Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 96A to 96C and 163A in my name in this group. They deal with the transfer of prisoners from prison to hospital in a specified timeframe of 28 days. I am obviously pleased that this has been included in the Bill under Clause 35, but I briefly give some background.

I first recognised a need to incorporate a time limit in legislation in my independent report to government in 2009. At that time, the Department of Health had piloted a 14-day waiting limit with strong support from stakeholders to roll this out nationally, and I recommended this in my report. Although it was accepted in principle, it was not implemented. However, Sir Simon Wessely’s review picked it up again with a more realistic 28-day time limit, which was then included in the draft Bill and now in this Bill, ensuring a statutory requirement rather than relying on good practice guidance.

My amendments are therefore probing amendments to understand how the 28 days will work in practice—essentially, when does the clock start? First, Amendment 96A would replace the words “As soon as practicable” with

“No later than two days”.


HM Inspectorate of Prisons found that one factor contributing to delay was confusion around when the 28-day transfer period starts, with 34% of patients not referred on day zero of the 28 days. This amendment would ensure that the referral notice is made no later than two days after an initial request, therefore clarifying on what day counting begins.

Secondly, Amendment 96B would change “must seek to ensure” to “must ensure”. The scrutiny committee, of which I was a member, heard that “seek to ensure” is quite vague and open, and therefore recommended this amendment. I believe, as do many organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust, that the inclusion of “seek to” in the current wording of the Bill implies only an attempt to successfully transfer within the 28-day time limit, rather than it being the guaranteed outcome, save for exceptional circumstances. It would provide a clearer, more definitive commitment to adhere to a 28-day time limit for referral.

Amendment 96C would require that a specified, accountable person be appointed by the relevant referring body to ensure that the specified 28-day transfer period is met. While there are many agencies involved in arranging prison transfers, I am concerned that there should be a person to whom accountability is assigned. As it stands, the Bill lists in new Section 48A(3) the persons to whom the referral notice must be given—the notified authorities—but there is no person, agency or authority assigned, either with overall accountability or accountability for each part of the process. I believe that there is significant merit in creating a single role to help increase and assure accountability—for example, a dedicated official whose primary function would be to ensure efficient transfers with the ability and power to liaise and intervene at the most senior level where necessary.

The amendment would clarify accountability and support the desire expressed in the impact assessment to increase,

“accountability for all agencies involved in the transfer process to meet”

the deadline. This was supported by Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review, which stated that it would help

“unblock the institutional barriers and … give … the teeth it needs to push the transfer through”.

I absolutely agree with this, and I hope that the Minister will too in his conclusion to this debate.

Finally, Amendment 163A would require the Government to publish guidance on what counts as “exceptional circumstances” specified in new Section 48A(4) and (5), as inserted by Clause 35. That provision provides for a 28-day transfer period for acutely mentally ill patients held in prison to be transferred to hospital. Examples are given in new subsection (5) of what exceptional circumstances are not, for example:

“a shortage of hospital accommodation”

or

“a shortage of hospital staff; unless occurring as a result of other exceptional circumstances”.

This amendment would provide an opportunity to clarify what does constitute exceptional circumstances. This would help to avoid doubt, confusion and subjective judgment over what may or may not be an exceptional circumstance and to help ensure smooth and efficient transfer. Again, I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to that, perhaps with examples of what are exceptional circumstances.

Finally, I just note that, for transfers to be successfully completed in the 28-day time limit, the Government must ensure that appropriate bed provision in psychiatric intensive care units and secure care settings in every geographical area of the country is developed, together with a skilled workforce. I am sure that we will return to this topic at a later stage in our debates.

In conclusion, as I mentioned earlier, it is 16 years since I made my proposals on transfers, and I hope that that they are now coming to fruition. I am grateful to the Government for that and for not trying my patience any longer.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, I too support the aim behind Clause 35, which is to ensure the speedy access to specialist mental health support for people in prison. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, I also think that there is great merit in his Amendment 163A, which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State produce statutory guidance on the definition of what will count as exceptional circumstances for the reasons that the noble Lord has given.

The Explanatory Notes give examples of what might count as an exceptional circumstance where the 28-day standard would not apply: prison riots, hospital floods or exceptional clinical reasons. Those are three examples, but it would be good to see more precision on this question because, as the Government’s Delegated Powers Memorandum says, the meanings of these words will be litigated. They will show up in judicial review and private law action. Therefore, the clearer the Government are prospectively, the less frictional cost and time there will be through the justice system and health system in giving effect to the new standards that are set out here in what hopefully will become the Act.

However, having supported the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on that amendment, I will disappoint him now by just injecting a note of caution on his Amendment 96B. As we have just heard, it would leave out “seek to” in respect of delivering on the 28-day standard; excising those words, as he said, would in effect make it an overarching requirement—a “must”—even if there is a shortage of hospital accommodation or no staff available.

If the thought behind this is that the principal drivers of delays are essentially administrative processes then a “must” on 28 days can, in a sense, be given effect without a downside. But I wonder whether we actually have sufficient evidence to know that that is the root cause of such delays as occur. As I understand it, about four-fifths of the transfers from prisons to our specialist mental health facilities in the first half of the current financial year were to psychiatric medium-secure units and psychiatric intensive care, both of which are in very high demand and incredibly expensive resources, with highly constrained supply.

The impact assessment rather glosses over this question. When describing whether this new standard for transfers to hospital from prisons might introduce additional cost, it says at paragraph 169:

“Costs for the measure have not been monetised because they are principally driven by wider systematic changes which are supported by the legislation”—


that is, its administrative friction. It goes on to say something which I do not quite understand. I would be grateful if the Minister could interpret for us what the department meant when it wrote that an additional reason the costs were not being monetised was to ensure that

“resources are available to achieve transfers within the time limit in a greater proportion of cases”.

What are these “resources available to achieve transfers”? Are they additional or substitute resources? What is the scale of them? What was meant in the drafting of that paragraph?

My hypothesis is that this is not just about administrative friction. It is actually due to constraints on the supply in expensive and specialised mental health services, and therefore the unintended consequence of mandating, through excising “seek to” and making 28 days a trump card for people coming from prisons, would be one of three consequences.

Prisoners with severe mental health needs would find themselves in unsafe and poorly staffed facilities; or, by virtue of being in prison, you would displace a non-prison-based mental health patient who might have higher needs, as that is what the statute requires; or, under the Clause 49 powers, you would, effectively, see the Department of Health using the Henry VIII power, which it has in this Bill, to quickly rewrite 28 days and make it 180—or something else—because, as the delegated powers memo said, it might do so in that circumstance

“where insufficient beds are available to meet demand over a sustained period of time”.

For all those reasons, there may be unintended consequences of Amendment 96B which require further scrutiny.

However, in the spirit of wanting to make this work practically, I have laid down Amendments 97 and 98, which, essentially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, look to reciprocate the 28-day requirement. If you are aiming to get prisoners transferred to mental health facilities in 28 days or, similarly, when their treatment is complete, one should expect that the Prison Service or Immigration Service will ensure the return the prison estate to free up those scarce and specialist beds for other prisoners or patients who require treatment.

In a way, my amendment is a very gentle one. All I suggest is that if there are people stuck in specialist mental health beds who ought to be being returned to prison, that would constitute an exceptional reason for being unable to accept new intakes of prisoners being transferred. The reason this is such a gentle amendment is, of course, that the Government pray in aid the June 2021 best practice guidance for the transfers, which says that, although it should be a 28-day standard for moving from prison to mental health facility, it should be 14 days if moving back the other way to free up the bed. I have not proposed a 14-day requirement on the Prison Service, just the reciprocal 28 days, so, in that spirit of joint working, I hope these amendments will find wide support.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, briefly, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on the “seek to” question. When I read Clause 35, I was very excited about what it promised; I thought that, at last, this was being taken seriously. I talked to a range of people who worked in criminal justice, and they said: “Oh, it is not going to happen; what are you excited about?”—they just did not believe it. At Second Reading, I cited Richard Garside from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies saying that Clause 35

“while welcome, feels aspirational rather than practically implementable in the current system”.”.—[Official Report, 25/11/24; col. 549.]

