Healthcare Sector: Clinicians

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is exactly the reason why we need to encourage innovation and take advantage of all the improvements now available to us, including AI. It is by modernising our approach that we will move forward greatly. That is why we are building the practicalities, as I described in my Answer just now, as well as a culture of innovation. We are also providing the ability to see adoption, because people are rightly concerned if time is spent on innovation but the product or service never comes forward. We are changing a number of points to improve that.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, in a growing number of hospitals, clinicians are using at-home bladder cancer testing to reduce the number of cystoscopies and speed up diagnosis. Can the Minister expand on how the Government will help clinician-led innovations such as this to spread across the NHS, so that access does not depend on where a patient lives?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, I am very pleased to do that. I point to the National Healthtech Access Programme, which is exactly what the noble Baroness is seeking. It is a route for cost-effective and clinically effective technologies, such as the one the noble Baroness describes, so that we can see the best benefit to patients and the best value, and that supports more equitable access. NICE is currently assessing three projects, including using AI in histopathology for the diagnosis of prostate cancer and breast cancer, to give two examples, and we will shortly see the publication of those results.

People with Learning Disabilities: Acute Illness

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, specialist training in the care of people with a learning disability is critical to reducing avoidable mortality. Will the Government fund dedicated senior clinician roles in learning disability medicine across community, acute and mental health settings to provide the leadership that is necessary to improve healthcare outcomes for this population?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

There are a number of aspects to that area. We have greatly increased the mandatory training requirement and the numbers who have been trained. The noble Baroness also points to the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. We have seen an increase in nursing staff in that regard. It is a matter for the local provider to decide, but the workforce plan, which we will be seeing soon, will be very helpful in this regard.

Modern Service Framework for Dementia and Frailty

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, for tabling this Question for Short Debate and for his comprehensive opening words which set the tone for this short but perfectly formed debate, giving us the opportunity to consider what the modern service framework for dementia and frailty needs to deliver. If it is to succeed, it should set clear national standards backed by funding and accountability so that a diagnosis opens the door to real support and access to new treatments as they become available.

As we have heard, dementia is the UK’s leading cause of death, with almost 1 million people currently living with the condition. This is projected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. The noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, pointed out that two-thirds of them are women and referred to the interesting research on hormonal changes, the menopause and its links to developing dementia. That is important and something that we need to consider.

Research is advancing rapidly. There are, I understand, 158 drugs in 192 clinical trials globally. The first disease-modifying treatments are now licensed in the UK. However, people can access trials for innovative treatments only when they are diagnosed early—making diagnosis at the earliest stages increasingly important. It would be good to hear from the Minister what work the Government are undertaking to ensure easier access to trials. Alzheimer’s Research UK estimates that close to one-third of people over 65 living with dementia in England still do not have a recorded diagnosis, so closing that diagnostic gap is critical.

A UCL-led trial—supported by the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Gates Ventures and players of the Postcode Lottery—began testing a blood test for Alzheimer’s disease in NHS memory services last year, offering a simpler, less invasive route to diagnosis than current methods. If this proves reliable, the framework should be ready to support its rollout across the NHS.

As we have heard, Alzheimer’s Research UK has launched a new policy report today, Ready for the Cure: A Blueprint for UK Leadership in Dementia Research, which sets out a series of recommendations to address the key structural barriers to advancing dementia research. I hope to hear, perhaps, an initial reflection on that report when we hear from the Minister.

However, a diagnosis on its own is not enough. NHS England’s data shows that more than one-quarter of people living with a dementia diagnosis did not receive a care plan in the past year and that specialist support, such as Admiral nurses, remains patchy and dependent on where someone lives. That gap matters most in the weeks after diagnosis, when families are trying to understand what has changed and what support is available to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, set out her family’s personal experience. As for others, with that diagnosis of dementia, the question is: where should we turn? What happens next? It is a picture about which we hear so often from many families.

Dementia UK and others have called for specialist dementia nursing to be part of every neighbourhood health team. If the framework is genuinely to modernise dementia care, diagnosis, treatment, care planning and support for carers, which is so important, it must be designed and funded as a single pathway. As the ageing population grows and new dementia treatments emerge, the demand for diagnosis will inevitably rise. The forthcoming framework presents a clear opportunity for standardising the pathways for referral, assessment and treatment, for robust data capture and reporting and for reducing the variation in service across the country, which we hear about so often. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly stressed, we need to get this right. Our discussion on prevention is also an important part of this.

