Cass Review

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

To take the second point first—it was also made by the noble Baroness opposite—that is absolutely right; it can be a real danger. People with English as a second language might not understand that a “person with ovaries” refers to them. It needs to be very clear. It is fundamental that the first description has to be “male” or “female”; you can then put additional parentheses after that.

The noble Baroness’s first point is exactly right. Until young people are through the age of puberty and its effects, they are not in a real position to make up their own minds. That does not mean that they should not be supported during that process, but it does mean that we should not be doing anything irreversible.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I watched the Secretary of State’s introduction to this Statement on Monday, live from my office. She asked the other place to

“bear the sensitivities of this debate in mind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 55.]

I am afraid that it is clear from the printed record before us, and was even clearer watching the Secretary of State speaking, that it was delivered in a triumphalist, dogmatic tone, which meant that she did not follow her own prescription.

The Statement speaks of “myths” but fails to acknowledge the agency and lived experience of children and young people. I have two questions for the Minister. Can he reassure me that we are not going to lose, in this ideological debate, the need for massively more investment in services for children and young people in the NHS? The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to the huge waiting lists that are behind the report we are discussing today.

The Statement also did not mention—and I think we have to acknowledge this—that hate crime against transgender people hit a record high in figures out last October. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that children and young people seeking gender identity services should not have to live in a society where their experiences are used as a political football. They should not be treated as a weapon in the culture war. They should not have to live in a hostile society.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

First, I think I speak for the whole House in agreeing that no one, under any circumstances, should feel that they live in a hostile society —whatever case it is, whether it is transgender, race, sex or whatever. I totally agree with the noble Baroness there. I will absolutely clarify this in the follow-up in writing, but I know that, in this specific area, the NHS has already committed £18 million in this space. Of course, this is quite separate from the £2.3 billion that I mentioned before in the mental health space generally, which, from memory—and I will absolutely clarify this—is the provision of 350,000 extra places for young people, because we know how much the demand is out there.

Sodium Valproate and Pelvic Mesh

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

That is precisely what I put to Minister Caulfield this morning. She commissioned the review because her feeling was that the period from when my noble friend’s initial report came in until when Maria Caulfield was in post was too long. So it was absolutely she who commissioned it last year, and it is absolutely she who very much said that she is determined that there should be a substantive reply from us in the next few months.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, at the launch of the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report the victims of the Primodos scandal expressed great distress as they felt that they had been airbrushed out. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, recommended that they should receive redress, and they were treated the same way in the report as the sodium valproate and vaginal mesh victims. Can the Minister tell me what will be done to provide redress and ensure that there is appropriate treatment for the victims of Primodos?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Again, these are difficult areas. My understanding is that we are working from the conclusions of the expert working group in 2017, and its review of all the evidence was that it could not find a causal link between Primodos and the impact it had during pregnancy. This was again reviewed by the MHRA when more information was brought up in the last year. So I am afraid that, as we stand today, the evidence is not there that suggests that causal link.

Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I sincerely thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for securing this debate. I thank her slightly less for the fact I have had to throw half of my speech out because she has covered it so comprehensively already, but it was a great introduction that set out the issue of work- force that the subject directly addresses but also the true crisis in sexual health. I echo the reflections from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the importance of relationships and sex education. That is the foundation of prevention; it is clearly not being delivered to anything like the standard it should be to our young people. That means we are utterly failing them.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; he and I have had our disagreements in recent times, but I entirely agree with everything he just said. I echo his comments about public health, and that this Government have essentially abandoned public health as a way of ensuring that we have a healthy society that enables the people in it to thrive and live to their full potential. There is the failure to tackle the issue of ultra-processed foods—our broken food system—as well as issues around alcohol; I would add the failure to restrict gambling advertising and allowing the gambling industry to go totally out of control, which presents a great threat to many people.

Returning to the specific issue we are talking about, when I was reading the briefings, I came across the term “neonatal syphilis”. What I knew about neonatal syphilis before this came from reading the history of Georgian and Victorian England. If we read some of the novels of that era, we find some very vivid descriptions—they might not have known the cause, but they could describe the effect. I went and looked, and I came across the website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in America setting out the reality of neonatal syphilis, which is frequently

“stillbirth, miscarriage, or neonatal death”.

If the baby survives, among the effects are

“blindness, deafness, developmental delay, or skeletal abnormalities”.

It is interesting that there is a parallel between what is happening here in the UK, with different structures, and what is happening in the US, because the US, as the CDCP says, has an acute failure in terms of neonatal syphilis—the number of babies born with neonatal syphilis in 2022 was 10 times greater than in 2012. The CDCP says that testing and treatment during pregnancy could have stopped 88% of those cases.