I started to look at it again and thought that the danger for those of us who are following this debate is that we get bought off by this aspiration, and that, in practical terms, it will not mean what we all thought it was meant to. I am quite keen that we toughen up the statutory requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 163A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bradley, would ensure that Clause 35 is commenced only when the Secretary of State has clarified the meaning of “exceptional circumstances” and guidance on that definition is laid before both Houses. If we were legislatively to define exceptional circumstances, it would severely restrict our flexibility to update the definition based on an ever-evolving array of patient needs, which would be likely to delay implementation of the 28-day statutory transfer time limit while the definition is coined. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, pointed out, cross-agency work to support the implementation of this provision has led to a greater understanding of the barriers to meeting the 28-day timeframe. It has revealed the systematic barriers and the scale of the challenges, which include workforce, bed capacity and estates, which is why we intend to commence this provision after 18 to 24 months and are seeking additional funding to support this ambition. I hope this provides reassurance, and I urge the noble Lord—

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Can I just make sure I heard the Minister correctly? I think he said the that one of the reasons it would not be appropriate to do as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, suggested—that is, to set out a statutory definition—was because it would take too long to do it and would delay implementation of the 28-day standard. I think he now just said it is intended that that will come into force in 18 to 24 months, the implication being that he thinks it would take 18 to 24 months to produce a piece of statutory guidance about what constitutes an exceptional circumstance. Is that correct?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Having been in discussions with colleagues over the past couple of weeks on this point, I tested with them the processes involved in making sure that we can make this as robust as possible. One of the issues surrounding exceptional circumstances is the need for flexibility so that some of our professionals do not unwittingly break the law in exceptional circumstances. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with further details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting collection of amendments. I suggest that they are all slightly flawed but with good intent behind them.

In relation to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, as members of the scrutiny committee will know, we spent a long time talking about what happens in A&E departments. Our committee was very lucky to have Rosena Allin-Khan as a member; she is not just the MP for Tooting but a practising A&E doctor at St George’s Hospital. When we were wandering off into theoreticals, she managed to drag us right back to what actually happens.

The key issue that we returned to, as a committee, was that no matter what the police’s formal position is about their involvement in mental health crisis treatment, they will be there. First, people will go to A&E because the lights are on and, secondly, some of them will be very distressed, so members of the public and members of staff will expect the engagement of police officers. A lot has been said about the particular legal status of somebody who is detained in hospital. They are not technically detained, because they are not in a mental health facility. Yet we know that there is a need for spaces within A&E that are properly built and staffed as safe havens for a time, so that somebody who arrives in a state of distress can be in an appropriate place where they can become calm and, therefore, not be taken off inappropriately into the criminal justice system.

I can see what the noble Lord’s amendment is getting at. It deals with it in a very partial way. Following our discussions, and the discussion we had the other day with the noble Baroness, Lady May, on her amendment about police involvement in crisis moments for people with mental health problems, I hope that we might be able to come up with an amendment which is a bit fuller than the one which the noble Lord has put forward.

Amendment 137, the second in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is about monitoring what is being done about the use of illegal drugs and substances in mental health services. I listened carefully to what he said. Does he think that this does not happen already? I have been to a number of acute mental health services in London. It is clear that staff have to deal with very difficult situations. This cannot be an issue that does not happen; it must be part of the daily risk assessment of anybody working there. Does the noble Lord think that it is extensive enough to warrant this kind of reporting and is this another legal duty that we want to put on staff? Is it the best use of their time, compared to other things? I am in no way against getting good data out to solve problems, if that is the best way to do it, but I am not entirely sure that his amendment does that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is absolutely right to focus us again on a question that we have never had answered since 1983, about which resources go into acute services and which into community services. When we have a legal change, as we did in 2006 with the move to community treatment orders, what happens to the flow of resources? Crucially, what is the impact? We just do not have the answer. We have a health system which is very good at delivering itemised care. I suggest that it does not actually deliver that many care pathways. Even when it does, I have never seen any clear evidence that patient information and money flows are sufficiently sophisticated to explain to us whether any of the policy intents that we want to see—that all noble Lords who have ever spoken on mental health in this place have wanted to see—will come about. Her amendment may not be perfect either, but I certainly support the noble Baroness and her intent.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Whether such reporting should be specifically confined to community mental health services or be more expansive than that is obviously for debate. Whether it should be bi-annual or more frequently, or once a Parliament, does not really matter. The point is to try to continue to put a spotlight on the gap between need and availability in mental health when, for all the reasons that we have talked about, there is sometimes a tendency to downplay that aspect of health and what the health service does.

As the noble Baroness said, if we cast our minds back to last Wednesday when we had that debate about whether the apparent increase in demand for children and young people’s mental health services was real or not, it was paradoxical that, later that evening, the embargo dropped on the Lancet Child & Adolescent Health paper on mental health. It showed that there had been a genuine and unparalleled increase, particularly in younger women’s needs for specialist eating disorder services. Having young people who are severely ill is not an artefact of culture.

Having those kinds of data brought together in one place and published with the imprimatur of the Government would be helpful, rather than as a sort of periodic post-election exercise of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, provided. He, of course, also drew attention to the gap that exists between need and the availability of mental health services. I think he used a figure from April 2024 to point out there were more than a million people waiting for mental health, learning disability and/or autism services, of whom 345,000 referrals had waited longer than a year and 109,000 of those were for children and young people under the age of 18. There is a real gap here and a need to continue to put the spotlight on it, to mobilise attention and resource. I welcome the spirit behind Amendment 151.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have spoken a lot about the dangers of medicalising ordinary life and giving it a mental health label. The contribution I made in the previous Committee day on ADHD managed to get picked up by newspapers and generally cited as, “Cruel Baroness hates everybody that says they have ADHD”, so I have become even more infamous.

I welcome the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for a review, because the more information and data we have about what is available in the community, the better. My only word of caution is that we should also recognise that, although we need more data, sometimes that data can be used as part of an advocacy for more resources and that data can be unreliable. My only caveat is that whatever the review does, it should not just take superficial headlines or self-diagnosis and self-ID as the truth, and that we should have some scepticism in that regard. We are going to have to understand the implications of this Bill when it is enacted for community care and provision. Therefore, I would welcome any attempt at getting to grips with the reality of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 117 and 125 in this group are in my name. I tabled them in part to reflect what happened during the work of the scrutiny committee. We had long discussions about the benefits of ACDs, which were originally brought in under the Mental Capacity Act. I speak as the person who spent an awful long time trying to get them into that Act. They were brought in in the face of some resistance from practitioners. In fact, they have worked extremely well. It has been helpful to both patients and practitioners to know in advance, particularly for people who may have fluctuating illnesses, what it is that they want to do.

I point out yet again to the Committee that often, these are referred to as a decision to refuse treatment, but they are not always that. In the case of some advance choice decisions, people may say to their healthcare providers, “At the moment I am well. I know that, when I am ill, I may try to refuse treatment, but I want you to override that; I want you to carry on the continuity of my care”.

My amendment reflects something we were told. It will be no surprise to people that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, drew attention to the work that has been done in palliative care not only to make sure that people are aware of their right to make an advance choice decision about what they may wish to happen to them as their care continues, but to make it electronically. That was found to be one of the biggest barriers for practitioners, who would say, “We were in a crisis, and we couldn’t see it”. A lot of work has been done within the palliative care world to bring in new standard ways of doing things electronically. There is a pilot going on with the assistance of a private company, Thalamos—I think King’s has been trialling it—and it has so far been found to be extremely successful.

On a very prosaic level, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is absolutely right that the more that patients feel empowered, particularly in mental health care, the better they do. There are also rather simple things: it takes a lot less time on the part of staff to read the stuff and not to be for ever filling in endless bits of paper. There are time and money efficiencies that can be put into front-line care.

All I ask is that, in addition to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we go one stage forward. Let us be honest: some mental health patients can have quite chaotic lives and they might not be the most tech savvy, but they need the same opportunities as anybody else to get on to a system that we know works and which needs to become the default position for all practitioners, rather than, as it is at the moment, an aspiration.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I strongly support the amendments in this group, particularly that in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I share the concern, as I think I mentioned at Second Reading, that as currently drafted this proposition could amount to an unenforceable, verging on vacuous, set of requirements, be it noticeboards or helplines. I very much hope that, between now and Report, Ministers will look to adopt the alternative proposition that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has put forward. If, for whatever reason, that is not the case, I hope that collectively we might return to the question.

I have two small further points. I think I am right in interpreting the Bill as saying that guidance will be issued as part of a Section 118 code of practice which will give clarity on the duties of ICBs and NHS England in relation to the ACD part of the new Bill. I hope that that will, among other things, specify in more detail the categories of people who must be offered an ACD in accordance with the new statutory right which we will, I hope, have created; by whom the offer may be made; the fact that it should be recorded digitally, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has set out; and a number of other elements. Expecting individual ICBs to figure it out is a recipe for a subtherapeutic dose, shall we say.