I turn to frailty, which makes up the other half of this framework. Around one in 10 people over 65 live with it, and the figure rises to as many as half of those aged over 85. Last month, the Commons Public Accounts Committee reported that only 17% of patients aged over 65 had had a frailty assessment recorded by their GP in the past year, well short of what is needed to ensure that those living with frailty have access to treatment. For those already identified as being most at risk, only 16% had had a medication review and 18% had had a falls risk assessment. This is in a service that is meant to reach everyone in that group. If frailty is to sit alongside dementia in the framework, it deserves the same focus on early identification, consistent standards and timely intervention. Bringing these two conditions together in one framework creates a real opportunity to establish common principles across both. If the framework is going to achieve everything, it must make a meaningful difference to people living with dementia and frailty, as well as to their families and the support networks that care for them.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this debate and hope to hear of a timescale and resource commitment to this important area.

National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and her team for the thoroughness and compassion with which they have conducted this important investigation. Above all, our thoughts must be and are with the women, babies and families whose experiences lie at the heart of this report. Many have had to revisit the most painful moments of their lives when some want to simply move on. But after years of fighting, they must be heard. Their courage, dignity, determination and persistence place a responsibility on all of us in this House. We owe it to them not simply to listen, but to ensure that their experiences finally lead to lasting change.

Only last week the House considered Donna Ockenden’s devastating findings in Nottingham. Here, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, presents us with a wider national picture. Once again, we see the same troubling themes emerge—women whose concerns were dismissed, staff who felt unable to speak up, inequalities that remained unchallenged, and organisations that failed to learn from previous mistakes. As Donna Ockenden herself observed, much of what is contained in this report is sadly already known to us, as it was to Governments of all political colours in previous years. That is perhaps the most disturbing and sobering conclusion of all.

The challenge before us is no longer one of evidence. We have had inquiry after inquiry, report after report and recommendation after recommendation. The challenge now is implementation. Families have every right to expect that this report will become the catalyst for sustained improvement across maternity and neonatal services. I am sure that all noble Lords welcome the fact that work is beginning immediately in a number of critical areas, including maternity triage, tackling discrimination, strengthening staffing and addressing urgent estate risks. It is right that today’s expectant mothers be given assurance and reassurance about what will change immediately, not only at the end of the year when the wider plan is due.

A few outstanding questions arise from the Statement. First, can the Minister update the House on the timetable for the Leeds and Sussex reviews? How will the Government ensure that concerns which have already been identified in those services are acted on before these reviews conclude? Secondly, it is welcome that the Secretary of State will publish the new maternity triage standards next week, but by when does the Minister expect every NHS trust to have implemented these standards and will Parliament receive regular updates on trust-by-trust progress so that families can see that improvements are generally being delivered? Thirdly, the Government propose establishing a statutory maternity and neonatal commissioner. Can the Minister explain what powers the commissioner will have to hold trusts, regulators and national bodies to account? How will local leaders remain accountable for the safety of the services that they are supposed to oversee?

The additional midwifery posts announced today are also welcome, but the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, like those before it, identifies workforce pressures as a fundamental challenge to safe maternity care. Do the Government intend to address this issue immediately, or will we have to wait for the long-awaited workforce plan? If it is the latter, can the Minister update the House on when it will be published and whether it will specifically address maternity and neonatal services? I can understand her perhaps raising an eyebrow here, as she rightly and persistently challenged me on this when I was a Minister in her place.

Since the report’s publication, concerns have been raised by Dr Bill Kirkup about the removal of references to so-called normal birth ideology from the final report. Previous maternity inquiries have identified this as a contributory factor. It would not be fair of me to ask for comment on the editorial process, but can the Minister reassure the House that all relevant evidence—including from Morecambe Bay, which found that midwives were pursuing normal birth at any cost—will be fully considered?

Finally, the Secretary of State is right that culture lies at the heart of this challenge. Often, while policy changes and restructures are visible, it can be more difficult to bring about cultural change. Where the Government act with the urgency that this report demands, they will have our support. However, women and families will judge today’s Statement not by new structures, new titles or another report, but by what happens when a woman says that something is wrong. Is she heard? Are warning signs acted on? Is help from senior colleagues available when needed? Are maternity units safely staffed and can staff speak up without fear? Do families receive honesty and compassion when harm occurs? Above all, are we reducing the number of mothers and babies coming to harm?

Families have told their stories. The evidence is clear. We will support and, where appropriate, challenge the Government and the NHS as they seek to bring about this much-needed change. The Minister in the other place has made a good start, and we hope to see further progress.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this is another week and another traumatic and difficult-to-read report about the state of maternity services. Behind it are thousands and thousands of women and families deeply affected by these service failures. I thank them all for their contributions to this report, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.