I reflect on those US figures because we are seeing increasingly an Americanisation of our healthcare system: a copy of the US healthcare system’s models; an import of US companies; and an import of people with professional experience, particularly managerial experience, of the US system. This is a system that the CDCP, citing the syphilis figures, says is a total failure. That is something we should really reflect on.

I should probably declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I will pick up figures that have already been mentioned, but that have to be highlighted. Among the largest reductions in public health spend since 2015 has been spend on sexual health services—29%—yet at the same time, there has been a significant increase in demand for sexual health services: nearly 4.5 million consultations in 2022, up by a third in a decade.

Of course, we are always hearing elsewhere in your Lordships’ House about rising costs. Sexual health clinics and services are no more immune from the costs of rising energy prices and rising staff costs, et cetera, than anywhere else. The funding is falling and the demand is increasing, so of course the needs are not being met. I reflect back on the debate earlier this week on the Budget. Member after Member of your Lordships’ House got up and spoke about “broken Britain” and our broken services. The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for the Government, said at the end: “Oh, I think you’re all being too gloomy”. Well, I am afraid that if we look at the state of our sexual health services, we see that the phrase “broken Britain” is sadly appropriate.

I acknowledge having drawn on the excellent briefings we have received, and I now turn to training. We have received demands, which seem perfectly fair and reasonable, that all sexual health medical training posts be 100% funded through the NHSE, in the same way that posts in primary care, oncology and public health are funded, and that the NHSE be accountable for ensuring that some of the recruitment gaps that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to are filled in. This is important and relates to some of the other debates we have had about the importance of expertise and of proper, full medical expertise being involved at all levels of the health service. No service should be allowed to operate without a genitourinary consultant, and meetings of organisations and commissioners must include them.

I come to two more specific asks. We have a contrast in asks from the briefings. The Terrence Higgins Trust calls for a high-level sexual health commission to address these issues, while the National AIDS Trust calls for a national sexual health strategy. I do not have a particularly strong position on which of those is the right way to approach the crisis, as all these organisations are saying, in different words, are the Government going to take serious, significant action? They may not have very long to go as a Government, but this really cannot wait until we have had an election—whenever that is.

I come back to an issue I have raised a number of times before in the House: the patchy provision of postal STI and HIV testing across England. Only during one special week, the national HIV testing week, can everyone access this testing from a single service. That makes England an outlier. Wales and Scotland already have national HIV postal testing services. In Wales, that also includes STIs, and the Scottish Government are also moving in that direction. It would surely be cost-efficient and cost-effective to make available to everyone in England a national HIV and STI testing service. It would be an extremely good way to spend government money.

I also want briefly to raise the issue of chlamydia testing. We had a full national chlamydia screening programme that included both young men and women, but that was cut back in 2021 from preventing chlamydia infection to reducing the harms of untreated chlamydia. As a result, chlamydia has come to be seen as a women’s issue. Of course, infection occurs in both sexes, but that is not being drawn to the attention young men in particular. Will the Government reverse that change and reinstate the full national chlamydia screening programme service?

The final thing I want to address is people living with HIV who are no longer engaged with services. The Government estimate that some 14,000 people have not been seen at their HIV clinic for at least a year. That is a real risk to the health of people living with HIV and a significant threat to the Government’s goal of ending new HIV cases by 2030. Of course, this issue relates to many other policy areas that the Minister cannot deal with, such as poverty and homelessness, but surely there should be within health a programme to re-engage people with HIV, who should be being cared for not only in their own interests but in the interests of the health of the nation and the whole of society.

Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

As an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from “that” to end and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024 because it represents a significant constitutional change in regulation of healthcare professionals by omitting parliamentary oversight and approval for regulating anaesthesia associates and physician associates; and fails to address concerns within the medical profession about the supervision and titles of the roles.”

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to move what the Minister has correctly identified as a fatal amendment that the House do not approve this order. This is on two primary grounds: the lack of democratic oversight and the concerns of the medical profession.

Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to the existence of physician associates or assistants, or their anaesthetist colleagues. I am not opposed to their regulation—indeed, I am keen to see them regulated—and I respect the efforts of current and future PAs and AAs who complete their studies and have the student debt to prove it.

I also want to be clear that, unless I get an indication from the House that it wishes me to do so, it is not my intention to put this amendment to the vote. My intention in tabling it was to ensure that the many hundreds of voices of concern that have reached me personally and the more than 21,000 doctors and patients who wrote to their MPs opposing this order are heard, and that the Government consider—seriously, I hope—whether they should go forward to regulate PAs and AAs in this manner, with this order.