My third and final point is that early evidence suggests that if the benefits described in the impact assessment come to fruition in the real world then there will be a positive impact, including on reduced compulsory admissions. Admittedly these are small and non-UK studies, as the material makes clear, but there is nevertheless a case for getting on with ACDs at scale, if the benefits that are hypothesised might actually be obtainable. It is therefore surprising to see in Annex C III of the impact assessment the suggestion that ACDs will not actually come online until 2029-30. It will take relatively marginal additional staff costs and time to do this, for a relatively small number of people. The suggestion is that it will be a surprisingly precise 55,071 people who might get a new ACD in 2029-30 and about 8,000 people who will get an updated one. These are not huge volumes, and we may be under-egging the pudding, but if the benefits are potentially there to be had, why on earth should we assume that we do not get going on this until 2029-30?

For all those reasons, I support the amendments in this group, particularly that from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Amendment 121 seeks to add financial circumstances to the advance choice documents. I spoke in the last session of the Committee about the importance of the link between financial problems and mental health problems. I draw attention again to work that has been undertaken by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, which suggested this amendment, and declare that I am a member of its advisory committee.

It is very welcome to see, in Clause 40, that health commissioners will have a duty to ensure that services inform people about advance choice documents. I listened to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about extending the reach of these documents. I very much look forward to the reply from my noble friend the Minister, because they sounded pretty convincing to me.

Ensuring that everyone has access to an advance choice document is something that the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute has called for previously. We believe that this clause must go further to advance a specific prompt about people’s financial situation. It may seem a small matter, but for people who have been detained under the Mental Health Act, who are possibly too unwell to keep themselves safe, finances are understandably often the last thing on their mind. As I mentioned in a previous session, this does not stop bills needing to be paid, debts mounting and collections activities being escalated. Including a section on money in the document would help people have greater choice and control over their finances when they are in crisis.

A person recalling their experience of receiving treatment for their mental health shared this comment with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute:

“I was never asked if there was anyone who was opening mail and keeping on top of my day-to-day living stuff … It’s always the same. I go in for treatment and come out to find my financial world is in a bigger mess than when I went in. The resultant terror, shame and guilt undoes all the work of the treatment and I am back in crisis again”.


This section should include explicit prompts which encourage people to reflect on and stipulate their preferences around finances. That can include consideration of how priority bills will be paid; preferences around access to credit; and advance planning to identify and empower a third party to manage their finances on their behalf, such as a lasting power of attorney or third-party mandate.

By including a systematic consideration of finances in ACDs and offering explicit prompts, people can be supported to have greater control and choice. It would better enable healthcare professionals, as well as the individual concerned, to put in place preventive measures to safeguard individuals from the financial harm that can be caused by, and exacerbate, mental health crises.

As mentioned previously, this is not about requiring healthcare professionals to support people with financial advice, or to deal with issues they have neither the expertise nor the capacity to deal with. It is about empowering them to identify people in need and refer them to the appropriate existing support.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has said. She is absolutely right that professions should be challenged, and that is partly what legislation can do, particularly in debates such as this. But we are losing the very important amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about young people and what we can do to improve circumstances through the Bill, and I want not to lose them, because they are very important.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Very briefly on the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised, the notion of supply-induced demand is a well-known phenomenon across health services. However, I have to say to her that I think that we are a long way off that being the problem that is principally confronting children and young people’s mental health services. We have a massive gap between the need for effective therapies for children and young people and their availability.

When the process of trying to expand children and young people’s mental health services kicked off several years ago, the goal was that we would get to a situation where one in three children and young people with a diagnosable mental health condition would get some form of specialist mental health support. That number has now been exceeded. I was just looking at the stats published last week and, although I do not see the most up-to-date number for it, I would be surprised if more than one in two are currently getting specialist mental health support for a diagnosable mental health disorder, not just distress. So, we are a long way off confronting this problem of supply-induced demand, whatever broader cultural or therapeutic labelling questions that she rightly points to may be in the ether. Fundamentally, we are going to need more services to benefit the children and young people who need them, not pretend that this is somehow all vapourware, imaginary or a cultural deformity, unlike our predecessors in the Victorian era.

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

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this important set of amendments. I say at the outset that I note the various observations that are outside the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, but I have noted them and I am sure we will discuss them on a number of occasions.

First, I turn to Amendments 46 and 47, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I have heard how many noble Lords are in support not just of those two amendments but all the amendments in the group. I am sure noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I understand where people are coming from and I will be pleased to go through the response to them.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about “troubling and sensitive matters” and about being inspired by testimonies that came through the charity Blooming Change—I express my thanks to that organisation for the work it does. Officials in the department have met the group and it made a very helpful contribution. Hearing from those with lived experience is crucial to making sure that this is the best Bill, and I know that many noble Lords have done that, so I thank the noble Earl for bringing that into these amendments.

Amendments 46 and 47 would change the definition of appropriate medical treatment to include treatment which

“seeks to minimise the patient’s distress and promote psychological wellbeing and recovery from any childhood trauma”.

Childhood trauma can of course have a devastating impact on psychological well-being. Effective and compassionate in-patient care must be informed, as I have said, in co-production with people with lived experience and be trauma informed. NHS England’s Culture of Care Standards for Mental Health Inpatient Services certainly underlines this.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords raised concerns around in-patient settings and how appropriate they are, which I understand. I hope it will be helpful to say in answer that the new definition of “appropriate medical treatment” introduces the requirement that treatment has to have a reasonable prospect of benefiting the patient. We would expect the setting in which someone is going to be detained to be considered as part of this. Of course, I am more than aware—without wanting to go into the generics in this group or any other group—that the place in which we start, in terms of the suitability and availability of the right settings, is not where I am sure any of us would want to be.

We also know that the sensory environments in settings can cause difficulties for people with sensory sensitivities. To support NHS services to address sensory aspects of the environment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to, NHS England has published a sensory-friendly resource pack, which outlines 10 principles to improve the sensory environment and signposts other resources.

The clause in the Bill that defines “appropriate medical treatment” already requires decision-makers to take into account the nature and degree of the disorder and all other circumstances, which could include childhood trauma, when considering whether medical treatment has a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit. The definition of medical treatment is unchanged and is indeed broad, including nursing care, psychological therapy and medication. All these interventions could include an overall aim to minimise distress and promote psychological well-being.

Amendments 50 and 51, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Bennett, aim to ensure that the clinician considers non-drug-based interventions as part of the new “clinical checklist”. The checklist requires clinicians to identify and evaluate alternative forms of medical treatment when deciding whether to give a particular medical treatment to a patient. As I have already mentioned, the definition of medical treatment under the Act is broad. As well as non-drug-based interventions, it includes specialist mental health rehabilitation and care. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is an important one, it does include the therapeutic environment or setting. This requirement, as outlined, would apply to all patients falling under Part IV of the Act. It includes patients with a learning disability and autistic patients who are detained for assessment under Section 2 and patients detained for treatment under Part III.

With specific regard to those with a learning disability and autistic people, I recognise the concern that they are more likely to be prescribed an antipsychotic than the general population. I emphasise that psychotropic medication should only be given for the right reasons, in the lowest dose, for the shortest time. NHS England has a national programme of work to stop overmedication and the inappropriate prescribing of these medications, which is aimed in particular at people with a learning disability and autistic people. Noble Lords will be aware of the STOMP programme. Alongside it is a national supporting treatment and appropriate medication in paediatrics programme called STAMP—the two are not to be confused. These programmes work particularly closely with those with lived experience, families and carers organisations, and a wide range of health and social care professional bodies.

Amendment 53, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, would require the approved clinician to offer a patient any treatment that is appropriate, having applied the new clinical checklist. The reference to medical treatment in that checklist should already be read in accordance with Clause 8, which inserts a new definition of appropriate medical treatment to enact the principle of therapeutic benefit.

The clinician must also support the patient to participate in decision-making to make sure that they do not simply offer their preferred treatment to the patient, with no discussion or consideration of alternatives. The Bill also requires clinicians and, where relevant, the second opinion appointed doctor to provide a written record that the treatment being administered meets the definition of appropriate medical treatment. Therefore, it is felt that the Bill already meets the intention of this amendment. Furthermore, if the intention is to ensure that a range of treatments is being considered by the responsible clinician, I can reassure noble Lords that this is already the case, because, as I have said, the definition of medical treatment is broad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I understand the dilemma. The point I emphasise is that, in deciding this, one has to be clear that the child has a proper explanation of the ultimate decision that has to be made. It is to that end that the competence has to be assessed.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

For those of us who are not anywhere near as legally expert as the noble Lord whose wise deliberations we have just heard, could he clarify the amendment that talks specifically about ring-fencing this new test for the Mental Health Bill? To what extent would that be consistent or not with, for example, the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Bell v Tavistock—the NHS trust—in the case of puberty blockers, which concerned the interpretation that the High Court had given to the Gillick test?