Women are not being listened to, heard or believed, with serious consequences for safety and quality of care. Racism and discrimination are embedded throughout the maternity and neonatal system. Services are not responsive to the changing profile of women giving birth and the increase in medical interventions during birth. Antenatal, birth and labour, neonatal and postnatal services are just not joined up. From Somerset to Blackpool, the safety of having a baby has become a lottery. Women are silenced and staff who raise the alarm on unsafe care or systemic discrimination are crushed by a culture of fear. We need to see genuine accountability throughout the NHS and the investment necessary to make Britain the safest country in the world to have a baby.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a national maternity commissioner, but can the Minister confirm that this post will go to an independent expert and not a political appointee? Will the Minister reassure us that action will be taken before December, rather than waiting for the taskforce to report on its plans? Will the Government guarantee safe staffing at all hours in every maternity ward in the country, so that no woman has to give birth in an unsafe unit?

This inquiry has, once again, raised the issue of poor bereavement support across the NHS after pregnancy or baby loss. The national bereavement care pathway seeks to resolve this by ensuring high-quality and consistent bereavement care across the UK. The trauma of baby death and pregnancy loss can last a lifetime. Parents’ memories of the care they receive at that moment will stay with them for ever. Good bereavement care can help parents and families navigate their bereavement journey, while poor care can just add to the trauma of loss.

The first moments after a baby dies can be the only opportunity parents have to make memories with their baby, and there is only once chance to get this right. After a baby dies, parents often face really tough decisions, and they cannot make informed decisions about their baby without clear and compassionate communication from healthcare professionals. I therefore ask: will the Government roll out all five national bereavement care pathways, including for miscarriage, and actively monitor implementation across the health system? Will they ensure that suitable bereavement rooms are available in all trusts, not as a “nice to have” but as part of dignified trauma-informed care? This would be a step change for so many families.

There is so much more I could say on a topic that has shocked us all. All families, wherever they live and whatever their ethnicity, must be supported to have their babies safely. This has clearly not been the case for too many years. This is the point where things must change, and I really look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, we know—and we can never acknowledge it enough—that women, babies and families across the country are being harmed, traumatised and let down by a broken system. I am grateful to both Front Benches for the way in which they have received this report and for their support, and their acknowledgement of the role we have taken in government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, talked about trauma lasting a lifetime, and that is indeed the case. When I have met women and families who have been affected, that is what has stuck with me: the trauma never goes away. I also accept the correct challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that the judgment will be on what has changed, not on what is written. We are very conscious of that, and I am grateful to him for reminding me of it.

Before turning to the helpful questions from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, I will make a few comments. I too want to express my gratitude to every woman, family member and member of staff who came forward to give evidence to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and her team, who heard from thousands of people who showed great courage and determination to share their experiences, painful though they were, and conducted their investigation with immense sensitivity and care. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, diligently brought together evidence from families, staff, 12 local investigations and all the past reviews, and her review shows systemic, repeated failures by our maternity and neonatal system. It has also given us the opportunity and determination to break that cycle.

As I know your Lordships’ House will agree, it is also important that we acknowledge the very positive role that so many staff and families have played in providing the necessary care.

It was most helpful that some of our immediate actions were acknowledged. But, on top of those immediate actions, some of which have been mentioned today, we have ongoing actions. We have been tackling avoidable brain injuries and maternal deaths through dedicated programmes and packages. We have already begun the expansion of Martha’s rule to all maternity and neonatal units, to give families and patients the right to request a second opinion where there are concerns.

Among other things, we have also introduced a perinatal culture and leadership programme, which is important to develop a safety culture and a learning and support culture for the leadership across all units, and an early warning system to better identify safety concerns. Importantly, because continuity of care is something that has been highlighted a lot, we are providing £10 million of recurrent funding to ICBs for this very purpose, in particular to provide midwifery continuity of care for those women who live in the most deprived neighbourhoods and who are at risk of poor outcomes.

I will do my best to answer the questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about the timeline for Leeds and Sussex. Donna Ockenden, who will be chairing those reviews, is currently engaging with the families on terms of reference, which will include timelines. We will not be waiting for the publication of the findings to make changes. As they emerge, those issues will be shared with us, so that we can act.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the new maternity triage standards will be implemented by June 2027. There must be clear board oversight in place of the operation of the triage system, including regular reviews of waiting times and actions to improve the necessary services. The role and remit of the maternity commission is being urgently considered by the National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce. The commissioner will co-chair the taskforce, which will drive all the change as well as setting it out.

