Down Syndrome Bill

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Cameron]

Absolutely. That is the important reason we are all here—to make a difference to constituents’ lives. The hon. Member has shown that the Bill will have a positive impact on her constituent’s life; I am sure that across the Chamber we have all had many similar emails. The right hon. Member for North Somerset addressed some of the hopes for other conditions, which were also raised with me. I am pleased to support the Bill wholeheartedly and to have seen it progress so rapidly.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my neighbour, the right hon. Member for North Somerset, on his work and on bringing together so many colleagues across the House. Everyone has worked enormously hard on this Bill. I thank the Minister for her co-operation. We should have more poachers turn game keepers—they are all terribly welcome.

As Members have said, the families of the 40,000 people with Down syndrome are all watching and listening to the debate carefully. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) previously said, we take every opportunity to remove all the barriers and to tackle stigma and the poverty of ambition that hold back progress in this area. The Bill is the perfect opportunity to do that, particularly around housing, mental health provision and education—all key areas that can really improve and empower those with Down syndrome across the country.

I welcome the Bill and the amendments. As the Minister said in the last debate, the Government recognise that the legal duties and frameworks are already in place. The duty under the Care Act 2014 is to assess people based on need and not diagnostic categories. It is vital that every person’s needs are met to ensure that they can fulfil their potential in their lives. This Bill is about people, not a condition; as it is implemented, we need to recognise that every individual will have their own specific needs. Social care is facing unprecedented strain, so new responsibilities must come with an assessment of investment.

I welcome the Department’s commitment that new guidance will be formed in consultation with partners, and a new burdens assessment will be undertaken ahead of that guidance. As you know, Ms Elliott, having chaired some of the sittings, I spent six weeks in Committee on the Health and Care Bill throughout the autumn. The provisions about having a named accountable person on the integrated care system and the guidance are very important and welcome developments. If the Government could learn from this Bill and take that approach more widely to the current legislation and other legislation, that would be not only good practice but very welcome for Members of Parliament and our constituents.

Our constituents expect us to see guidance and perhaps be part of scrutinising it, raising objections and problems and improving it—that is the role of a Member of Parliament—before that guidance is developed by organisations that are not accountable in the same way and imposed on our constituents. Bringing that circle back, so that Parliament has a greater role in the guidance, is really a very important step, and I hope that that starts to permeate not only the Department of Health and Social Care but other Departments and, indeed, current legislation.

I very much commend the right hon. Member for North Somerset for introducing amendments 1 and 2. They will be landmark—really important. I commend the Minister for working with the right hon. Gentleman to agree to them, and I thank everybody involved in the Bill. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: this is an example of how Parliament and the proper role of Members of Parliament can be made real. That is only for the good of our constituents.

[The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott; I think it is the first time. I am delighted that the Bill has received the same endorsement today from across parties as it did on Second Reading. What can I say? My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has really set an example to all of us. I guess that is the voice of experience—30 years in various roles around this place, which have enabled him to optimise and maximise the situation and to get all colleagues rowing in the same direction. It is very important for a Member to do that if they are to get their private Member’s Bill into legislation; as we know, that is not typical.

Some 47,000 people in the UK have Down syndrome. It cannot be right that people with Down syndrome and their families should have to fight for access to appropriate services. I have seen this personally, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, with my nephew Joseph Gibson. Although Joseph is now happy and thriving—he is 15 now —it has not always been easy for my brother Marcus and sister-in-law Sara to secure the support that they need and that meets his needs.

That is what we want to change through clause 1, which provides that relevant authorities will be issued with guidance that they will implement locally. The guidance will enable those authorities to understand the needs of people with Down syndrome and how best to meet them. Of course, we will consult widely on the development of the guidance.

Once the guidance is published, the Government will keep it under regular review and update it periodically to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. It is very important that, when going through the clauses of the Bill, we put the right things in place, and that we do that with wide consultation. I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling the amendment to require the Government to lay the guidance before Parliament upon publication, because people here have a lot of experience and a lot to give. I am pleased to support amendment 1, which will bring this important guidance to the attention of Parliament once it has been published.