[Lord Meston (CB)]

I am tempted to say that I really do not know. That was a faster ball than I expected to receive. I think the answer is that the case law would be consistently applied, even as it stands now, but would undoubtedly be aided by a statutory test. Whether it would apply in cases such as that which the noble Lord just mentioned, I do not know. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a test for decisions that have to be made consequential upon this legislation, not other situations.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

I would say that all mental disorders are different but that they cannot all have their own Acts of Parliament. I do not accept that autism is different. Of course, it is different in the way that it manifests—

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I will make a slightly cheeky intervention, if I may, on the noble Baroness. I am not weighing into the debate that is taking place but simply make this point. Does she accept that the fact that a condition is listed in the DSM or the ICD is not itself definitive? Until 1973, homosexuality was listed as a psychiatric condition in the DSM and until 1990 it was, I believe, included as a psychiatric diagnosis in the ICD. Therefore, that is not the strongest evidential basis for her claims.

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

I agree with the noble Lord, but the reality is that we use DSM-3 and ICD-11 in the international classification of disorders. If we in Britain are to go outside that, for reasons of our own, then we had better have some pretty good ideas why that should be. I am not so sure that we have them.

The Wessely review rejected the notion because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, it carried serious risks that individuals would be extruded and neglected, the opposite of what is intended. Similar anxieties were expressed in the development and creation of other Acts—I am sorry that I am going to go on longer than the advisory—so as not to exclude anybody from this group, because we want mental disorder to be an inclusive thing and not to exclude whole groups of people. Their protections are gone if we exclude them.

I accept that almost all the developments for autism and learning disabilities in the Bill are very positive. They will really improve the way that people think about autism and will have an extremely beneficial effect on trying to develop services and improve training, but there is no evidence that changing the criteria under the Act will do anything to improve it. Getting money into services and service design is what we need and not a change in the legislation for criteria. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ group of specialists in learning disabilities have pointed out, the vast majority of them do not want this change in legislation. We should think very carefully before we submit people to something when we do not know what will be unleashed as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, with relation to housing. I do not want to go back 20 years for any reason except to say that, when we were closing the vast majority of mental health in-patient beds, the main aim of many of us doing those change programmes was to ensure that people had somewhere to live when they had been living in hospital for 10, 20 or, in some cases, 30 years, and that the housing had to be appropriate to their level of ability. Spending 30 years in a hospital does not exactly teach you self-reliance. There are some real challenges about that, so housing must be considered in any discharge planning.

On Amendments 19 and 20, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has sent me a copy of her speeches in her absence. Like others, I think that it shows her commitment to this House that at this point in her life she is trying to make sure that her voice is heard. I add my condolences to those of others in the Committee. Her point is that you would not discharge people from acute hospital without some proper care and treatment plan. I want to use my own words rather than hers, but when you say that somebody needs dialysis or that they need regular checking of their heart monitor, we automatically do it. Elective care is still getting a huge amount of focus, but elective care in this country is defined as acute hospital care, not elective care for mental health patients and people with learning disabilities. I want to rest it there, but that is why I support Amendments 19 and 20 so strongly.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I too am supportive of the spirit and intention behind Amendments 19 and 20, but I want to raise two textual questions relating to whether they would give effect as was intended.

In respect of Amendment 19, I am not sure that the explanatory statement accurately characterises what the amendment proposes. It says that the amendment ensures that ICBs and local authorities would

“have a duty to carry out”,

whereas at the point at which those words would be inserted it appears that the duty would also then fall to the patient’s responsible clinician. Amendment 19 by itself would essentially see CETRs overriding the judgment of the responsible clinician, which I think is quite a significant step to take.

In any event, I wonder whether Amendment 20 undoes any of the good work that Amendment 19 proposes in the first place. It says that you can ignore the exhortations of Amendment 19 if there is a “compelling reason” to do so. My question to the drafters of Amendment 20 would be: what statutory interpretation should be placed on “compelling reason” and how might the courts be expected to adjudicate in the event of judicial review?

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

I support and have added my name to Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, around communication issues. As she rightly pointed out, this could have been linked to Amendment 2, which has already been debated at some length. I will not repeat the same arguments, but they apply to this amendment, which is why I support it.

I also very strongly support the amendment on housing tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I am chair of NHS England’s health and justice advisory board and have worked on the development of RECONNECT, the service to support people coming out of prison back into the community, which is very much a health-based initiative. Unless their housing needs are met at that point, their treatment, their support and their care plan can fall apart very quickly. Consequently, they are very quickly back in the criminal justice system. The same comparison can be made with this amendment. I strongly support housing being at the core of all issues relating to health and social care.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I am very pleased to follow that very powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, which reminded us all of the personal stakes that we are debating, as did many other such speeches today. I started my NHS career 30-odd years ago running a large psychiatric hospital outside Newcastle, where in some respects the quality of care was high but in others, frankly, far too many people with long-term mental health problems had been warehoused, in effect, for decades. That was a point in time when there was a big shift to re-provide services in less restrictive community settings.

I mention that simply to remind us that it was not the Mental Health Act 1983 per se that triggered all that; it was a combination of better therapies, alternative services and, frankly, greater power and influence for the voice of users of mental health services that together constituted that initial shift in services. So, as we think about the Bill before us, of course we must attend principally to the content of the legislation but we must also think about how quickly it will be implemented and the context in which it will land.

As we have heard, this is a very well-vetted piece of legislation. We will want to pay attention to the unintended consequences that various noble Lords have raised and I agree with others that some components are seriously underpowered. The advance choice documents provision, I am afraid, will not cut it as currently described. We heard that from the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Barker, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and many others. Unlike the clinician checklists set out as a requirement in Clause 11, the care and treatment plans that are a statutory requirement in Clause 20, or the new rights for voluntary in-patients to access independent advocacy set out in Clause 38, when it comes to the advance choice documents all we have is a fairly vague, subjective responsibility on the NHS and integrated care boards to give it their best shot. I am paraphrasing, but only slightly. In effect, they are asked to provide information and help to the extent that they consider appropriate. Frankly, a notice on a noticeboard with a phone number to call would constitute progress as far as the Bill is concerned. We need to address this fundamentally. Based on the comments this evening, it sounds as if there may be a latent majority for an amendment when we get to Report, depending on how our debate in Committee has gone.

That is just one example of the Bill’s content. The related question is the one the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, very powerfully raised: however good this is, when will it actually see the light of day? When will it be implemented? Actually, the most salient piece of this legislation is lurking right at the end, at Clause 53(3), which says that most of this stuff will spring into life only through the fiat of the Secretary of State at a date yet TBD. As the impact assessment—which, again, as the noble Lord said, is a very important and revealing document—says, a lot of these measures are seriously back-loaded. Even the ones that are supposedly front-loaded are highly dependent on a set of resourcing which may or may not occur.

For example, the new detention criteria for people with learning disabilities and autistic people may start in 2026-27, but next to a little asterisk is written:

“This timeline is highly indicative as an illustration for modelling purposes. This reform will commence once systems are able to demonstrate sufficient levels of community support for people with a learning disability and autistic people as an alternative to hospital-based care”.


As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and others, we have been waiting for that for some long years. My concern is that we run the same risk here as we saw with, say, the implementation of the Dilnot reforms: something sits on the statute book but never actually comes to life because it is always, “Mañana, mañana”, given the chicken and egg problem of resourcing and alternative services to allow the thing to come about. There is an implementation timescale question that I am sure we will want to pay attention to.

Related to that is the extent to which the Bill interacts with the real-world state of mental health services, social care, housing, the criminal justice system and so forth. Two of the four principles in Clause 1—“Choice and autonomy” and “Least restriction” of care—are intrinsically tied to the availability of alternative services. Therefore, you cannot divorce the Bill from decisions that this Government and future Governments will make on its resourcing.

If we want a moment of legislative humility, let us cast our minds back to the Health and Social Care Act 2012, where parity of esteem was legislated from the rooftops. Frankly, we did not see parity of esteem begin to kick in on the back of that declaration. In fact, between 2010 and 2016—a time of rising mental health need—the mental health workforce was cut by 9.4%. I took the decision—with the support of the now noble Baroness, Lady May, as Prime Minister—that, from 2016 onwards, we would introduce the mental health investment standard. This required that, each year, the share of NHS funding going on mental health could not fall—it had to be at least constant and should be rising—to stop the squeeze that was otherwise taking place. As a result, in contrast to that 9.4% reduction, we have seen a 26.5% increase since then. In his review for the new Government, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, said:

“This important intervention has … enabled much of the mental health capacity that was cut in the first part of the 2010s to be rebuilt”.