I will first address the second part of my fatal amendment, about the views of doctors and patients. Sir Robert Peel invented the concept of policing by consent. I want to adapt that for these circumstances by saying that we must have regulation by consent. I am sure that all noble Lords engaged tonight are aware that the British Medical Association, the Doctors’ Association UK and the EveryDoctor group are opposed to this statutory instrument, for reasons on which I am sure we will hear much more from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton, with their regret amendments.

One of the very serious concerns is about clarity for patients and the confusion introduced by the title “associate”. On that I turn to a report from the BBC, an interview with Marion Chesterton, the mother of Emily, who tragically died after being seen twice by a PA and misdiagnosed. Marion said that her daughter

“didn’t know she hadn’t seen a doctor”.

Marion added—and this is something that I think people should focus on:

“Physician associate sounds grander than a GP”.


I pick up a point made by the Minister about PAs and AAs having been around for 20 years, an often-cited statistic. If we look back to 2014 and 2015, there were fewer than 50 PA and AA graduates. There were literally handfuls in the system. It is only when you get to 2018 that you start to see the figures leaping up to 400 graduates, and the Government’s aim is to head towards the figures that the Minister cited. So we may not have seen much confusion, but there were few people to be confused about within the system. This is a situation that is arising now, and that demands a reconsideration.

However, I will largely leave the arguments about titles, and the General Medical Council as regulator, to the regret amendments. What I want to focus on is the word “consent” and the concerns of doctors and patients in the context of the state of our medical system.

We debate as junior doctors are in the middle of their 10th strike action. We debate as one in seven British-trained doctors is working overseas. We debate after a BMA poll found last year that around 40% of junior doctors plan to leave the NHS as soon as they can find another job.

We need to make changes to the system. That is something on which the Minister and I, and I think pretty well everyone, are agreed, but we can make changes to the system only with the consent of all those involved. There is a moral argument for that, but also a very powerful practical argument. The Government need to work co-operatively and sensitively, and to listen to our medical professionals rather than ride roughshod over their serious concerns—concerns that are shared by many patients and that have filled my social media feed in recent days.

The first part of my amendment is about democracy. The order got virtually no scrutiny or consideration in the other place. We, of course, have no opportunity to amend it to tackle the issues that the noble Baronesses will focus on in their regret amendments. We have only the extraordinarily rarely used option of rejecting it. I have not had any indication from the Labour Party that it would support that, and I assume that its silence on the Order Paper means that it supports the Government’s path, but I ask the Labour Front Bench to consider whether we have to take this back to the drawing board. That is a question I put to it directly.

The Minister raised the report of our hard-working and, I fear, underappreciated Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which makes it very clear that this is not just about PAs and AAs but is meant to be the model for broad and widespread changes to medical regulation in the future. The committee’s report says that this is

“the first use of powers inserted into the parent Act by the Health and Care Act 2022 to give the GMC direct powers to make and amend standards and procedures for these associates”,

while, as it says in bold,

“removing the process from Parliamentary oversight”.

It is interesting that the Committee says:

“The Explanatory Memorandum should have been more explicit on this point and on what safeguards remain”.


In testimony, under questioning from the committee of your Lordships’ House, the department confirmed that

“changes in registration processes etc will no longer be laid before Parliament in any form, they will just be posted on the GMC’s website … however members of either House can respond to consultations if they wish”.

I am glad about that.

This has really not been made clear through the process, as the committee highlights. I think it is worth focusing on the fact that had it not been for the amendments from the noble Baronesses and me we would not even be doing this in the main Chamber. We would be in the secondary Chamber, getting, as we all well know, very little attention at all.

I particularly want to highlight, in case noble Lords did not receive it, the briefing from the Professional Standards Authority, which has responsibility for overseeing the GMC’s activities. It said, in what I think one would describe in bureaucratic terms as a carefully worded briefing, that we

“need to keep under review as the reforms are rolled out the accountability framework proposed to balance the increased autonomy for regulators with greater accountability”.

I wish to make a final point to address the fear and concerns of many patient groups and communities—which the Minister alluded to—that their communities and their families will lose ready or perhaps any access to doctors and be relegated to a second tier of NHS services, with PAs with two years of medical training versus GPs with 10. In the letter following up the very useful briefing that he arranged last week—and I think him very much for that and for the letter—the Minister makes reference, as he did in his speech, to the Government’s aim of doubling the number of medical places in England to 15,000 by 2031-32.