Skin Conditions and Mental Health

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I commend the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) both on having secured this debate and on his ongoing work in, and commitment to, this area. He introduced his comments by saying that yet again, he had had more ridicule through an email, which is appalling. He stands up for people, and I am sure that that is well appreciated by fellow sufferers.

The APPG’s report is very powerful. It is very sobering that, despite similar reports in 2003 and 2013, so little has changed for people suffering from these conditions, both from childhood and among adults and people who are older. The link between skin conditions and deterioration of emotional and psychological wellbeing are well documented, and have been for some time. As we have heard said so eloquently this afternoon, people with skin conditions report that they have experienced social isolation, stigmatism, depression, anxiety and in some cases suicidal thoughts and, indeed, action. There is also strong evidence to suggest that, although people with skin conditions have much higher rates of common mental health conditions, they struggle to access psychological support. Members have given some very good examples from among their constituents. This is particularly prevalent in children, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) discussed. The APPG’s survey found 98% of respondents stating that their condition impacts their mental health, and only 18% saying that they could access support.

The rise of social media has exacerbated these problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has said, children and young people with these conditions are particularly reporting bullying and being mocked on social media, all of which we obviously condemn. We cannot disagree with all the evidence that has been presented today—the reports and recommendations on what is needed to support people. It is very clear, Minister: we need to improve access to specialist support, improve training and awareness through the health service, commission more psychodermatology services, improve staffing, support further research, and encourage further integration between psychology, psychiatry and dermatology. The Government need to do much more to support these people, particularly those who are battling through the primary and secondary care interface—I am particularly thinking about parents who are trying to do so. The IAPT service, with which I have worked in my previous career with the health service, offers a route through. However, as all of us know from our constituencies, IAPT is heavily over-subscribed and really struggling with current caseloads.

In the final few moments of my speech, I will pick up on the issue of teledermatology. Although people over the past 20 years might not have experienced much difference in services, the world has changed quite considerably in those 20 years. A decade ago, I was a commissioner for a primary care trust—now they are CCGs—of a teledermatology service, encouraging GPs to use that service as a way of supporting them, providing better link-in to secondary specialist care, and ultimately providing a better, quicker, more responsive service to local people, particularly for parents who can sit with children and avoid trips into hospital. It was clinically led, working with the private sector, new technology and willing GPs, and it was innovative. It was incredibly hard to achieve: at some point, I may share my stories of trying to implement a new service in the NHS. It is not easy, because new practice is always hard to achieve and savings and effectiveness are hard to demonstrate.

Although as we have heard, covid has made the situation much worse for many people, the pandemic has provided a catalyst for some rethinking of how we deliver services. Though I heed the warning in the report —also made by hon. Members today—about the loss of face-to-face services and about how important those are, I think that we can learn some lessons. With waiting lists at 6 million people and rising rapidly, I wonder how the Government will make developments in this area, as well as in many others, without thinking about more radical approaches, while clearly bringing people with them. Technology and digital access provide some of the solutions.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Given the clarity of the evidence, will she outline how she would support embedding innovation and the lessons of the pandemic to create a more responsive, faster and better service? Will she outline how she will work with her counterparts in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to deal with online bullying about skin conditions, which we have also talked about today? It would be helpful to understand the Government’s strategy on employing and training more psychodermatologists and, indeed, how the Minister will support GP training so that GPs understand the effect on people’s mental health of skin conditions, again as has been so eloquently outlined over the past two decades.

What plans does the Department have to invest in further research into psychodermatology and the wider mental health implications of skin-related diseases, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned? I sincerely hope that we are not all here in another decade’s time, with another report from the APPG saying the same things. I am sure that we would all like to see some progress for people suffering from the mental trauma of their poor skin conditions.

NHS Dentistry: Bristol and the South-west

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this evening’s Adjournment debate on access to NHS dentistry in Bristol and the south-west. Over the past few months, many of my constituents have told me how difficult it has become to find and access an NHS dentist in and around my constituency of Bristol North West. Their accounts have been wide-ranging, from having their NHS treatment left in limbo following the closure of a local practice to having to look as far as Gloucester to try and register as a new patient with an NHS provider.