On workforce pressures, we are not waiting. There is £10.6 million investment funding in an additional 1,000 temporary roles to help newly qualified midwives to join the NHS, which is extremely important. So, we are not waiting for the 10-year workforce plan. However, the taskforce will take into consideration wider work, including the 10-year workforce plan.

With regard to concerns raised by Bill Kirkup about what is referred to as “normal birth ideology”, women have to be able to make the right decision about what is safest and best for them. No woman should ever feel pushed into a particular type of care. The words “normal” and “natural” are perhaps not particularly helpful in this setting. We are talking about vaginal births; what matters is what is best and what is safest, and I am certainly very grateful to Bill Kirkup for all this work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked further questions about the commissioner, which were helpful. The selection and appointment process will be considered as part of the process of establishing the role.

Questions were asked on action being taken before December, when the report of the taskforce will be available. As I mentioned, immediate actions are already being driven forward. These actions were already under way over the last two years and as part of the immediate response to the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. Where we can, we have already actioned work, and, where we need further work done, that will be developed over the next few months, at pace.

The noble Baroness raised a good point about the rollout of bereavement pathways, including for miscarriage. We are rolling out all five strands of the national bereavement care pathway. All trusts in England have signed up to implement the core standards of the national bereavement care pathway. That is relevant in this case and, across other areas of bereavement, is of particular concern.

As I draw my remarks in this section to a close, let me give noble Lords a sense of the urgency. The taskforce and its supporting expert reference groups are meeting tomorrow to discuss the findings of both the Donna Ockenden report, on which we had a Statement last week, and the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. Next Tuesday, the taskforce—which is spearheading all this and chaired personally by the Secretary of State—will be meeting to discuss next steps for the action plan. To the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the commissioner’s role, the Secretary of State has already said that he wishes that the maternity and neonatal commissioner will co-chair the taskforce with him. That would be a very welcome move.

I hope that I have dealt with the questions and, more than that, given a sense of the pace and seriousness, as well as the action that I know we all seek.

Fracture Liaison Services

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord does not need to apologise for raising this extremely important matter. I am grateful for his campaigning on this, as I am to other noble Lords. There has been a lot of progress. In answer to his first question, I believe that it is possible, not least because all but two ICBs in the new, reconfigured groups have fracture liaison services already, with some having more than one. With respect to his specific request, as with other policies, I cannot give him exactly what he asks for, but I have already referred to some of the Government’s actions. We are looking, through the UK National Screening Committee, at screening women for osteoporosis, and a public consultation is about to start. We are cutting waiting times, and we have expanded community diagnostic centres and DEXA scanners. These, along with a whole range of other measures, show real commitment to tackling the matter that the noble Lord rightly raises, which affects lives and costs lives.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, people from deprived areas have a 25% higher risk of fractures, spend longer in hospital recovering and die in greater numbers after hip fractures. The rollout of fracture liaison services is important to help tackle health inequalities. The Minister mentioned 2030, but how can this be rolled out faster to make sure that we help all these communities?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We have rolled this out further, as we inherited a more limited coverage of fracture liaison services than we have currently, and we are looking at how to improve access. As I said to the noble Lord, 23 out of 25 ICBs have at least one fracture liaison service. We will push this forward through various means, including the Best Practice Guide for NHS Frailty Pathways, which recommends comprehensive neighbourhood-level frailty plans, and the modern service framework, to mention a couple of ways. I have to emphasise that this is about a complete change in the delivery of NHS services, from which fracture liaison will greatly benefit.

Children’s and Young People’s Mental Health Services

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness’s observations. Early intervention is key. That is what our entire focus is on, in the ways we have already discussed, and also on developing a children and young people’s modern service framework because we want to reduce variation and ensure that children get the right support at the right time.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lord, recent analysis from the charity Young Minds shows that, for the eighth month in a row, the average waiting time from referral to specialist support for young people was more than 300 days, and in the worst case it was two and a half years. Will the Government commit to using the forthcoming cross-government strategy to deliver open-access mental health support in every community for young people up to the age of 25?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The point about age is important and one that we will be considering as we go forward with the mental health strategy. Waiting times are way too long, but there is a particular challenge that we have to meet, which is that some 10% of young people are waiting for an inordinate amount of time, as the noble Baroness said. I was very glad that the report does recognise that increased prevalence is a driver. One in 10 17 to 19 year-olds was in need in 2017 and now it is 1.4. I think that gives some idea of the scale and of why we have to make such a systematic change.

