary of State said in the other place, this Government have resolved to be honest about the problems faced and serious about fixing them. That is why he commissioned this independent investigation. I very much hope that noble Lords can be of assistance in finding the way forward, because we now have a diagnosis on which we can consult and then move on to the necessary prescription to improve the health of our National Health Service.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to the 10-year plan. I am glad that he looks forward to it—as do I—but how will we get there? We now have a very clear explanation of where we are. It is evidenced and has widely involved many people and organisations. It should therefore be regarded with great respect, and I think it largely has been. However, the next stage for the 10-year plan will be to have what will be the biggest consultation we have ever had in this country on the National Health Service. It will involve patients, staff, parliamentarians, stakeholders—all those who have a vested and informed interest in it. That will lead us to the 10-year plan. On the question about this being top-down, this is very much a bottom-up exercise, with the Government’s commitment underlying it.

It is important to say that the 10-year plan does not mean that we will wait 10 years for everything. We will identify those areas in which we can make swifter progress and we can then look beyond. The fact is —this came out many times in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Darzi—that this has been a long time in the making and to turn it around will not be quick.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, acknowledged that there were problems in the NHS. I am grateful for that and for his reference to the need for change. I also listened closely to his reference to what had been done under the previous Government. Facts are facts, but what matters is output. As we are discussing today, whatever the previous investment and previous actions, some of which were very much to be commended, the output has not delivered the results we need. That is why we have the report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi.

On the issue of dedicated staff, the staff team to whom I pay tribute goes way beyond clinical staff, important as they are, and includes the cleaners, porters and administrators. Noble Lords will recall that, when the workforce plan was published, we said that this was a useful step forward. Our job now, as a new Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, is to adapt the plan to ensure that it brings in one of the three pillars we will be going for: hospital to community. That will absolutely be our focus.

I note that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, does not accept the assessment by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I see the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in his place; I am sure he will have a contribution to make. I have to part company with the noble Earl on that point, as the evidence in the review is that the Act did not work in the direction we were seeking to take.

On capital expenditure, we find ourselves with a massive backlog of capital works, such that the ability of the NHS to deliver is being held back by the buildings and facilities. We have therefore instructed a review of this, which we will then look to.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was generous enough to say that he does not expect me to respond to the detailed questions about funding. However, I can assure him that all these matters are being considered—in other words, how we can best deliver the output and the improvements in health that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, seeks to achieve.

Pharmacies: Rural Areas

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will be very happy to look at the work that the noble Earl refers to. If he would like to meet me to discuss it, I am sure that would be of great assistance as we look to the future.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, there is a crisis in community pharmacies, as the Minister will know. Two weeks ago, the industry brought out a report that predicted that one in six community pharmacies could close within the next year. What urgent action will the Government take to ensure that that does not happen?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

On the point that the noble Lord correctly raises, it is worth reflecting that there has already been a reduction in the number of pharmacies since 2017. There are now some 1,200 fewer pharmacies than we had in 2017 and 600 fewer than there were two years ago. This is a trajectory that we would rather was not the case. Support is available—for example, through the Pharmacy Access Scheme, which provides financial support to pharmacies in areas where there are fewer pharmacies. I can say that we are monitoring access to pharmacies. While it is the case that four in five people live within a 20-minute walk from a community pharmacy, we absolutely recognise that the experiences of patients differ. If we are to see pharmacies as key to future plans for the health services, we will have to address that.

Coronavirus: UK Deaths

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind welcome. Of course, this was a decision taken by the last Government, supported by the Official Opposition. I would say that these kinds of factors were complex rather than “less complex”. Nobody wants to have to lock down a country, but there are rare occasions when we have to consider that. Of course, circumstances changed under lockdown: the fantastic work of the vaccination programme and the vaccine allowed us to unlock. So it is always a moving feast—but I take note of the noble Baroness’s point about the impact on young people.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the last Government decided to stop various methods for testing Covid-19 last year, other than for those in hospital. Other countries, including the USA, still collect data and the World Health Organization publishes it. So could I ask the Minister to help with public health screening and planning? Will the Government potentially look at this kind of testing being done again and the results published?