In particular, last year an NHS dental surgery in Southmead in my constituency unexpectedly closed to patients. Many of my constituents were left without an NHS dentist, often mid-treatment. One constituent explained that they had paid for NHS treatment prior to the closure of the dental surgery but had been unable to secure another appointment with a local dentist. Their dental work remains incomplete. Another constituent described contacting nine dental practices across Bristol to try and resume their treatment as soon as possible, only to be told that none was accepting NHS patients.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; I have similar stories from my constituents. Does he agree that we also need to think about pregnant women, for example, who have free access to care but are also being denied access to dentistry at a really important point of their life?

[Darren Jones]

I absolutely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contributions, not least as a leading voice on healthcare policy, knowing that prevention is more important than cure.

A third constituent of mine rang over 25 practices across the south-west, but was unable to secure an appointment as an NHS patient—something that has affected patients who were pregnant as well as everyone else. Southmead in particular is now left without any NHS dentists at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Minister, Karin Smyth.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Around 10,000 medically fit people are currently in hospital when they should be at home with their families or in a supported setting. That is a tragedy for them and a mark of shame on this Government. Short-term cash, taskforces or threatening legal action are not solutions. Social care support is a lifeline not a luxury, so will the Government now work with us cross-party in line with the joint Select Committee report of 2018 to bring forward immediate change and offer hope and respite to those receiving and giving social care?

[Sajid Javid]

First, may I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and wish her all the very best? She will have heard in a previous answer that social care and those who provide social care, which is such a vital act and such a vital service throughout our country, are receiving record amounts of support—£3.3 billion of extra financing since March 2020. Of course I would be more than happy to work with her and her colleagues to see whether there is more that we can do together.

Antimicrobial Resistance

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on bringing this very timely debate to Westminster Hall. It is timely because if we do not learn from the situation that we are in, we will end up in a very bad place; it is with that in mind that I give my remarks.

This is a really unusual subject; I have not been involved in a debate on it before, but it is one on which there is so much agreement. We have a problem, we have evidence of a problem, we agree that we have a problem, we have solutions that we generally agree on and we are genuinely world leaders. I think the Government sometimes bandy around the fact that we are world leaders when we are not; but we are genuinely world leaders in this area, and that is something to be proud of. We have some fantastic people in this country. However, why is the situation not improving? What more needs to be done, and, crucially, has enough been done in recent years? How do we know what has been done? As the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said, why is there not greater interest and political pressure on this subject?

It was 2013 when Professor Dame Sally Davies described this as a

“catastrophic threat”.

She said:

“If we don’t act now, any one of us could go into hospital in 20 years for minor surgery and die because of an ordinary infection that can’t be treated by antibiotics. And routine operations like hip replacements or organ transplants could be deadly because of the risk of infection.”

It was in 2014 that the estimated figure of 10 million people dying as a result of AMR by 2050 was mooted. I was working in the health service when that discussion was being had, back in 2013-14. I vividly remember the concern of specialists, particularly colleagues in pharmaceuticals, about that, and the actions that were being taken to support clinical practice to make sure that did not happen. However, I do not think that most people walking the streets are aware of the catastrophic prediction made then.

We have a problem—we agree on the problem—and we know the causes of the problem: inappropriate use of antimicrobial drugs in healthcare; poor infection prevention and control practices; use of antimicrobial drugs in agriculture, and accelerated spreads of AMR infections through global trade and travel. Additionally, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and other hon. Members have said, there are limited numbers of new drugs available to replace those that become ineffective. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, launched a review in 2014, and the list of 10 recommendations was published in 2016. In 2017, the cost of global action was estimated at $40 billion. That is an eyewatering sum, but when compared with what is being described as the incalculable cost of covid, which reaches trillions of dollars, that $40 billion estimate starts to look quite small. Others have indicated that in reality the cost of this could be unimaginable to most of us.