The Minister gave, I believe, the same figures as were reported in the Observer on Sunday. These were in a leaked letter from the Health Minister and the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education to the independent regulator, the Office for Students. The figures in that letter have been interpreted as significant back-pedalling on the Government’s final aim and total. I ask the Minister whether he remains confident and can guarantee to the House that we are on target to achieve that final figure, given that we do not seem to be taking very strong steps in that direction.

The way those figures came out can only amplify the fears of many communities that those who can pay can go private, as increasing numbers of Britons feel they are forced to do. Patients at the centre of well-serviced areas where doctors can supplement their NHS pay with private work will keep access to a service like that now available, while other areas—the kinds of areas that are often talked about as being in need of levelling up—will get a second-class service.

We have to think about the context of this. Our NHS is battered by privatisation, with nearly 10% of services, including more than half of under-18 inpatient psychiatric services, now provided by for-profit providers. We have seen the disaster of PFI schemes, now set to cost £80 billion for the original £13 billion investment—the equivalent of £1,200 for everyone in the UK. We have seen this jewel in the British crown worn away by austerity—a decade in which investment in infrastructure and new technology collapsed and the pay of junior doctors and midwives in particular plummeted in real terms.

Please let us not deliver another blow. Please withdraw this order either tonight or afterwards. Take the path of consensus. Take the path of democratic oversight. Bring this forward as legislation that can be debated, amended and properly scrutinised. Please listen to the fear of communities. I ask everyone in this debate but particularly the Labour Front Bench to consider that approach and the wisdom of it. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)]

I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Brinton, by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am acutely aware of the hour, but I am also aware there are a great many people—so social media tells me—watching this debate. There are a couple of things I need to say.

First, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, especially the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Winston, for bravely telling us about the detail of their rich experience.

I will pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. If you look back at my speech—I have handed over my notes now—I used the word “respect” talking about the PAs and AAs, and I talked about their study and student debt. I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I have not made any listing of incidents where things have gone wrong. I cited one case relating to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, of the difficulty patients have in understanding what the term “physician associate” actually means.

I highlight the words of the noble Lord, Lord Patel: using an SI to do a major piece of legislation is inappropriate. That is the whole reason I put down this fatal amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others said we cannot get the parliamentary time for it. Well, we have talked about reform a lot tonight, so maybe we ought to look at reform in Parliament as well. I will refrain from suggesting some of the Bills that we could not be doing so we could be doing this as a Bill instead.

There are a couple of points that need to be answered. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, questioned part-time GPs. If GPs are working, say, theoretically four days a week, it is more than a full-time job in terms of the stress, pressure and time involved. If we are going to keep people in the profession, we have got to allow them to contribute as much as they can. That is an issue of sustainability.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to me talking about a second-rate service. I was talking about a possible experience a few years in the future; if there is the situation of whole regions, areas and practices—like the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said—having only PAs, effectively that would be a second-rate service. That was the future context I was talking about.

Given the time, I will make one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said the Government are looking for the number of PAs and AAs to be 8% of the total of doctors. The question, of course, is not just about the total but about the distribution. There is the point about private hedge fund owners of GP surgeries and what they might choose to do. There is also the point which I have been driving at all the way through, having for more than a decade been visiting northern cities and towns in particular, where people really feel that they are struggling to get a decent NHS service and struggling to get the staff, and they fear that they might not get enough doctors.

Again, I thank everyone. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for stressing how vulnerable patients are. My final point is that in making sure that patients understand they are being seen and treated by a PA or an AA, there has to be an attempt to understand that when people are ill, vulnerable and desperate, they may not absorb something just being done to them by rote. That is really important.

With that brief summing up, and in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

NHS Dentistry

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The noble Baroness is quite correct. Cornwall is one of the areas where we piloted the mobile services. It is probably not the number one area, but it is fair to say that it is one of the main areas where we are putting in more resources for precisely that reason.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall switch sides of the country. The campaign group Toothless in England was founded in Suffolk and is calling for contracts for NHS dentists to cover the real costs. It says that this is the only way to solve the drought of dentists in places such as Waveney Valley, where one in three people has been unable to secure an appointment over two years.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

These plans were welcomed by Toothless in England, which was good to see, as well as by Healthwatch. I know personally that making it economic for dentists to work in the NHS rather than in the private sector, or getting that balance right, is fundamental. The changes are a good first step towards that but more probably needs to be done.