That is why this House was good enough to support my amendment to the 2022 health Act, which was then adopted by the Government. This ensured that, prospectively, before the start of each financial year, the Government of the day have to set out their stall and declare whether they intend that mental health spending will grow as a share of the overall pie in the year ahead. The reason that is so important is not just history: at a time when, understandably, there will be great political focus on waiting times for physical health and routine operations, the most likely outcome, absent that mental health investment standard, would be that mental health services would get screwed at a time when other things are prioritised.

We will want a renewed commitment by the new Government to that mental health investment standard, perhaps as early as the planning guidance for the coming year, 2025-26. We will be able to take stock of that before Committee to make a judgment about whether we should recommend a strengthening of that mental health investment standard in the statute, because it is inconceivable that the good measures laid out in the Bill can actually be implemented while mental health services are squeezed as a share of the growing NHS budget.

In the western movie “The Magnificent Seven”, Steve McQueen said that, as gunslingers, “We deal in lead”. Clearly, here in Parliament, we deal in law, but my underlying point is that law gets you only so far. The question is not just the content of the law but how it is implemented, how fast and in what context. We need to keep our eyes on all those as the Bill proceeds.

Health Care Services (Provider Selection Regime) Regulations 2023

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to giving patients better, more joined-up healthcare services. To do so, we need to ensure that we have the right procurement regime so that the NHS can best allocate resources which meet the needs of patients. These regulations do that. They would establish the provider selection regime on 1 January 2024.

This House knows that the challenges we face as a country are changing, and the NHS is changing to address them—an ageing population, an increase in people with multiple health conditions, and persistent inequalities in health outcomes. We must respond to these challenges. To meet them, we need to provide an enabling and empowering framework that allows the NHS to combine the value of competition with the benefits of collaboration in the interests of patients.

In March last year, the Health and Care Act 2022 was passed. It sought to bring together NHS organisations and partners to tackle issues in our health and care system. This instrument builds on that progress. In 2019, engagement across the NHS identified that the use of the current rules on procurement presented a bureaucratic barrier to bringing NHS organisations and partners together. NHS colleagues wanted a framework that allowed them to use the right approach for different scenarios; a framework that included competition without defaulting to it and which supported the increased need for the alignment of services, including those provided by non-statutory organisations in the voluntary sector, to join up care for patients. The Government developed the legislative framework in the light of these requests. Furthermore, in June 2019, the Health and Social Care Committee also agreed that this was the right approach to

“ease the burden procurement rules have placed on the NHS, ensuring commissioners have discretion over when to conduct a procurement process”.

As our colleagues in the NHS and across the health system have emphasised, we must seek to balance a system-driven approach to planning services while recognising the importance of provider diversity for service innovation and value. That is also why my officials have worked closely with a broad range of colleagues and organisations across the system, including both commissioners and providers of healthcare services, to prepare the instrument before you today. This work has included extensive consultation. In 2021, NHS England published a consultation on the detail of the policy behind this instrument. Of 420 responses received from NHS representative bodies and individuals, 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the detailed proposals set out in that consultation. In 2022, the department published a further consultation to help inform the detail of our regulations.

Finally, we have not neglected to do the analysis of impacts associated with this regime change. Our voluntary impact assessment shows that, in the most likely scenarios, introducing this instrument will deliver savings to the NHS by reducing bureaucracy. Although it is difficult to provide a precise figure ahead of monitoring this regime, those noble Lords who have read the assessment will be aware that our central estimate suggests that savings of up to £230 million are possible. While I am on this subject, I was very glad to see that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee welcomed our consultation and voluntary impact assessment in its report on this instrument.

To summarise, the instrument reflects engagement and careful balancing to present commissioners with the right options for procurement so that they can find the most collaborative, value-add solutions that will work for patients. Engagement with providers has told us that both more collaborative approaches to healthcare—where those with services to offer can get around the table, help break down barriers and promote provider diversity—and putting a contract out to tender are valuable and need to be in the commissioner’s toolkit. That is why this instrument reaffirms the role of competition in arranging services by providing explicitly for those processes, while also providing some flexibility to commissioners to adopt a more direct approach.

As many noble Lords will know, getting the balance of a framework right to promote the best culture and behaviour on the ground is tricky. I am glad, therefore, that we have worked so closely with providers and commissioners to find and test that balance. One result of that engagement was to agree to establish an independently chaired panel which will act as a non-statutory advisory body for contested decisions made under this regime. We intend that this will help commissioners think carefully about the approach that they take to procurement, and its justifications.

Furthermore, we must ensure that the system understands these rules so that it can have the best chance of promoting the right behaviour on the ground. That is why NHS England is leading an extensive programme of familiarisation with those draft regulations and the draft statutory guidance, which is available online. Of course, legislation and guidance are only part of the story of how the new legislation will influence outcomes. That is why the department is committed to monitoring and evaluating this new regime from its implementation.

For these reasons, I am content to move these draft regulations, which, subject to the approval of the House, would bring the provider selection regime into force. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations. They get the NHS off the hook from inappropriate compulsory competitive tendering of clinical services but also avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Open procurement will remain an option where it is in patients’ and taxpayers’ interests.

In my previous experience, there have been several problems with the way in which the accretion of UK procurement rules and the EU procurement regime have tied the hands of the NHS. We have often had to go through the motions of competitive clinical procurements for services that would quite obviously be provided only in one place and by one part of the NHS—for example, billions of pounds-worth of specialised cardiac and cancer services for which it was blindingly obvious that the Germans and Italians would not turn up and try to replace Leeds General Infirmary or St Thomas’ Hospital. These regulations make these processes honest, in that when we embark on procurements, it will be for a good reason.

A related problem is that the legacy procurement rules have tended to lead to too much service fragmentation. We have seen examples where community nursing services have had to be tendered out but core general practice services have not, so getting the community nurses and GP practices working together has been much harder. One of the fragmenting consequences of the 2012 Act was that a lot of what had previously been NHS services became local authority-procured, and so sexual health services and health visitors were operating on a different procurement process through local authorities rather than through the local NHS. The Health and Care Act 2022 and these regulations overcome that problem. The NHS will still be subject to transparent and fair procurement, but it will now be much more flexible and proportionate.

The regulations are quite complex. Those noble Lords who have read through the materials may agree that it is fair to say that they will not command the attention of the pubs and clubs of Barnsley or Barnstaple, but they will make a huge difference to the way in which care is delivered right across the country.

Draft Mental Health Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point from his own experience. I thank him for all his engagement and for educating me on what happens in the community. We must be careful because often, these issues are not simple or binary but are multi-faceted, and we then have different initiatives from the Government, which overlap. There is probably an incredibly complex Venn diagram of who is responsible, where the funding pots are and at what level you get the funding—is it local government, national government or philanthropy networks, for example? I would love to make it easy—but will I be able to?

Also, whenever you have change there are often winners and losers. Often, those who lose out because of change are very concentrated and make their voices heard, while the winners are dispersed and we do not hear them saying, “This is a great change.” Therefore, we must be very careful with any change in funding. However, the noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. We must ensure that we are not squeezing out civil society and pulling people in many directions, and that it is much easier to access finance. The noble Lord, Lord Glasman, made the point that as a Labour Peer, he is incredibly proud of 1945 and the welfare state, but that he worries that in doing such things, sometimes the state squeezes out local community groups and breaks the bonds in local communities. We must ensure that we get the right balance.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the draft mental health Bill. Prime Minister Theresa May was right to ask Sir Simon Wessely to develop these proposals, which command wide support across the sector. It was pleasing to hear the Minister commit to the Bill’s passage through Parliament before, and hopefully well before, the next election. However, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, to will the end is to will the means. The Minister will know that the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others, in the impact assessment for this draft legislation, have shown that to make this work in practice will require more people working in mental health.

To that end, if the Minister does not mind me banging a familiar drum, it is surely paradoxical that UCAS is reporting that only 16% of applicants for undergraduate medicine and dentistry got an offer this year. We are turning bright and brilliant young people away at precisely the time when the NHS, and indeed our mental health services in the future, will need their services. Deans of medical schools report that this year is the hardest in living memory to enter undergraduate medicine. Can the Minister give us a date by which the Government will declare their hand on the needed expansion of undergraduate medicine?

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that one of the things we found when looking at the shortage of doctors—even though we have more doctors than ever before—was that some people are likely to stay close to where they were trained. That is why, for example, we have opened the new medical schools, and we are bringing more doctors into the system. Clearly, that will not happen overnight, since training to be a doctor takes a very long time.