There was an excellent debate in Westminster Hall on 26 April 2016, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) addressed the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is also an expert in this area. My hon. Friend said:

“Although I welcome the renewed focus that today’s debate brings, I fear we are no closer to a solution than we were two and a half years ago.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 540WH.]

I think there is concern in the Chamber that that remains the case today.

The Government have targets, although they are not terribly specific. Many are for the period 2021 to 2025—for example, being able to

“report on the percentage of prescriptions supported by a diagnostic test…by 2024.”

On the eve of 2022, I expect the Minister to be able to outline how meeting those commitments is going. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made some helpful suggestions for what we should be measuring, how we should be measuring it and how that should be reported, which I am sure the Minister will address.

On animal use, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, the investment required by farmers was yet to be formally evaluated in 2019, so it would be useful to know whether the Minister has evaluated that cost. It would also be helpful to have an understanding of how we are collaborating with our European neighbours, now that we have left the European Union, because we know that collaboration is really important, particularly in the agricultural industry.

We should be prepared, and we should certainly be on track, but I fear we are not, so the crucial issue is: what do we need to do? I pay tribute to Dame Sally Davies, our special envoy on AMR, and her work to highlight this issue, which, as she has said in the last year, is a silent pandemic. As she has told us, covid needs to be a wake-up call to the warnings that she has issued over the years. I have listened to her speak on this issue, as has another all-party group, and she has recently used quite a vivid image to describe the situation: covid is like putting a lobster into boiling water, but AMR is like a lobster in cold water. It is a silent pandemic.

One of the issues is that fewer adults know about this. I absolutely agree, and I think that is also true of Members of Parliament. We need to learn from covid, including about things such as altering behaviour, washing our hands and access to water. We also need to support those on the frontline much better, including through clinical direction, to help them in the way that they need in order to treat patients.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. Please remember to leave two or three minutes for Kevin Hollinrake to respond.

Health and Care Bill

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State who, while I do not necessarily agree with what he says, as ever puts it courteously. We hold true to what we put in that “Build Back Better” document. It is necessary for this one particular element to see further primary legislation, hence the amendment today.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I am afraid that I will not give way because I do need to make some progress.

[Karin Smyth]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Edward Argar]

I have been very generous with my time and to the shadow Front Bench, so forgive me, but no.

[Karin Smyth]

On that point, will the Minister please give way? Six weeks in Committee and not a mention.

[Edward Argar]

Forgive me, but no.

To reiterate, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 7 September nobody—nobody—will be “worse off” than under the current system. Currently around half of all older adults in care receive some state support. This will rise to roughly two thirds under these reforms. On the minor technical amendments that I made to other sections of the Care Act, I would not wish to belabour each one, but I can reassure the House that those changes will ensure that the legislation works as intended and that everyone who is eligible—

[Karin Smyth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will not give way. I want to make some more progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to highlight that this improves in this respect on the Dilnot proposals. I put on record my tribute to Andrew Dilnot for his work, but we believe that this is a better package, and, as he highlighted, a sustainable package from a financial perspective.

[Karin Smyth]

Will the Minister give way. We have had six weeks in Committee.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady implores me, saying that after six weeks of having to sit opposite me in Committee, the least I can do is allow her to intervene.

[Karin Smyth]

Several times in that Committee, I offered to help the Government in a cross-party way. The Minister has been dealt a bad blow here tonight, having to come here and defend this proposal. In those six weeks—I think 21 sessions—not one iota of this proposal was mentioned or brought forward. We all know about bad legislation, rushed legislation, and legislation that does not have the commitment on something so important. I have commended the Government for starting this conversation, but this is a poor legislation move. I am sure that Members here would support the Minister tonight if he were to withdraw this proposal, go back to the Chancellor and ask him to think again. We would all be behind him if he took that opportunity.