IVF Treatment

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I recognise the situation that my noble friend describes and note that, while the relevant Act has provided a strong framework for over three decades, the fact is that treatment, science and societal expectations have all evolved very significantly since the last major reform in 2008. It is the case that the Act does not currently provide powers to ban add-ons. We are constantly looking at what we can do while we await and consider legislative change, but that really is the best way forward to tackle this.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the reality is that patients in England are struggling to access publicly funded IVF, with only two out of the 42 integrated care boards in England complying with NICE fertility guidelines. Can the Minister advise whether the Government are considering following Wales and Scotland in centralising commissioning for IVF rather than the current postcode lottery?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are not doing that, not least because, as the noble Baroness is aware, we believe that the needs of the local population are best served through local decision-making and through the integrated care boards. That said, I absolutely recognise that access to NHS-funded fertility services is variable, and we are reviewing the situation so that we can determine the next steps. I should emphasise that NHS commissioning organisations are expected to commission fertility services. They do have NICE guidance, which we are supporting them in following.

Extreme Heat: Resilience of NHS Infrastructure

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are already investing some £30 billion of capital across the NHS estate. I have mentioned the most serious infrastructure risks, which the noble Lord rightly refers to. While we accept the age of the estate and its size—I noted in preparing for this Question that we are talking about the equivalent of 4,000 football pitches—we also have a backlog of maintenance issues, which have grown and grown. We estimate that some £15.9 billion is needed. While there are no easy solutions, we do have a resilience plan not just for overheating but for all threats to resilience arising from temperature. We are also providing the funding—although, to the point the noble Lord makes, it is down to local decision-making—and ensuring that we are assisting the estate across the country to meet the challenges, the priority being those areas that need it most.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, aside from the estate, patients on medications known to cause issues in extreme heat are not always being given specific advice on adjusting use of these during extreme weather and, as a result, have been admitted to hospital. What work is the department doing, particularly given that we have further hot weather coming, to ensure that patients receive the right advice and support to avoid hospital admissions as a result of such hot weather?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The recent heat health alert was the first alert since July 2022. Importantly, the UK Health Security Agency has updated its weather health alert system in order that action can be taken and preparations put in place. It has also expanded its guidance, communications and the training of staff across the health and social care sector, so they can better deal with the challenges.

Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement on the report, which raises many troubling issues. I add my thanks to Donna Ockenden and her team for their extraordinary work in conducting what has been the largest review of maternity services in the history of our NHS. Our thoughts are with the thousands of mothers, babies, fathers, partners and families whose experience lies behind this report. It is only because of their courage and determination that these failures have finally been brought to light.

When, in the past, I have spoken to families who feel that they have lost a relative or friend due to medical negligence, they often say to me that they are reluctant to pursue justice, since it adds to their grief. They also point out that they often face hostility for raising concerns, as they are seen to be criticising the NHS. This is a terrible indictment. No organisation, including the NHS—perhaps especially the NHS—should be above criticism. The findings expose years of failures in leadership, governance and culture, not just a few isolated cases of clinical failure. Women were not listened to, families were dismissed, and staff were unable to raise concerns in an environment where bullying and intimidation were embedded. Most disturbing of all, the report noted that evidence of these failings already existed, yet action was repeatedly delayed or avoided.

However, we on these Benches wish to be constructive in our response, since maternity safety has challenged Governments of all political persuasions. Will the Government and the healthcare system introduce measures that genuinely improve safety and strengthen accountability, and will they listen to women and families? If so, they will have our support. But the real test will be whether the report leads to meaningful and lasting change across every maternity service in England, because, regrettably, many of the report’s conclusions are not new. Previous inquiries in Morecambe Bay, Shrewsbury, Telford and East Kent identified many of the same underlying themes: women not being listened to, poor communication, inadequate staffing and weak governance. This report must become the point at which recommendations are accepted and demonstrably delivered.

I have four questions for the Minister. First, can she outline whether the national implementation plan will include clear milestones and regular public reporting, so that Parliament, families and clinicians can judge whether progress is being made? Secondly, how will boards be held accountable for creating an environment and a culture in which openness and patient safety genuinely come first? Thirdly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that maternity services have the workforce training and leadership they need to provide safe care? I understand that the former Secretary of State felt that there should be more of a focus on technology than recruitment. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but can the Minister explain how this would work in maternity care?

I also welcome the Government’s recognition of the distressing findings on mortuary services. The treatment described in the report represents a lack of dignity and compassion towards bereaved families. The actions announced are important and I look forward to the Minister reassuring the House that the lessons from these failings will be embedded across the NHS and not just confined to Nottingham.