Maternity Services

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the important speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. Her words reflect what I heard last night at a meeting with Justice for Windrush Generations, where there was a reflection that minoritised communities share the experience of inequality and discrimination but the individual experience of different communities is different and needs to be acknowledged.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for securing this debate and reminding me of a meeting that I attended in Huddersfield in 2016. It had 480 people stretched across two meeting rooms with hundreds of people outside, unable to get into the room. It was the “Hands Off Huddersfield Royal Infirmary” campaign. I note in looking around today that a book recounting that campaign, Fighting from the Heart by Cormac Kelly, has just come out. It will pick up one of the themes of my speech: we have rightly been focusing on listening to individual patients but we also need to listen to communities and the demands that they make of their maternity services. The case of what has happened with Huddersfield Royal Infirmary is an example of that.

I am perhaps quite unusual in this debate in that I bring neither personal nor professional experience, so I put the topic out around the Green Party to collect people’s views and experiences. One that came back shocked me a little, and I will anonymise it because I am referring to a member of staff. This member of staff reflected on her personal experience. She was a professional woman in London, so you would have expected her to be well equipped to navigate the system, but her experience was that she did not have the NICE-recommended number of antenatal appointments and, as a result, a serious issue was missed. That reflects on an individual level what we are hearing from all the royal colleges et cetera about the inadequacy of services in all the statistics.

Coming back to the community point, a Green Party Birkenhead and Tranmere councillor, Amanda Onwuemene, who is herself a former midwife, drew my attention to the current perilous situation of the Liverpool Women’s Hospital, which is threatened with closure. The alternative accommodation and services being proposed do not match those being lost in maternity and other services, and the NHS and the women of Merseyside are being shortchanged again.

I want to look at what is happening there because it is a reflection of something we have not talked about very much: the issue of private finance initiatives, the privatisation of the NHS and how it has cut away at resources. That is reflected in what is happening in Liverpool and other places. The concern is that a particular quality of service is at risk of being lost.

That is also reflected in what is happening in London, where NHS North Central London is consulting on the potential of closing one of two maternity services in London hospitals due to fewer births. These are the Whittington and the Royal Free. If someone from outside London looks at a map, they might look at those two and think that they are not too far apart, but anyone who knows this area—and I do well from previous political campaigning—will know that the public transport provision heading east-west across London is extremely poor. People frequently have to take three buses to get from the east of what is the Whittington’s catchment area to the Royal Free, and people need local services and that is something that really must not be lost. I quote Mayani Muthuveloe from Whittington Maternity and Neonatal Voices, who told BBC London that there was a real “sense of reassurance” from giving birth in hospital near to where family and friends live, and that travelling to a facility further away would “add pressure” on patients.

We are seeing not just overall quality of service issues, but an issue of loss of local services. It is worth contrasting this with the Government’s own words in commenting this month on the women’s health strategy for England. That is focused on expanding women’s health hubs and, rightly, on maternity care,

“continuing to deliver on NHS England’s 3-year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services”.

So the Government have plans for this, but, as we have heard from so many noble Lords, we are not seeing the outcomes that we desperately need.

I will pick up some points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, because the figures are deeply shocking. These are grouped figures, because those are what the NHS provides, but I am relying in part on the briefing from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Women from black ethnic backgrounds were three times more likely to die during or up to six weeks after pregnancy, and Asian women twice as likely. Deaths from mental health-related causes, as many noble Lords have highlighted, account for nearly 40% of the deaths occurring within the year of an end of pregnancy. I have a direct question here. Will the Government, as the royal college is calling for, commit to a time-limited target to reduce maternal inequalities to drive the innovation, improvement and, crucially, investment that is needed in these areas?

I will briefly pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, because I think it is terribly important. There is no doubt that the serious, major issues we are seeing in the outcomes of maternity services reflect more broadly the poor level of public health across our entire population. This is where I run into the Green Party problem, which is that everything is related to everything else. When you bring systems thinking in, you need to think and talk about everything. When we are talking about maternal health, we have to talk about people’s working hours and commuting time. Are people able to work from home? Do people get the breaks and the kinds of working conditions they need to have a healthy pregnancy and birth and to provide healthy care for their baby?

I was looking at a really interesting study from the University of Swansea about how, counterintuitively, during the biggest period of lockdown during the pandemic, when there were real shortages in the provision of services—probably unavoidably—in Wales, they found that rates of breastfeeding, successful breastfeeding and length of breastfeeding actually went up. This is where we need to look at that social setting. If people are able to work from home, if they are at home and if they have less commuting time and are able to spend more time with a newborn, you end up with healthier outcomes. While we have to acknowledge that breastfeeding cannot and will not work for everybody, we all know that it is crucial for the health outcomes of both mothers and babies to encourage that as much as we can.