[Edward Argar]

I did wonder whether I would regret that intervention. It was typically courteous, although I have to say that when a Member of the Opposition says that, “We’re here to help you”, I am not always sure. [Interruption.] Of course, when the hon. Lady does it, I know that she is sincere about it. The point I make is that this important change is necessary to deliver on the pledge we have made. It is being introduced on Report. While ICBs and integrated care systems, which we will speak about shortly, are hugely important, I suspect that this matter will dominate the debate in this group on Report. Equally, I suspect that it will be fully debated and scrutinised in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker]

I caught your eye half a minute ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you indicated to me with that look that I was next. My heart rate quickened. I am always nervous when I speak in this place because we do really important stuff here—all of us do—and this is an important Bill.

Before the Health and Social Care Bill became an Act in 2012, it was amended by the Conservative Government. It was amended in pursuit of parity of esteem. The Coalition Government changed general references to health to “physical health and mental health”, which was not a courageous thing to do—it was entirely the right thing to do.

I have tabled a series of amendments—10, if I have counted them correctly—for debate over the next two days. They ask the Government to change all general references to health to “mental health and physical health”. It is a call to arms. These changes are not just totemic, but hugely important. Over the next few years, we need to recruit 9,000 more mental health nurses to look after our constituents and more than 800 new psychiatrists, and we need to give all organisations charged with delivering healthcare that nudge, that push, that call to arms that they need to make these important things happen. We also need to send another message from this place—on top of all the other messages that we have sent over the past nine years—that we believe that there is no physical health without good mental health, and that good mental health means good physical health.

I am looking at the Minister because he has made a couple of staggering interventions on colleagues tonight. Colleagues in full flow, prostrating themselves at the feet of Government, have suddenly been rewarded with his stylish, charming intervention of, “The Government have heard your cries, and they shall act on them.” I looked at the joy that spread across the face of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and across the face of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the former Secretary of State, who spoke before me. I look at the support I have from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), the most recent former Secretary of State—there are a few of them—and from a former Prime Minister. May I ask the Minister to make one of those generous interventions on me this evening? I am still here. I want to sit down, but if he is not going to make that generous intervention right now, I shall be back tomorrow. I shall also be travelling up to the other place and knocking on its door to make sure that these amendments are tabled there, so that, eventually, we get our way.

[Karin Smyth]

I came to this place largely on the back of the disastrous Lansley Act, and I am pleased to see it banished to the dustbin of history, which is what this Bill essentially does. It also banishes to the academic shelves that example of how not to make policy. Lansley took a sledgehammer to our work in primary care trusts, to partnerships, to morale, and to our capacity to forward-plan. Along with the austerity funding that came with it, the Act directly led to the poor state in which we entered the pandemic, and that must be front and centre of any review of the pandemic.

This Bill is a seminal point in the history of the NHS, because it banishes again to the history books experimental competition as an organising principle and a driver of efficiency. The key issue is what replaces it. Now we have in its place local cartels dominated by hospital trusts, and the supreme power of the Secretary of State to interfere in all local decisions. There is no power here for local elected representatives, no power for primary care or community care or mental health, no voice for patients, no voice for the public, and no voice for the taxpayer, who is asked to pay ever more. As we move to an ever more costly health service, accountability and transparency of our NHS in this role has to be at front and centre in order to bring people with us on that journey of paying more.

I have tabled two amendments to this part of the Bill. One is on the need for the local boards to be cognisant of palliative and end-of-life care. The other is on local improvement finance trusts, the local public private sector bodies introduced under the last Labour Government that are instrumental in providing good primary and community care estate—something that this Government are allowing to wither on the vine. My own South Bristol Community Hospital needs more support through these trusts in order to thrive, so that people have decent, good-quality estate from which to receive their care.

I also draw hon. Members’ attention to my new clause 23 on a good governance commission, which will be discussed tomorrow. I genuinely offer it as a helpful way forward. If it were enacted by the Government, it would avoid the cronyism that we have become used to, and would ensure that local bodies are more democratically accountable to their populations and more cognisant of the needs of their local populations. It would ensure that the people leading the local bodies are fit and proper, meet basic criteria regarding what is expected of them and have crucial accountability to local populations. It is akin to the Appointments Commission, which was abolished in the abolition of the quangos; that was a huge mistake. If the Government took notice of it, the new clause would really help us to get around some of the real concerns about how our local health services are governed.