Fourthly, the Minister will be aware that Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner, is increasingly frustrated that, having proposed a system for redress and compensation for those poor victims of valproate and pelvic mesh, there has still been no movement from the Government. Can the Minister update us on that?

No woman’s experience of pregnancy or childbirth should be determined by their ethnicity, background, language or confidence in navigating the healthcare system. This report highlights clear disparities. The evidence of racism and discrimination identified in the review is deeply concerning and underlines the importance of ensuring that every woman receives safe, personalised and compassionate care. This is not asking for special treatment for anyone; it is about making sure that patients of all backgrounds are treated equally.

Trust in our maternity services will not be rebuilt through apologies alone. It will be rebuilt when women know that they will be listened to, when families see concerns acted upon rather than dismissed, when staff are empowered to speak up without fear, when boards are judged by the safety they deliver and when Parliament sees clear evidence that today’s commitments have become tomorrow’s reality.

The families of Nottingham and other maternity scandals have carried this burden for far too long. They should never have had to fight so hard simply to be heard over many years. They now deserve our determination that this report marks a genuine turning point, and, if the Government achieve that, they will have the support of all Benches. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement before us today from the Secretary of State in the other place is distressing reading, as is the report by Donna Ockenden. This review shocks us all to the core and must shake the Government into real action at every level of our health service and its regulation. Staff concerns were dismissed, a board did nothing and regulators failed in their duties. There was a simple refusal to listen to women and their families, causing such loss, trauma, negligence and damage, alongside bullying, organisational failures and the horrendous misplacing of bodies. Words just cannot express this horror. What brave and resilient families to keep fighting for justice; I thank them all.

I heard the deeply moving testimony at the press conference last week about the mental health legacy for bereaved parents. One explained how she had lost all trust in the NHS and had the constant, triggering experience of having to engage in her daily life with the organisation she holds responsible for the loss of her baby. It is hard to imagine.

This review, and the upcoming wider review from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, must draw the line. This has to stop. Mothers, babies, children and families must have confidence that they will be provided with first-class maternity services, wherever they live in our country. There must be quality services that meet their needs whatever their age or background, with respect and dignity at the heart.

I welcome the taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State. It will be crucial to ensuring the implementation of recommendations at every trust and to ensure that whistleblowing throughout the NHS works. An independent patient voice must remain part of our health service to help hold NHS trusts to account. We will revisit this point with the NHS Bill later this year.

I understand that, in 2018, over 50 members of staff wrote to the chair of Nottingham’s board, stating plainly that there were significant safety concerns. The letter was not even discussed by the board—it went to a sub-committee and was buried. In 2023, the chief executive found that the trust had never formally investigated staff shortages. I cannot get my head around this, as someone who has sat on many different boards over the years. This is not good practice. I therefore ask the Minister what urgent work the Government are undertaking to assess the competence of NHS trust boards. What changes may take place to strengthen them and to ensure that they carry out their serious role and responsibilities thoroughly and robustly?

The Government must also take action to strengthen whistleblowing powers in the NHS. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place have tabled amendments to the Health Bill which would provide new powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health failings. Will the Government look to support those amendments to strengthen whistleblowing in the NHS?

Finally, families need to have confidence in their local maternity services, and those services need to all be at the highest standard. Will the Government commit to a maternity rescue package to deliver this, including one-to-one midwifery care for every woman in labour and consultant obstetricians present 24/7 on every labour ward?

A big step change is needed to transform maternity services across the country that every family and every individual can have confidence in. I look forward to the Minister's response.

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

My Lords, we find ourselves deeply affected, as we have heard from both Front Benches. I am grateful for the tone and for the acknowledgement of the experiences of bereaved and harmed families who are at the absolute centre of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said that she could not get her head around many of these things; I am sure we are all in agreement on that. I share the views of both Front Benches. I am grateful for the support for action. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that there is only one test: action. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is also about confidence and step change. We all want to get this right. It is not recent; it is not isolated—as both Front Benches identified. It should not be the case that those who are bereaved and harmed have had to show such courage and determination. This is an impossible circumstance that people are in. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said that people understandably often do not wish to add to their distress. The fact is that women, babies and families have all been terribly let down, not as a one-off but by a system—a system that failed to listen, failed to be transparent and, to make it even worse, failed to provide the truth when things went wrong. We are looking at 13 years, since 2012. This is a sustained approach that was totally unacceptable.

On behalf of the Government, I want to say how deeply sorry I am, and the Government are, for what every family has suffered and for those who have been affected. I also want to thank parents and families for their courage and determination for sharing their experiences. Without that, Donna Ockenden and her team—to whom I express great gratitude—could not have done the work that they did. They have been diligent; they have shown compassion and great detail, and it will make a difference.

