Baroness Pidgeon
Main Page: Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Pidgeon's debates with the Department for Transport
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords Chamber
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really important debate on three fundamentals to our society: health, housing and transport. My noble friend Lady Thornhill talked in detail about the housing aspects in the gracious Speech and about concerns that the proposed legislation does not go far enough and that there is an absence of a coherent delivery plan. The noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, also set out some serious challenges in the area of housing. I will build on the excellent contributions from my noble friends Lord Bradshaw—with his decades of railway experience—Lady Tyler and Lady Walmsley.
On transport, these Benches support high-speed rail to Manchester and other northern cities to increase capacity, unlock local rail improvements and boost the economy. Clearly, getting Northern Powerhouse Rail from simply talk—which we have had since it was launched in 2014—to spades in the ground and passengers on trains on rails is critical. Can the Minister therefore advise which version of Northern Powerhouse Rail the Government are committing to? When will passengers be able to travel on any new lines as part of this project? Further, can we have some assurance that this is the end of U-turns and broken promises for our northern cities, which are desperate for greater connectivity? What learnings have there been from the challenges around delivering High Speed 2, which were highlighted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin?
The Railways Bill establishing Great British Railways as a single accountable body to unite track and train management is a key part of the Minister’s work. On these Benches, we remain concerned that some proposals within the legislation may increase the potential for micromanagement and a power grab by a Secretary of State. But our main focus is on a passenger- centred railway that looks at growing the number of passengers and incentivises increased travel by rail, ensuring an affordable, reliable and accessible railway. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister on this important Bill and hope we can see some amendments to deliver that ambition for passengers. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, rightly pointed out that this must deliver for all parts and deliver connectivity.
One concern for many people is the state of our roads and pavements. While the highways financing Bill looks to introduce a way to unlock private capital investment into major road infrastructure, we on these Benches wish to be assured that this delivers genuine value for money for taxpayers. Lessons must be learned from previous experiences, particularly in the case of Thames Water, where the model allowed the prioritisation of investor returns over public benefit. I hope the Minister can assure the House on this matter.
I am really pleased to see in the gracious Speech a draft taxi and private hire vehicle Bill. I worked closely with the Minister on the recent devolution legislation and helped to secure some provision for stronger enforcement across the country, and it became increasingly clear that a fundamental review was needed to bring the legislation into the 21st century. There are many concerns about the fragmented system that operates today, and I look forward to the planned consultation and engagement with drivers, the sector and passengers to increase safety and accessibility in this growing sector. Perhaps the Minister can advise on whether autonomous vehicles will be part of this pre-legislative scrutiny, given their growing presence and the timeline for the consultation.
The civil aviation Bill may be only a short Bill, but modernisation needs to work for all our communities and our environment, recognising that noise and air pollution has a significant impact on people and nature. We will look at this carefully to ensure that guardrails are in place for our communities that are affected by airports as they currently exist, let alone those that will be impacted by proposed expansions, which we clearly oppose, such as those at Heathrow and Gatwick. But lacking from the gracious Speech was detail about legislation to regulate and legalise e-bikes and e-scooters. That seems to us to be a missed opportunity, so I would like to hear more on that.
We have heard some strong contributions across the House on the health Bill—the NHS modernisation Bill—including from the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Neuberger. As we heard, the Bill will abolish NHS England as well as key organisations such as Healthwatch and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, and it will create the framework for the single patient record. But we believe that the government solution, which is to pass responsibilities from one group of civil servants to another, misses an opportunity to improve services for patients and the health of our country. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and Lady Bray, highlighted, patients will feel little difference, and these reorganisations cost a lot of money, take time and lose memory from the workforce, and ultimately they will not change the front-line patient experience. We have seen this time and time again over the last few decades with different restructures. I say this as a former NHS employee who has lived through many of those reorganised bodies.
Health and care services, as we have heard, remain under significant strain. More than 6 million people are still waiting for care, and performance is well below the standard that 92% of patients should start treatment within 18 weeks. As my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lady Walmsley outlined so clearly, a real NHS reform Bill would fundamentally rewire the NHS and would have social care, mental health services, general practice and prevention at its heart. We need to stop so many people having to go to hospital and help them leave more quickly when they do. That means having accessible local services in the community, including social care and a new focus on early intervention, which we have heard much about this afternoon, to stop people getting so sick.
What seems to have united many contributions, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, is a single patient record. We will consider carefully the plans for this but, as we have heard, people are tired of having to reconfirm their medical histories over and over to different medical and other professionals. We would welcome different parts of the NHS and social care having access to that same patient information, but this has to come alongside new privacy protections through a new health data charter. The proof is clearly going to be in the detail, and we look forward to working with noble Lords to get that right.
Alongside the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others, we have deep concerns over the abolition of Healthwatch and the HSSIB. Let us take Healthwatch, for example: the Government are stripping patients of their voice in our NHS. Rather than being able to go to—crucially—an independent body to express how the NHS could work better for them, patients will now have to give feedback, either to their local trust or via ICBs or councils. We do not think a department or a director within the department is good enough or has the independence that is required to ensure that patient voices are genuinely heard. The decision to scrap the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is also a major concern; it is fraught with risk. A trusted and efficient safety investigation process is the best way of restoring trust, learning from system failure and preventing costly public inquiries. We hope that the Government will reconsider those proposals.
As articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, the elephant in the room—the glaring absence from this legislative programme—is social care. It is clear, not just from these Benches but from others, such as the King’s Fund, that:
“Interim action should not wait for the Casey Commission’s final recommendations”.
The King’s Fund goes further and comments:
“The legislative programme lacks ambitious action to tackle some of the other biggest causes of ill health, including obesity and alcohol harm, or to address deep health inequalities across the country. This raises questions about how the government’s promised shift to prevention will be delivered”.
The noble Lord, Lord Babudu, focused on prevention in his contribution as well. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, highlighted the need for prostate cancer screening as a way of prevention. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that area.
With a focus on reorganisation, there will be limited immediate difference in how patients experience health services, which is a huge concern. How does this Bill address the deep-rooted concerns about capacity and access to front-line health services, including mental health and social care services? That is the area in which we would like to see the focus of legislation, rather than rearranging and rebranding civil servants and NHS organisations.
This legislative programme is very full, and we on these Benches will be scrutinising each Bill in great detail to ensure that the passenger, the resident and the patient are truly at the heart of the Government’s proposed legislation.