Let me finally address new clause 49 on social care. It is a disappointment and unexpected. We had six weeks in Committee. In that time, we could have looked carefully at the proposal and shone a bit of light on it. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who is no longer in his place, clearly tried to say what this provision is really about, in that one part of the state should not be subsidising another part of the state. He started to say that that was a true Conservative principle and he was absolutely right. This provision will remind people who are in receipt of benefits that they are in receipt of those benefits, and that anything they may have built up should not be counted towards their future. It is a punitive property tax. I am old enough to remember what happened to the last Conservative Government who introduced a regressive property tax; this Government really ought to think again.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am married to an NHS doctor, who is employed by a hospital trust that serves my constituency.

Let me turn first to new clause 49. Those of us who have been in the world of local government for a long time will have seen the attempts by Governments of various parties to address the financial settlement around social care. I chaired a social services committee that pushed through the charging policies introduced by the last Labour Government in an attempt to address these costs. I also chaired a social services committee that had to balance the demands of the fair access criteria, and saw the last Labour Government drive a coach and horses through a lot of local provision.

I recognise that we should all seek to ask questions of Governments about how we address in particular the impact on working-age adults. In response to the people asking whether we are proud of what we are here to do tonight, I would say that we should be proud of the fact that we are willing to take what are sometimes difficult decisions to ensure that we balance the books and have a sustainable financial settlement that supports social care for our constituents. It is too late for my two grandparents, who went through the process and saw very modest assets consumed by the cost of long-term care, but I welcome the fact that my constituents, and people up and down the country, will benefit from what this Government are seeking to achieve.

I will move on, briefly, to new clause 55, which addresses the responsibilities for ICSs regarding the provision of services and planning for services for our youngest children. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) made a helpful intervention, in which he pointed out the effectiveness of Ofsted-style regulation in ensuring the quality of provision at a local level.

We had an excellent debate in the Chamber just a few weeks ago, discussing the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), which was reflected in the budgetary decisions that were brought forward previously. Having had that debate, it seems clear to me that in tabling an amendment supported by more than 70 organisations in the field of children’s care, we have an opportunity—one which was debated and touched on through various assurances from Ministers in Committee. It is an opportunity to ensure the right level of rigour and accountability in what we ask of ICSs, so that we can make sure that our youngest children, babies, neonatal care, and indeed young people up to the age of 25 who are already covered by statutory provisions in respect of special educational needs and care leaving, are appropriately covered.

Covid-19 Update

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that there were a lot of questions. The impact statement will be published today, and the impact assessment will be published before he and other Members are asked to vote. Those documents will help to answer their questions. I also draw his attention to the experience thus far of the condition of deployment measure that we took in a similar way with care homes, and how dramatically the numbers were cut from the point of announcement.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Of course NHS and care staff should all be vaccinated—that is what we expect for our loved ones—and of course they should all be wearing masks. The Prime Minister parading around a hospital yesterday without a mask was a disgrace, and I hope that the Health Secretary is talking to him about that.

I support the questions that other hon. Members have asked about more detail in the impact assessments, because I want to know whether those 10% of un-jabbed staff are in Bristol, or whether the figure in Bristol is 20%, 30% or 2%. If the Health Secretary knows that information, I, as a Member of Parliament for Bristol, should also know it. If all staff and associated people in healthcare settings are to be vaccinated, will there be a covid passport for people to visit hospital and care settings?

[Sajid Javid]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that she really should not try to play politics with the story that she is perpetuating about the Prime Minister on a hospital visit yesterday. As the hospital trust said, and as I am sure she knows, the Prime Minister and his team followed all the rules that they were required to follow, whether they were about face masks or otherwise, in that hospital. Something tells me that she knows that, but sadly she has decided that she wants to play politics with such an important issue.

As for information on vaccination rates in Bristol, the hon. Lady knows that every region of England has a director of public health. She probably knows who hers is, and they will be able to supply a lot of information. If she is having any difficulty getting that information, I will certainly help her in any way that I can.