We are also looking at what else needs to be done at that level. There are other pathways, such as nurses becoming doctors after a certain amount of time. Clearly, international recruitment plays an important role there. Our aim is to have an additional 27,000 mental health professionals in the NHS workforce by 2023-24. We are investing money to achieve that, but again, it is a question of how long it takes for the money to get through. At the same time, we must ensure that by having this additional workforce in the NHS, we are not squeezing out the voluntary sector but ensuring that we are working in partnership with it.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, although my noble friend Lady Walmsley will be speaking from our Benches on the workforce amendments, I just want to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the eloquent speech she made on the need for proper and effective workforce planning. I support everything she said.

I will now speak to Motions D and D1 on genocide and modern slavery, having added my name to amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. I thank the Government for their Amendment 48A in Motion D. Frankly, a review of the NHS supply chains should undoubtedly happen, regardless of the Bill, but the amendment does not go nearly far enough to stop the practice of suppliers to the NHS purchasing goods where there has been a risk of slavery and human trafficking. The amendment talks only about the Secretary of State having to “mitigate the risk”. In the linguistic range of a Minister making commitments, mitigation does not hit even the halfway bar.

We need to be blunt. A very large quantity of NHS medical equipment is sourced, in whole or in part, from the People’s Republic of China. Despite the Government denying that any equipment is sourced from the Uighur region, reports have found that the UK Government have bought more than £150 million-worth of PPE from Chinese firms directly linked to abuses of Uighur rights abuses. As recently as this month, supply chain specialists revealed that the NHS continues to be supplied PPE from a company known to use Uighur forced labour programmes. Without legislation mandating transparency and due diligence, it seems very unlikely that the Government will be able to ensure that they are not sourcing goods from companies practising modern slavery.

Amendment 48B in Motion D1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, goes beyond the Government’s proposals for a review by seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State must by regulation make provision to ensure that all procurement of goods and services for the health service in England avoids slavery. The UK Government have to face up to their obligations to prevent through the law any forced labour and people trafficking in UK health supply chains. From these Benches we will support Amendment 48B in Motion D1.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Motion B1 on workforce planning and Motion C1 on the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfiguration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just reminded us, there is a huge groundswell of support for the need to do proper workforce planning in the NHS, but the fact is that today we do not need to relitigate the fundamental arguments, because your Lordships have already decided, by a margin of 171 to 119 votes on 3 March, that that is indeed what is required.

Of course, if the facts change, we should change our minds. Have the facts changed since 3 March? Have we seen the long-awaited detailed workforce plan for the health and social care sector that has been promised yet suppressed for the last six years? Regrettably, we have not. Have we even had concrete commitments to the detailed, costed and quantified five, 10 and 15-year outlooks that will supposedly be forthcoming in the spring? No, we have not had commitments that those numbers will be able to be produced without fear or favour, or Treasury veto.

However, we have before us two new data points. One is the survey of 650,000 NHS front-line staff, half of whom—52%—are now telling us that they cannot do their jobs properly because of a shortage of staff in their local service. The second data point is the results of the British Social Attitudes survey, telling us that nearly half of our fellow citizens have noticed that fact; they too believe that one of the fundamental problems standing in the way of performance by the health service is the shortage of staff.

If the Government are not inclined to listen to the hundred or so organisations that have supported this amendment or, indeed, to the results of surveys of front-line staff or the public, perhaps they will listen to a commentator from the Spectator:

“The lack of workforce planning by the Government—and its continual refusal to commit to it—means satisfaction from patients and staff is likely to plummet still further.”


I do not believe the Government want that. Nobody wants that, which is why we should take this opportunity to listen to the clear message that we have been sent by patients, staff and the public.

I turn briefly to Motion C1 on the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfigurations. There is an obvious read-across between the discussion on workforce and the discussion on reconfigurations. In the real world, it is often staff shortages which give rise to concerns about the safe provision of services, hence the request for reconfigurations. In these circumstances, and coming just a few days after the Ockenden review of maternity safety, it is all the more dangerous that the new powers in Clause 40 and Schedule 6 would allow the Secretary of State to suppress changes needed to keep patients safe and to pre-empt and override the concerns of local clinicians, local patient groups, local authorities and even the Care Quality Commission.

There could be safeguards but, unfortunately, to date at least—perhaps, depending on what we do today, this will resurface after Easter—we are being asked to support the original text of the Bill, which has taken no account of any of the concerns that have been raised in both Houses during its passage. Instead, on the reconfiguration powers, today the Government are essentially praying in aid an argument not on the substance but on the merits of democratic oversight by the Secretary of State. This is despite the fact that previous Health Secretaries have managed democratically to supervise the National Health Service without requiring these new powers, despite the fact that former Health Ministers—Conservative Health Ministers, Labour Health Ministers and Liberal Democrat Health Ministers—all oppose these measures and have spoken out, including in your Lordships’ House, and despite the fact that democratically elected Health Ministers in just about every other European country have never sought and do not possess these types of powers.

If the Government want to argue Motion C on the crucible of democratic oversight, it seems that by that logic they should indeed support Motion C1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which further enhances the democratic oversight of the use of these proposed new powers, giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise these types of interventions. Therefore, for those reasons, frustratingly, perhaps, I find that we are in a position where Motions B1 and C1 are still necessary.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

I rise to congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on her excellent speech and to support her on Motion B1. Addressing workforce shortages in our health system is a wicked problem. It is complex and complicated and it is a problem that is shared by every healthcare system in the world. I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister and the Government are sincere in their belief that they are doing a lot to address the problem but, as my noble friend said, the problem is that we do not know its scale. Until we do and we are open and honest about the complexity and size of the problem. we will not be able to move forward.

Sadly, this ought to be one of the reasons why the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world. It, above all other healthcare systems, ought to be able to do this sort of long-term, complex, detailed planning as a single-payer, state-provided system. Most developed countries do not have those benefits, yet today we are in a place where the Government appear to be saying that we should just keep doing what we have always done. There is a basic maxim in life that if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got. The reality is that unless we are willing to bend and change, we will not get any meaningful, sustained solutions to this burning problem. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has bent and changed and has adapted her amendment to try to address what I know were some of the major concerns of the Government about the risk of a verified, firm and unwavering false certainty in a forward forecast and the need to recognise that this is a complex problem where there is likely to be a range. If we are not open and honest about that, we will never really address the issues.

This is a wicked problem that requires us to be brave enough to admit that we do not have all the answers. That is the courage we would need to see in publishing a workforce plan and is why I support Motion B1.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I shall speak to Amendment 82 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I attended Second Reading and made my views felt then, but I have not been able to join the deliberations on the Bill since then because of the pressure of other Bills in your Lordships’ House.

Even I, as someone who does not know very much about medicine, know that the most urgent challenge currently facing our health service is a shortage of nurses. I have been lobbied very heavily by the Royal College of Nursing, because Amendment 82 is its number one priority. It feels that, without a co-ordinated work plan, a coherent forward view and knowledge of exactly how the situation is at the moment, it cannot possibly achieve the sorts of numbers that are needed. There were almost 50,000 vacancies before Covid, and you can imagine the pressure that Covid has put on to the NHS—extreme pressure at completely unsustainable levels, and with staff numbers that are actually unsafe. We all know this, yet Boris Johnson and the Conservatives made big promises at the last election—their manifesto made a promise of 50,000 more nurses—and instantly that number began to unravel, as it included existing nurses who do not quit. That is unclever and unsophisticated number crunching.

I do not understand why this Government will not live up to their manifesto commitments. One reason why I have not been able to speak on this Bill since Second Reading is because of all the other Bills coming through, on which the Conservatives have said that they are aiming to achieve their manifesto commitments. They are actually going rather beyond their manifesto commitments in lots of areas—but the fact is that they are picking and choosing as if from a box of sweets the ones that they prefer.

The Royal College of Nursing represents over 480,000 nurses in health and social care. These are people whose pay requests are constantly ignored—and who constantly have their pay cut; in real terms, it has reduced. Just at the point when MPs are getting very welcome extra pay, nurses hang on by their fingertips. We know that vacancies are also a huge problem, with retirement age approaching for a lot of nurses. Nurses need the certainty of planning, and I do not hear those plans coming from the Government, although this is really their job—to manage the economy and manage society in a way that benefits everybody. Clearly, if the NHS fails in any area, that does not benefit anybody at all.

I argue very strongly for Amendment 82, and I just hope that the Government wake up in time to see how necessary it is.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to co-sponsor the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, Amendment 80, and to speak in support of a number of the other amendments in this group. I declare my honorary fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of GPs, and thank them and the 100 other organisations across the health and social care sector that have joined in the cross-party support that this amendment is likely to generate.