I am sure that pretty well all noble Lords have received the perhaps predictable but important flood of briefings before this debate from Mumsnet, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, to which I have already referred, Baby Lifeline, Sands and the Care Quality Commission itself. They all stress the huge problems with the workforce, particularly people not being trained or having to be trained under conditions of extreme debt and, of course, the number leaving the professions, particularly midwives.

I am reminded of a trainee midwife who I spoke to just as the change was being made that midwives would be loaded down with debt through having to pay for their own training. She was, as is often the case, doing a second degree. She had done one degree, had worked, had a couple of children and decided to retrain as a midwife. She was speaking of her experience of being a trainee midwife in a birth suite where, tragically, there had been an unexpected stillbirth. It happened that all the fully qualified professionals in that room were occupied with medical things and she found herself comforting the mother who had just had an unexpected stillbirth. I find it obscene that people are now having to pay fees to be doing something like that as they are completing their training. I do not think that is acceptable.

I have some more on the debt point. These figures are from the Royal College of Midwives. Three-quarters of the student midwives in England surveyed expect to graduate with debts of more than £40,000. Just 1% expect to graduate with less than £5,000 of debt. About half—47% of all student midwives in England—have a job outside their training in order to earn money, and that job is unsurprisingly having a negative impact on their training. That cannot be acceptable. It cannot set people up for a long-term, secure, stable career in midwifery. I am referring here to the Sands briefing, which states that the lack of staff puts more pressure on the existing staff, so more people leave, and then the lack of staff puts more pressure on. It cites a midwife, who says:

“Staff are frightened to work in an understaffed under-resourced unit, for fear of mistakes or incidents occurring due to the high activity and understaffing. Fear of investigations as a consequence and fear for their mental health and wellbeing as a result”.


This is what we are doing to our midwives.

I have one financial point to make, drawing on the Mumsnet briefing. The Government paid out £2.6 billion in the past year as a result of failures in maternity and neonatal care in the NHS. This is costing us enormously, including financially. Circling back to my initial point about the importance of local facilities, women’s facilities and listening to communities, I looked up Historic England, thinking about the situation in Liverpool. The first women’s hospitals appeared in the 1840s. There were 12 by 1871. Many people may know of the site, no longer there, where Elizabeth Garrett Anderson founded the New Hospital for Women, London, on the Euston Road. We have been through several cycles. In early modern times we had female midwives who, by the standards of the time, provided good-quality care. We then saw the arrival of male midwives, which actually saw more deaths. Then in Victorian times we saw the upswelling of women’s services. We are now at risk of losing them again. This is a cycle we need to break.

Health: RSV Immunisation

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

As I say, we are looking to have an infant programme. It is vital in the first few weeks for babies, which is why we are doing this whole plan, thanks to the pressure and the medical evidence. I echo what has been said about the relentless campaign for it all by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. We have got a tender in place. The intention is that we will be rolling it out from the autumn. I repeat that there is only one other public vaccination programme on this so far, in Galicia in Spain, so we really are at the forefront of this programme.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as I discussed with the Minister last year, we have already had approval for private use of RSV for over-60s, so anyone who has up to £200 available has been able to get that RSV vaccination. That is for over-60s. We are talking about a public scheme for over-75s. Is data being collected on the effectiveness and overall health impacts on people who are having the vaccine privately, which might inform whether we should have a broader public programme?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The JCVI process is similar to the NICE approach. They look through the quality-adjusted years framework and make sure that it reaches within that. That is how they came up with their calculations. So far it is only the older ones, 75-plus, that they think are enough of an at-risk group in terms of hospitalisations and mortality to justify that. But I will inquire further and get back to the noble Baroness I am sure that they are capturing the data so that we can check on the younger ages.

NHS Winter Update

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I happily agree that we are investing record sums. The latest figures show that we are investing around about 11% of GDP in the National Health Service. I believe the figure in 2010 was somewhere in the 7% to 8% range—I am speaking from memory and so I will correct that if it is not quite right, but that is the sort of massive expansion we have seen. If I take one area as an example, the cancer workforce has trebled since 2010.