To the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I can say that, certainly, the Government are going to deliver a clear and deliverable plan by the end of the year. As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have asked for, these will indeed be system-wide improvements, so that everyone can have full confidence across maternity and neonatal services—and, yes, it will have milestones and transparency. How will this be done? The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has spoken about the taskforce. That is important. It is personally chaired by the Secretary of State. There is a very good reason for that—to give the absolute authority of his office. I am the deputy chair of that taskforce. It brings together many groups, including through the expert reference groups, but, crucially, it includes affected families and Michelle Welsh, MP for Sherwood Forrest, who would describe herself as someone who has been harmed in this terrible catalogue of heartbreaking experiences. She is our first appointed maternity adviser to the Secretary of State.

How will we deliver through the taskforce a clear action plan that will make a difference? We will bring together the national recommendations from this review and the independent review from my noble friend Lady Amos, rightly established by the former Secretary of State, which will report this Wednesday. The work will also look at previous reviews. It is right to say that there have been many previous reviews and lessons clearly have not been learned, which is totally unacceptable. It will be our duty to deliver that lasting change through the National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce.

I have some immediate responses to the points raised by noble Lords on the Front Benches. The Secretary of State announced last week that we are extending Martha’s rule straightaway to all maternity and neonatal services. That means that every parent or caring person supporting a birth can request a rapid review from an independent medical team if the condition of a baby or mother is deteriorating and they are concerned that it is not being responded to. This is a very important step on the point of real listening.

I was also absolutely shocked to read the findings on mortuaries. They are chilling and deeply distressing. It is hard to believe that these things could ever be allowed to happen. There is a live police investigation, and two people have recently been arrested—noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot say more. Two immediate actions are also being taken: the Human Tissue Authority is conducting an urgent national review of mortuary incident reporting and NHS England, on instruction from the Secretary of State, is writing to all trusts to ensure that they consider the findings on mortuary care in this report.

I will pick up some of the questions asked by the Front Benches. On the point about boards being accountable for an open culture and patient safety coming first, that is their job. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that there has been a change of leadership. This week, the Secretary of State is meeting the chief executive and interim chair to discuss this point. Boards are held accountable to ensure that there is a patient safety culture through strict duties, independent oversight and targeted regulatory assessments. Clearly, this was not the case here and in other areas, but I welcome the change in leadership and their commitment to delivering a change of culture. I am grateful to Donna Ockenden for recognising that there have been improvements, though she is right that more needs to happen. As I said earlier, this is not just one random situation in one area—it goes so much deeper than that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about workforce. One of the recommended actions from the Nottingham report is that a perinatal workforce tool be developed. This will be considered by the taskforce along with all the other recommendations, as we have discussed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked about the urgent work to assess the competence of NHS trust boards. For example, the Nottingham trust has a learning and improvement board to oversee the required improvements, chaired by Michelle Welsh MP. It is supported by a family board and a staff board, which is the model we need to see.

On strengthening whistleblowing as part of the taskforce’s work, we will be looking at all parts of the health system when things go wrong, including how accountability is established and, if necessary, strengthened. On a maternity rescue package, continuity of care, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, is an action in the report from Nottingham and will be considered closely by the taskforce.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about sodium valproate compensation. The Patient Safety Commissioner rightly continues to press on that. I do not have a specific update for the noble Lord; as soon as I do, I will be very glad to write to him.

It is impossible not to be affected by this report, but I consider it a luxury that I am affected in how I feel rather than in what has happened to me. Again, I apologise for myself and on behalf of the Government for the harm, losses and trauma that continue to this day. I commit us to doing all we can to make sure this is not repeated, and I am grateful to have the support of the Front Benches in doing this.

Healthcare Services: Acute, Primary and Community

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, with her first-hand expertise and experience as a GP, and her description of the service that we all would like to see. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Janke for introducing this vital debate. The relationship between acute services and primary care goes to the heart of how the health service that we value can survive and function. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly highlighted the need for the patient to be the focus, not the organisation, and she described the needs of serious trauma patients and the opportunities for technology. My noble friend Lady Brinton highlighted the need for patient-centred services and the whole person being at the heart of this.

The consequences of the deep imbalance between acute, primary and community health services are starkly visible in the data. NHS England discharge data from 2025 shows that patients who were medically fit to leave hospital spent the equivalent of 4.34 million days stuck in beds. They were there not because they needed acute care but because the community and social care that was needed to support them simply did not exist. My noble friend Lord Scriven provided the clear financial reality of acute services being prioritised, community services being reduced and the hollowing out of services for people with learning disabilities.