In considering how to vote on this amendment, I think it really boils down to two very straightforward questions. First, do we need regular, rigorous and independent workforce planning for health, social care and public health? The social care point, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has just reminded us, is so crucial here. The second question is: if so, will we get it, with appropriate rigour and independence, without this amendment? I suggest that the answer to that question is, unfortunately, no.

The first question is self-evident to most people. We discussed it throughout Committee: workforce pressures mean that it is obvious that we need regular workforce planning. The very long lead times make it critical. Earlier this week, your Lordships were debating pressures in young people’s mental health services and eating disorder services. It is worth reminding ourselves that a new consultant psychiatrist specialising in eating disorders, starting work in NHS mental health services this morning, will have entered medical school 15 years ago. It is worth reminding ourselves, too, at a time when the NHS is confronting long waits for routine operations and needs to deal with a backlog of care, that the new medical student starting undergraduate medicine in September will report for duty as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in 2037.

So the lead times are clear, yet we have a paradox: more young people and, indeed, mid-career people, would like to join this great campaign, this social movement—the health service, social care and public health—but we are turning them away. In 1945, Nye Bevan said:

“This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.”


I suggest that, if Bevan were recasting his aphorism for today, he would say that, at a time when the NHS and social care have such a clear need for more staff, only a workforce planning system of organisational genius could turn away bright and committed young people from undergraduate medicine and other oversubscribed university places for health and other professions.

We have to accept that there will be extra costs from getting this right. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was quite right to draw attention to the fact that there will be savings, including from the £6.2 billion spent in 2019-20 on agency and bank staffing across the health service. But there will be extra costs: the Royal College of Physicians has estimated that doubling undergraduate medicine places would cost perhaps £1.85 billion, which is about one-seventh of the amount that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee identified last week as being likely to be lost from fraud and waste through the various furlough and other schemes introduced during Covid. So I think we need to put these costs in perspective.

The fact that there will be those costs gives us the answer to our second question. Of course, we need workforce planning, but are we going to get it without this amendment? I am afraid that I do not think we are. In Committee—although I shall not rehearse it—using publicly available materials, I set out the sorry history of what I described as the “wilful blindness” that has been inflicted on the health and social care sector and, indeed, on health Ministers and the Department of Health and Social Care itself, as they have sought to go about this task down the years.

The question before your Lordships is: has the leopard changed its spots? I suspect—and I genuinely sympathise with the Minister’s predicament—that he will tell us that the baton has now been passed from the Department of Health and Social Care to NHS England, so that for the first time it has the responsibility for undertaking this task, and we should be reassured by that fact. In that case, I ask him to give clear guarantees at the Dispatch Box that the proposed new powers of direction for the Secretary of State will never be used to veto or censor any independent estimates that NHS England itself puts forward, including those with a financial consequence. Indeed, I ask that he goes further than that and gives us a Dispatch Box guarantee that NHS England will be entirely free to publish, every two years, without approval, veto or censorship from either the Department of Health or the Treasury, the workforce need, demand and supply models implied in Amendment 80. If those guarantees are not forthcoming from the Dispatch Box, I think your Lordships will be entitled to draw your own conclusions.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, would the noble Lord be surprised to hear the rumours that the Treasury has prevented the Minister from responding in a positive way to this amendment?

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

We await insight from the Minister himself on that point; it is indeed, of course, what the chairman of the cross-party Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt, suggested in the House of Commons. We have an immediate litmus test before us, which should help us answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As your Lordships will remember, we noted in Committee the fact that, just 10 weeks before the start of the financial year, when it should have been planning 10 years out, Health Education England still did not have its operating budget for the year ahead. My understanding—I hope to be corrected by the Minister—is that, certainly, as of 10 am, Health Education England still does not have its workforce operating budget for just 29 days’ time. That is precisely because of a set of behind-the-scenes discussions—no doubt courteous, but nevertheless fervent—between the Department of Health and Social Care on the one hand and the Treasury on the other.

Health Ministers are more sinned against than sinning on this, frankly, and in that sense this amendment will strengthen their hand. I suspect that, privately, they will welcome the mobilisation of your Lordships to support their negotiating case. The very fact that Her Majesty’s Government oppose this amendment is proof positive that it is needed. We need it because we need to look beyond the end of our noses. To vote against this amendment would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this whole group is worthy of government action, and I support Amendments 80 and 81 in respect of speech and language therapists. The NHS Long Term Plan itself states that speech and language therapists are a profession in short supply. The Department of Health and Social Care, in its submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of the shortage occupation lists, argues that speech and language therapists should be added to them because of the pressures facing these professions, particularly in relation to mental health.

The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, for whose advice I am grateful, suggests that a minimum increase in the skilled workforce is required in the region of 15%. In recent years, the profession has grown by 1.7% in a year. The Government themselves recognise that they are clearly not delivering the speech and language therapy workforce that we need. No national assessment has been undertaken of the demand and the unmet need for speech and language therapy, which, I remind noble Lords, is essential for people to be able to communicate. Will the Government accept Amendments 80 and 81 or explain otherwise how they plan to improve workforce planning so that speech and language therapy is no longer a profession in too short supply?

Health and Care Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In particular I am grateful for his specific assurances on the powers of procurement and the question of resource allocation. We can be pretty confident that the Secretary of State would not interfere with the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation or the NHS England response to it. If the Secretary of State were to start messing with the formula, we would get into a very difficult place.

I am still of the view that there was a very good reason we gave NHS England greater freedoms. I think it would not have been possible for NHS England to have published its Five Year Forward View in 2014 or even more so the Long Term Plan in 2019, in circumstances where it had occupied the same relationship with the Secretary of State as it did in the past.

This is taking NHS England from its current degree of independence to something that it was not in the past, but is a little more ambiguous. It will be difficult, for precisely the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, explained, for the NHS to feel that, when the successor to the long-term plan is published by the successor to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, it is the NHS’s own plan. That has been very important; Ministers have said it a thousand times. Why do we not let that happen? The measures in Clause 39 take a real risk of infringing on the idea that it is the NHS’s own plan.

It does not mean that the Secretary of State is not accountable, but that they are accountable in ways that they can legitimately control: the resource allocation and an expectation of the priorities and outcomes. That is where the Secretary of State should be putting the weight of the Government, not in trying to decide how outcomes in the NHS are best achieved. I do not agree in principle with what is proposed in Clause 39, but I am not going to press that point.

I will, however, if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pushes it, support her on Clause 40. I say to my noble friend: look at Schedule 6. The structure of it does not even mention the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. As soon as there is a proposal for a reconfiguration from any of the NHS bodies, it quite clearly places in the hands of the Secretary of State the responsibility to decide whether to go ahead with it or not. That will be exactly the moment when the Secretary of State is drawn in and is not able to be extricated from it.

My noble friend has simply to look at the example of the reconfiguration of congenital paediatric cardiac services to realise that no sensible Minister would have been drawn into that debate at an early stage with any confidence of being able to make a decision that would have been accepted by any of the parties to that debate.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

The noble Lord raises the congenital paediatric cardiac case, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised the Kent stroke question. On that question, the estimate was that 40 to 50 people will have died or lost their ability to live independently as a result of that two-year delay. Is it not the case that, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just set out, those kinds of delays will now be invisible to the naked eye because these proposals will never get off the ground due to the self-censoring of necessary clinical change that would save lives, precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath described?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

We all know that when these proposals come forward, there is a lot of local pressure. In many cases, it will be local pressure that is transmitted to the Secretary of State by Members of Parliament who are—

Health and Care Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will speak to Amendments 57, 78 and 109 in my name. We have heard impassioned and compelling arguments here and in the other place for the need for greater emphasis on mental health in the Bill. We have listened and, as a result, have taken action. The result is the package of amendments brought before the House today. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many noble Lords across the House who have contributed to the development of these amendments and the advice we have received.

Let us first turn to defining health. I assure your Lordships’ House that this Government remain fully committed to delivering parity of esteem between physical and mental health. We want to support everyone’s mental health and well-being. We are very aware of the impact that the pandemic has had on a number of individuals and communities, particularly the impact on mental health and mental health services.

Amendment 109 removes any potential confusion as to whether references to health within the NHS Act 2006 include mental health. We have made it absolutely clear with our amendment that references to health includes mental health as well as physical health. I know noble Lords will acknowledge that it was our view that the current references to health in the Act would have included mental health, but this amendment is important because it sends a strong signal that health must not just be associated with physical health. Mental and physical health are equally important, and our legislation reflects that fully.