What we are seeing more than ever is a record level of investment in the health service but also a record level of demand. I was hoping to show in the Statement how we are looking to tackle that. I will freely admit the challenges, and that it is early days, but I believe we are showing signs of getting on top of it. As I have said many times, I really think that technology will be its future, and there will be lots more we can talk about when we show the profound changes it is going to make.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, one in seven UK-trained doctors has left the country to practise overseas. That is some 18,000 doctors, a figure which is up 50% since 2008. Last year, the General Medical Council did a survey of doctors departing the UK to practise overseas, and one of the key factors identified was that doctors were leaving to work in a place where they felt supported by the state and the employer. Does the Minister believe that the Statement—the Government’s general position—is sending a message to doctors that they are supported and cared for, and truly valued, by the UK Government, given that if we look at the financial valuation, junior doctors’ salaries are down 24% in real terms since 2009?

This is obviously an issue of money, but it is also an issue of attitude. Have the Government got their attitude to the junior doctors terribly wrong?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the noble Baroness. Clearly, we want to make sure that we minimise any loss to the profession. Retention is key. The long-term workforce plan was all about trying to put a long-term footing in place, one which looked at not just the recruitment of doctors but their retention, which, as I say, is key.

Money is an element of that, clearly. As I say, I have not heard or seen anyone suggesting that we should be paying the 35% increase. I do not think that is a reasonable approach; I have not heard any noble Lords come forward and say that. The correct attitude of the noble Baroness is key as well. We need to make sure that we get that right and I like to think that we are trying to do that. The Secretary of State has been very positive in terms of trying to do that as well. I absolutely agree that, at the end of the day, this is a key workforce and its members need to feel that they are key, rewarded and motivated by what they are doing. That is key to any profession.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: NHS Ambulance Services and the NHS Patient Transport Service) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

As an amendment to the motion in the name of Lord Markham, to leave out all the words after “that” and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: NHS Ambulance Services and the NHS Patient Transport Service) Regulations 2023 because they expose trade unions to liability of up to £1 million, make trade unions act as enforcement agents on behalf of employers and His Majesty's Government, and will add strain to industrial relationships when the National Health Service needs to protect them.”

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in speaking after the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I must respectfully disagree with and indeed correct her on one point. I do not now accept that your Lordships’ House does not have the responsibility, in exceptional circumstances that I have set out before, to act to stop statutory instruments that should not go through. However, your Lordships will be pleased to know that I will not rehearse all the arguments I referenced in my earlier speech.

I also correct the noble Baroness on her suggestion that there has to be a Labour Government to protect the rights of working people. We have to get rid of the Conservative Government, but other options are available. The see-saw of politics that we have had for the past century has not served this country well, and its people are increasingly aware of that fact.

I am aware of the desire to move quickly to a vote, so I will be brief, but I will pick up a point from the Minister. Again, it is important in this debate to reference the briefing from the Royal College of Nursing, which stresses that the regulations seek to make trade unions responsible for breaking their own strikes. As the Royal College of Nursing makes clear, the Government had claimed this is not about nurses, but there are nurses working for the services that we are now talking about. It seems so long ago that we were all standing on doorsteps clapping, cheering and banging pots for our nurses and other medical workers who were putting their lives on the line. Look where we are now.

The RCN briefing also makes the important point, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted, that the minimum service level requirements may impact more severely on certain protected groups—most obviously women in respect of nursing. This is a gendered attack on the freedom of members of the RCN. As the RCN says, and as others have said before, this whole approach makes strikes more likely, not less likely.

In a recent survey of RCN members, 83% of nursing staff said that the staffing levels on their most recent shift were not sufficient to meet the needs of patients safely and effectively. I, and I think all medical workers, strongly believe in minimum service levels. We need to have them every day, and the Government have not created a situation in which that is possible.

For the avoidance of doubt—we want to move on to other votes—I am not planning to divide the House on this but, in the meantime, to allow the debate, I beg to move.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, it is good that this instrument applies only to ambulance trusts in England. That is the last time I will use the word “good” in association with this statutory instrument, but it certainly reflects a lot of feedback, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and others, that we had during the debate on the primary legislation, when we felt we had to remind the Government that the health service is devolved and that it was inappropriate to seek to interfere too far. It was interesting to hear the Minister say that the Government have made an offer of assistance to the Governments in Wales and Scotland in respect of giving them these wonderful minimum service levels. I would love to be a fly on the wall for those conversations, which I am sure are very short.

I turn to the substance of the requirements. The people running local health services are like watchmakers looking after very complex mechanisms with many different moving parts. From time to time, we work with those professionals on health and care legislation that provides tools for them to tune and improve their services. What is before us today is not such an instrument but rather reflects that the Government have decided unilaterally to give local health authority managers a hammer, because that is what the Government think they need. Yet the feedback we have had from all those who work in the National Health Service, as cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, is that they clearly believe that this is the wrong tool for the job. Given that feedback, it seems quite likely that many trusts will choose not to use the powers to issue work notices. If that is the case, perhaps little harm will ultimately have been done other than wasting parliamentary time on creating the law and the regulations.