Northern Ireland Dentists: Amalgam Fillings

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that there are many opinions in your Lordships’ House about what would have happened if we had not left the EU, and I think it is probably appropriate that I leave it there.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that it is the policy of the British Dental Association eventually to remove amalgam, so this is about not whether it is removed but the timing of its removal, in a way that helps to ensure continual dental services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It is indeed, and I thank the noble Lord for his observation, which is absolutely correct. We are very grateful to the British Dental Association for working closely with us not just on this issue but on how we are going to restore NHS dental services across the country, because that is a real task we are going to have to battle with.

NHS: Long-term Sustainability

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who like myself is a former NHS manager and who clearly understands the difficulties and nuances of the future challenge of the NHS. I am also thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for this very timely debate.

The current performance of the NHS worries many and therefore needs to be improved urgently before it can be a stable platform for us to rise to the challenge of the significant technological and demographic changes that will take place if it is to become sustainable. The NHS’s current performance is distressing to say the least, despite the gallant efforts of many staff within the system. People in need of care and treatment are unable to see an appropriate medic or professional, with some waiting up to three years just to get on the NHS dentist list. People are waiting in the back of ambulances outside A&E for hours, while people waiting for a cancer diagnosis are not getting access to timely treatment, which can be life threatening, and people in great pain and agony are waiting far too long for planned operations. The Government have allowed this to happen and now try to placate the public with a list of office-generated statistics and playing catch-up. It is not good enough. People deserve far better than this.

Despite this picture of appalling failure by the Government, this debate makes us think very carefully about the future of our NHS. I am sure that the debate will be framed around two themes: one is how to make the NHS more productive, efficient, and innovative, while the other theme will be the wider context of the demographic, economic and social issues in which the NHS will have to work. The reality is both these themes will have to be addressed for a sustainable NHS.

Time today is limited, so I cannot go into depth about what is required across both themes, but I shall throw these issues in as a starter for 10. The 1948 orthodoxy on which the NHS stands has to be addressed, if we are going to see an NHS that can meet future need. For instance, why do we have a fixed view which is over 70 years old of what a hospital should be? Why are emergency and elective services always in the same building? Is it time to think more laterally about emergency hospitals and elective hubs? The model of primary care needs to be questioned. Why have we had the same model and front door system for over 70 years? This needs significant change, for those who need significant primary care needs due to comorbidities and those who occasionally dip in and out of primary care. Maybe a different type of service delivery is required, as the integrated electronic health record takes hold, with no longer just one model of GP and primary care access.

As technology, robotics, AI and data-driven services become central in predicting, planning and delivering healthcare, appropriate leadership skills at all levels of the NHS will need to be addressed to maximise the potential of these issues, as well as to minimise the risks. Is it time to end the leadership model based predominantly on managing efficient siloed organisations by moving to leaders who are experts in maximising health gain and facilitating community action to bring about complex change?

Societal issues, such as housing, education and the environment will have to be addressed, as the NHS does not work within a vacuum. A population that is ageing with comorbidities, and the balance between the working-age population and the non-working-age population—and, of course, climate change—needs to be addressed. Some key issues that we need to think about across government to support the NHS maximising health gain are supporting people to age with dignity and independence, tackling deep-rooted worklessness, and an absolute laser-sharp determination to narrow the health inequalities, as well as having a long-term and fully understood funding formula for both the NHS and social care.

All this will take long-term, focused action by government and society. I am not sure that the siloed structure of central government can deal with these challenges effectively at present. The approach must be a community health-based model, to maximise healthiness and improve health outcomes.

One simple way of supporting this would be for the Treasury to set up designated funds that can be used in communities and the NHS to invest for health. That would break down the problem of pretending we can move existing NHS budgets, which are mainly sunk, fixed costs, into prevention and reducing health inequalities.

Talking of funds, it is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, that we sort out, once and for all, the social care crisis. The NHS can never be sustainable if, as a nation, we have not dealt with social care funding. After the general election, I think it is the duty of all politicians, from all parties, to sit down and work out a cross-party solution to this difficult problem that has been left for far too long. We need to take a different approach and think about some fundamental questions if we are to have a sustainable NHS.

Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in favour of these regulations. I am absolutely in favour of any way in which we can leverage the ability of our doctors to concentrate on what they want to do, and what they have been highly and expensively trained to do, which is to take responsibility for seeing, diagnosing and treating patients who are ill and in need of medical help. I am also in favour of trying to reduce the exorbitant cost of locum GPs, which bleed resources from the National Health Service—resources which could be much better spent elsewhere. Some of the Government’s initiatives, such as allowing pharmacists greater and more extensive advisory and prescribing powers, are also very welcome.

I have no philosophical objection to the concept of physicians or anaesthetists being supported by assistants, whether they are senior nursing staff or others, but I share the concern that the very term “associate” implies a greater degree of qualification than is actually the case. Two years’ training post a science degree does not a doctor make. Of course they should be regulated by an organisation which enjoys public confidence, so long as that in itself does not imply a greater medical qualification.

It is easier to prevent overreach in a hospital environment, where supervision in anaesthesia should be routine, but it is much harder in general practice. The reason I rise now is because my husband was seen by a physician associate when his throat failed to heal weeks after he burned it with a hot cup of coffee. After the young man had taken a photograph and disappeared up the corridor with his phone, allegedly to see a GP, he reappeared with an ominous pamphlet entitled “Suspected throat cancer” and suggested an urgent appointment at the John Radcliffe Hospital. I am pretty sure he was not trained to be the bearer of such bad news. So undoubtedly physician associates need to be regulated, though I acknowledge it was better this way round than ignoring something and saying that there was no issue to be dealt with when there might have been.

We have 14 GPs in our local practice, in a small town in Oxfordshire: 11 work three days per week, none of them works full-time and one of them works one day per week. Perhaps we should also address the loss of 40 working days per week from any similar team, as well as putting in place things that make doctors’ working lives more rewarding and meaningful. If physician associates are part of that then I am fully supportive, so long as they are properly regulated. The Faculty of Physician Associates code of conduct, produced with the GMC, says that physician associates will always work under the supervision of a designated senior medical practitioner and that they must work within the limits of their experience. Let us make sure that these regulations will help make that happen.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I have listened to the debate very carefully. My professional experience as a former health service manager over many years is that we have had this debate about people taking on different roles in health and always the same arguments come. Whether it be physiotherapists taking on roles, nurses becoming nurse practitioners or pharmacists coming into this, the same argument always happens: that somehow this dilutes patient care and safety. The answer is that it does not if it is properly regulated, there is proper training and there is proper monitoring of what happens to patients.

I understand that there is some anxiety, but I have to say to the BMA, in particular, that its language in the briefings it has given has driven the bullying and ostracisation of colleagues in hospitals who are valued members of a clinical team. That is the word: “team”. It needs to be led by a senior doctor, normally the consultant, without ostracising people within that team. I gently say to the noble Baroness, Lady—I have forgotten.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Bennett.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—I remembered the Manor Castle because of Sheffield, but I could not remember the Bennett bit—that, twice during her contribution, she used the term “a second-rate service”. These people do not provide a second-rate service; they provide and augment the team service, to ensure that patient outcomes are as good as they can be.

On the whole, I support the fact that these orders are being laid, although there is one issue that I think needs to be thought through carefully: if the GMC is going to regulate, there is an issue about the way that the distinguishing of the registers is dealt with. I see that as a potential trip-up point if not thought through very carefully; I hope the Minister can give the House some assurance on that.

On the whole, I support the regulations. This is just a continuation of many years of different people in the team taking roles. With the correct regulation and the correct training and supervision, this will improve patient outcomes and service.

NHS: Dementia Commission Report

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My noble friend is correct; I did not see reference in my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy’s report to music therapy either. I am familiar with some of the principles behind it. My personal experience myself with the elderly dementia patient that I cared for was that bringing my five year-old son along took them out of their position and made them care for that child and forget about their own situation. Those sorts of therapies—and music is similar—have a vital role that we will look into further as part of this plan.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Alzheimer’s Society has a good report out called Dementia: What Every Commissioner Needs to Know, about Alzheimer’s care. What is the Government’s view on ensuring that ICBs across the country have a minimum standard of commissioning levels for people with dementia?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

We have set out a dementia good care planning guide to exactly those commissioners because, as ever, we need uniformity in these areas. Part of the strength of ICBs is that they have freedom to deliver local services, but we have to make sure that they are always achieving at least the minimum levels that the noble Lord referred to. That is what the guidelines are about, and we are setting monitoring against that to make sure that they are delivering on it.