On the transparency and accountability of mental health funding, the Government remain committed to our ambitions in the NHS Long Term Plan to transform mental health services in England. The NHS Long Term Plan committed to increase spending on mental health services in real terms by at least £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24. For each year of the current spending review period, the spend on mental health will increase as a share of the NHS budget. This is in line with the Government’s ongoing commitment to grow investment in mental health services faster than the overall NHS budget. Our amendment seeks to bring added transparency to this commitment and will better enable Parliament, stakeholders and the public to hold the Government to account for meeting this commitment.

The Secretary of State will be required to publish and lay before Parliament, before the start of each financial year, a document setting out the Government’s expectation on mental health spending for the year ahead. This document, a Written Ministerial Statement, will set out whether the Secretary of State expects there to be an increase in the amount and proportion of expenditure incurred by NHS England and integrated care boards, taken together, in relation to mental health, with a supporting explanation. There will also be requirements for NHS England and ICBs to include in their respective annual reports information about such spending to clearly demonstrate performance against expectation.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Merron and Lady Tyler of Enfield, for supporting amendments related to transparency and accountability of mental health funding in Committee, and for their constructive engagement since. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to delivering parity of esteem between physical and mental health. I hope that our amendments address the issues and concerns previously raised and that the House will pass them today. I beg to move Amendment 2.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, continuing the outbreak of consensus, a large number of mental health stakeholders welcome the fact that the Government have accepted these amendments, which draw heavily on amendments a number of noble Lords brought forward in Committee. I think I said at that point that they would represent a spine-stiffener for the Government in their commitment to ensure that mental health sees a growing share of the growing NHS budget and an accountability booster for the NHS. I think they do that.

However, before the Minister concludes on this item, will he say whether, when setting the mandate for NHS England for the financial year ahead—the mandate that will therefore be laid at some point within the next 30 days—the Government might set the mental health waiting time standards, the very welcome consultation on which concluded last week, in a way that other amendments in this group would look to advance? None of that should detract from the fact that these amendments have wide support outside this place and will make a real difference to mental health in the years to come.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 184, tabled in my name. I shall first respond briefly to the government amendment introduced as a result of the discussions in Committee, which set the context for my amendment. I welcome the government amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish his expectations about increases in the amount and proportion of mental health spending by NHS England and ICBs. I also welcome amendments requiring NHS England and ICBs to include information about spending relating to mental health in their annual reports.

However, it is stating the obvious to point out that their ability to do so is ultimately reliant on the Government—that includes the Treasury—prioritising sustained growth and investment in mental health. This is critical to avoid a widening care deficit in mental health and inequity between physical and mental health care standards. When I say “a care deficit” I want to explain briefly that the healthcare system is still operating in the context of a mental healthcare deficit, where not all those who need help and treatment will seek it or be able to access it and it is estimated that 1.7 million people are waiting to access mental health services.

That is the context of my Amendment 148. It is designed to build on the welcome government amendments and to provide what I call the critical third pillar of reform, which is service access standards. I welcome the measures that the Government have already taken in relation to access standards as part of the NHS long-term plan, but I believe we need to go a bit further and give them more teeth. Waiting time standards can play a critical role in making progress towards our shared ambition of achieving parity of esteem, particularly in service response times. Standards are a driver to secure the resources needed for services to be able to meet demand in an effective and timely way.

Key to the successful implementation of the service access standards will be two things: first, the funding to develop services in a way that means they can meet these standards without leading to unintended consequences, such as transfer of delays from accessing the system to further down the care pathway; and secondly, a clear expectation that these standards must be matched with a sufficient workforce so that the standards are delivering better care and not shifting problems further down the line.

Having these service access and waiting time standards underpinned by legislation would be a very effective lever for improvement by helping to identify where additional resources are needed. I have looked very carefully at the two points in the response published last week to the consultation on NHS access standards. I think the key points were clear: new targets cannot be introduced without additional funding to support them; respondents were generally strongly supportive of new targets in mental health; quality as well as speed of response is important; and expanding the range of the targets to include preventive and early intervention services would be beneficial.

I took heart from the news release that accompanied the publication of that response. I saw that the Minister for Mental Health, Gillian Keegan MP, said:

“Improving access to mental health services is a top priority. These new standards would help patients get support faster—including having a face-to-face assessment within one hour of being referred from A&E. I know there is more to do and that’s why we’re transforming mental health services in England with an extra £2.3 billion a year and will soon be launching a national conversation to inform a new long term Mental Health Strategy later this year”.


That is all very welcome. With such an endorsement from the Minister in the other place, I hope that the Minister will feel able to support my amendment, which provides that critical third pillar of funding, workforce and waiting time standards to ensure that all those aspirations become a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will speak to the other government amendments in his name.

We had a passionate debate on climate change in Committee. There is no doubting the profound relevance of environmental issues to the NHS; indeed, it is already leading the way as a health system in tackling climate change. These amendments will ensure that the NHS can continue in that vital work with the confidence needed to deliver. They place a duty on NHS trusts, foundation trusts, ICBs and NHS England to have regard to the Government’s key ambitions on climate change and the natural environment in everything they do. This could mean preparing thousands of NHS buildings to adapt to climate impacts, protecting and enhancing biodiversity across 25 million square metres of trust estate, or decarbonising the millions of kilowatts of energy used by trusts every year. I must emphasise to noble Lords that this includes decisions about the NHS’s procurement of goods and services. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, was quite right to underline in Committee that, according to NHS England’s data, the NHS supply chain accounts for some 62% of its emissions footprint. It is clear that the NHS will need to take urgent action to decarbonise procurement.

These clauses will give vital legislative grounding and confidence to the Greener NHS programme and further strengthen the commitments made by the UK through the COP26 Health Programme: namely, to develop climate-resilient, low-carbon health systems. Importantly, Amendment 7 includes a power for NHS England to issue statutory guidance on environmental issues to the system. As discussed in Committee, NHS England already has some targeted net-zero guidance in place for current ICSs, but the system currently lacks that critical statutory guidance that sets the direction for the whole NHS. We expect this guidance, in the first instance, to be issued within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

In developing these amendments, we have had to consider the excellent work NHS England has already undertaken on these issues and gain clarity over what value a legislative solution could add. This has included working across government with BEIS and Defra, while also looking closely at the individual amendments proposed by noble Lords in Committee. I believe the amendments tabled in my noble friend’s name achieve these aims, adding the right value in the right way, to the benefit of our natural environment, the NHS and the people who depend on it. I pay tribute to the work of noble Lords in helping us reach this position. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for supporting these amendments, which reflect the substance of amendments that my noble friend Lady Hayman, I and others brought forward in Committee. That debate rehearsed the health case for action very clearly, as we have just heard, so I will not detain the House by repeating that.

However, I think the events of the last 24 hours have underlined two other reasons why these amendments are so important. In addition to the health case, there is clearly a financial case and we also now clearly see the security and humanitarian case for action. The financial case was underlined by yesterday’s IPCC report:

“The financial value of health benefits from improved air quality alone is projected to be greater than the costs of meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.”


In respect of the security and humanitarian consequences, yesterday, the Government welcomed Shell’s decision to sever its relationship with Gazprom, yet Ministers may have seen an important story in the Health Service Journal suggesting that, over the last two years, at least 17 NHS trusts have continued to rely on gas sourced from Gazprom, which has confirmed today that it continues to get its gas supplies through Ukraine. Decarbonising the health sector will take pound notes out of the hands of dictatorial regimes that are engaged in acts of aggression. For all these reasons, the clarity that these government amendments provide, putting on a sound statutory basis the ability to take fundamental action across the NHS, is most welcome.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and apologise to the House that I did not declare that interest in my enthusiasm to get involved in a Question earlier today. I added my name to Amendments 7, 28, 87 and 94 and obviously welcome the way in which the Government Front Bench has responded to the debate we had and the amendments we proposed in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Stevens said, there is no point in all of us going through the arguments, although I think he added a new dimension in his remarks today; that interplay between health and climate is an important one that we should not neglect.

The Government have done very well in providing a comprehensive suite of amendments that make sure that the considerations of not just the net-zero targets but the targets in the Environment Act and the needs for adaptation, which will be extremely significant in the healthcare field, will be considered at all the correct levels within the new infrastructure that the Bill brings into place. The assurances that the Minister gave on the guidance that will be published and on making sure that procurement, which is such a large spend by the NHS, will also be governed by these considerations are extremely important.

I welcome these amendments across the board. They weave considerations of climate and the environment throughout the ecology of the NHS, and it is an excellent result. The next challenge is to persuade the Government to take the initiative on these issues and to embed these considerations throughout their policies and legislation, which would save a lot of time in the House. But I do not wish to be churlish, and I end by simply reiterating my thanks for the way in which the Government have responded to these amendments.