Let us look at dentistry. NHS England statistics published in 2025 show that four in 10 children—over 5 million in total—had not seen an NHS dentist in over a year. The Darzi review in 2024 found that only around 30% to 40% of NHS dental practices were accepting new child or adult registrations respectively. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned, official data from NHS England and the Royal College of Surgeons confirms that tooth decay remains one of the most common reasons for hospital admissions among young children in this country. The reality is that preventable dental disease generates acute demand. A child admitted to hospital with rotting teeth is a child whose primary care failed, not their acute care.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cass, brought her expertise in children and young people and questioned how the Government’s plans will really serve families better and bring the change that is needed.

We should look at some other trends in primary care. As we have heard, general practice is under extraordinary and unsustainable strain. Our GPs are the front line of defence, positioned precisely where they need to be to detect health issues early. They are the front door through which the public interact with our health service, and they need investment. If accessing a GP feels impossible, then public faith in the wider health service collapses entirely. My noble friend Lady Walmsley highlighted that the funding of primary care is not keeping up with demand, population and key areas of prevention work. The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, talked passionately and rightly about how GP services have been left to wither and now have less than 8% of the budget.

As we have heard, according to the Association of Optometrists, access to community eye care services varies significantly across England. As a result, one in four people cannot access these services locally. Patients with common eye conditions are frequently directed to GPs, A&E or hospital eye services, even though they could be safely managed by community optometrists. At the same time, more than 600,000 people are waiting for hospital ophthalmology appointments, adding extra pressure to acute services. This just makes no sense, and it is patients who suffer.

In mental health, the picture is equally distressing. Thousands of children and adults are waiting months, sometimes years, to receive the support that they need. The previous Government left mental health services in a state, but the consequences of mental health being underresourced, and only triaged at the point of crisis, flow directly into acute services. Psychiatric presentations in A&Es, lengthy detentions under the Mental Health Act and ambulance callouts could have been avoided with earlier community intervention. They are the heavy downstream costs of failing to invest upstream.

Emergency departments are already bearing that cost. Department of Health and Social Care figures show that the Government have announced an average of £376 million in emergency winter funding annually, over the past seven years. This is patching up the system, year after year. That is not a sustainable health policy; it has become a bad habit.

The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has long called for staffed hospital beds, social care capacity and community step-down services. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a £1.5 billion plan to deliver 6,000 more beds daily, boost step-down care and enshrine in law the right to be seen in A&E within 12 hours. But let me be clear: beds alone will not solve this. Beds will fill up again, unless what lies beyond the hospital in home care, community services and general practice is also fit for purpose.

Social care sits at the very heart of this problem. Local Government Association figures for 2025 show that total local authority spending on social care reached a record £29.3 billion in 2024-25, up by £12.4 billion since 2015-16. Social care now accounts for up to 80% of many council budgets, putting immense strain on other services, yet the commission tasked with recommending long-term reform is not scheduled to complete its work for a further two years, with implementation potentially delayed until 2036. Those waiting for care, and those stranded in hospital beds for want of it, simply cannot wait that long.

My noble friend Lady Janke described powerfully the role of community pharmacies, which are a key part of primary care, and my noble friend Lady Leaman described the real impact of medicine shortages on children and young people, continuing into acute services. She also referenced the excellent report on medicines security from the Public Services Committee, which I recommend to the House.

This debate has not even touched on ambulance services, the key role that paramedics can play and the potential that they have, with a shift in resources, to help ensure that people are treated in the right place and at the right time, rather than at the critical point we have today. I recommend that noble Lords also read the latest publication from the Public Services Committee on this very topic.

The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, commented in his review of the NHS:

“Since at least 2006, and arguably for much longer, successive governments have promised to shift care away from hospitals and into the community. In practice, the reverse has happened. Both hospital expenditure and hospital staffing numbers have grown faster than the other parts of the NHS, while numbers in some of the key out-of-hospital components have declined”.


The King’s Fund also commented:

“When trying to envision the future of the health and care system in England, the difficult question to answer is not ‘What do we do?’—the vision for care has been outlined by multiple governments in countless policy documents—but ‘How do we actually make it happen?’”


I welcomed the commitment in the Government’s 10-year health plan to shift from hospital to community. It is the pace of change and the resources needed to support the rhetoric that will actually make it happen. Rebalancing an entire national health service requires rewiring funding, stabilising the workforce and completely integrating local services. If we all agree on the diagnosis, we need to work together to implement the long-term, radical changes needed to fix this. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this timely debate.