But there is a worrying scenario, which we explored during the legislative process, that was not sufficiently addressed—where trusts that do not want to issue work notices nevertheless feel compelled to use them for legal reasons. I would like the Minister to come back to this today and provide some more compelling assurances. If an ambulance trust, after the passing of these regulations, wishes not to use this mechanism but instead to negotiate voluntary agreements, as the Minister said that he would like them to do, will it truly be free to make that choice? If politicians want to urge trusts to use the hammer of work notices that they have given them, that is one thing. They can deal with the political pressure. But if, by declining to use these notices, they will expose themselves to new legal risks, that is much more problematic. Trusts may then feel that they have to use the hammer, even where they believe it will cause more damage, because they cannot risk being sued for not doing so. Can the Minister give a clear guarantee that his department has looked into this thoroughly and determined that trusts will continue to be able to use their best judgment on what will cause least harm to the communities they serve?

Where a trust has exercised its judgment not to issue work notices and things go wrong, as inevitably may happen from time to time, for a variety of reasons, we need to know that the trust will not face action either from the department or from any other third party. Absent that assurance, the safe option may be to issue the work notices, for the trust to take the hammer to the watch, whether or not it thinks it is a good idea. This is the crucial point. If we are to believe the Minister’s reassuring words, that this will still create the scope for trusts to negotiate voluntary agreements and they will not have to issue these work notices, we need to know that the department has looked at this and can give us that kind of copper-bottomed guarantee, rather than simply saying it will not be a problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank noble Lords. In keeping with other comments, I will be brief in my response. We genuinely see a situation where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, we all agree that we want minimum service levels every day. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said in the previous debate, no one is against minimum service levels. All we are talking about here are the tactics to how we achieve that. I also totally agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, that using the language of conciliation has to be the right approach in disputes. However, all these SIs are designed to do is to provide that safety net. To address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, there have been other circumstances where there was a genuine concern that strikes would not enable those minimum service levels to be fulfilled. That is what we are talking about today.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, I agree that it will be up to the ambulance’s trust, or the other trust when we come to other parts, to use its best judgment on how to achieve those minimum service levels. It is at management level, but it is then our job as the Government to hold them to account. Clearly, if during these strike actions the trust was not achieving minimum service levels, and there were certain standards which put patient safety at risk, in those circumstances I would be expected, as would any Minister, to ask the relevant trust why that was the case and perhaps to reconsider, because its judgment call did not bear fruit on that occasion. This is all about trying to give the trust part of the toolkit to ensure what we all want, which is minimum service levels. We are not compelling it; we are giving it the choice to do it. We hope that it is never needed but we believe it is an important part of the toolkit.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I note that no Tory Back-Benchers are speaking in favour of the Government in this part of the debate. I note also the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who came at it in a different way to how I did. The House is again and again butting against the question “If not now, when?” We have the power to act. Not acting is as much of a choice as acting is. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, but I am aware of the time and the pressure to move on to more votes, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle’s amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Ultra-processed Food

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact on public health of ultra processed food; and what steps if any they will take to reduce the amount of ultra processed food consumed.

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

Observed associations between ultra-processed food and health are concerning, but it is unclear whether these foods are inherently unhealthy due to processing or their nutritional content. A diet high in processed food is often high in calories, salt, saturated fat and sugar, which are associated with an increased risk of obesity and chronic diseases. This continues to be the basis of our dietary guidelines and policies to tackle obesity and poor diets.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, which reflects what he said yesterday in our debate, that the House did not agree on whether processed food per se is bad for you. Common sense has long suggested that food that, to quote the Washington Post, is

“refined, pounded, heated, melted, shaped, extruded and packed with additives”

is bad for you. These dreadful food-like substances do not just contain a terrible balance of nutrients; there is also a problem with the process. The science increasingly demonstrates that. Yesterday I referred to a study based on the French NutriNet-Santé study by Chantal Julia et al; I supplied the Minister with the link. Will he commit to asking the department to look closely at that study, which demonstrates that nutritional quality and ultra-processing are correlated but distinct issues in diet? Will the department provide a substantive response to the study?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

Obviously, I am always happy to look at all the research because this is a vital area. This is the fifth time we have discussed it in the last three and a half months, so I apologise for any repetition. We are ever vigilant on this area but, as the contributors to yesterday’s debate showed, the research is mixed. The key things to get behind are the bad features of ultra-processed foods that are high in sugar, salt and saturated fat.