David Fuller Case

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I very much agree with all the words of my right hon. Friend, especially when he talks about the shock, hurt and pain of all the families, many of them his constituents. He asks specific questions on three points: whether the victims will be allowed to give evidence to the inquiry; whether the recommendations will be for the whole of the NHS and be public; and whether the inquiry will publish its findings on other sectors beyond the NHS. Absolutely, the inquiry will do all three things. I can give him that assurance.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

This is truly one of the most horrific things any of us will have heard of or encountered. Our thoughts are with the families and those conducting the investigations. Following on from the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) who highlighted that access has happened elsewhere in the country, the Secretary of State said in his statement that he has written to NHS England to ask all NHS trusts to report directly to him on what they find in terms of compliance. Will he outline how he will share the information from NHS England with local communities who are now very concerned about that and with us as their representatives?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I am very happy to expand on that. The NHS has, first, written directly to all trusts and asked them to look into the issues of mortuary access and other post-mortem activities, and to judge them against current guidance to ensure that it is all being applied. In the first instance, that information will go back to NHS England. It will then be shared with me and I will certainly want to find the best way of sharing it with both the House and everyone who is interested.

Health and Care Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Norris]

I share with the Minister the desire for a shift to prevention. My anxiety, from the Government action we have seen over the last decade, is that that is a rhetorical shift rather than a substantial shift in policy, and definitely not a substantial shift in resourcing. Nevertheless, the Minister’s answer on the documentation that NHS England will be asked to publish is a suitable substitute for a provision being on the face of the Bill. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 63

Young carers’ needs assessments following hospitalisation

“In the Children Act 1989, after section 17ZC, insert—

‘17ZCA Young carers’ needs assessments following hospitalisation

(1) An NHS trust or NHS foundation trust must ascertain during hospitalisation whether a patient when discharged will be cared for primarily by a young carer.

(2) Where an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust ascertains that a patient when discharged will be cared for primarily by a young carer then the NHS trust or NHS foundation trust must give the local authority where the patient lives notice that a young carer will require a needs assessment.

(3) The local authority receiving notice under subsection (2) must carry out a needs assessment, and in doing so must—

(a) ascertain whether it is appropriate for the young carer to provide care, and

(b) identify what support or services need to be in place for safe discharge of the patient.

(4) The needs assessment required by subsection (3) must be conducted before the patient is discharged.’”—(Karin Smyth.)

This new clause would ensure that the needs of young carers are assessed before a patient who they care for can be discharged.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I will not delay the Committee too long on this new clause, but it is an important one to consider. We had a good discussion last week on the needs of carers, although I am not sure we resolved it satisfactorily. Carers do a huge amount of work on behalf of their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham so eloquently said, they want to do that work, but many of them essentially keep our services going. Without them, the demands on our services would be so much greater.

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

All of us who have met or who know young carers recognise the particular stresses and strains on them from caring for their relatives. They do astonishing work. Again, as my hon. Friend said, many feel that they are doing it because these are their loved ones; they do not feel like they are carers in many cases, but they are. Often people then do not come forward, if they are not known to the authorities, to make that clear. That is often because of fear of what that might mean for the family set-up they find themselves in.

The new clause draws attention to the needs of young carers, particularly following hospitalisation. It would require trusts and local authorities to be cognisant of who is caring for a person when they are discharged, particularly where young carers are involved. When the issue was first drawn to my attention—particularly the need to highlight the different needs of young carers—I must confess that I thought that these things were routine in good care settings. Obviously, the situation into which someone is being discharged should be fully known and recognised, and their needs met. We had a good discussion about that and we know that that does not happen, but the pressure on young carers is particularly acute. As part of that discussion last week, I almost intervened on the Minister to ask that when we are considering carers more generally, we highlight young carers separately. A hospital needs to know and understand that the person going back home will be in the charge of a young carer, and the local authority needs to make sure that a needs assessment is conducted.

The new clause suggests that should happen before the patient is discharged. Clearly, the Bill is instigating a new process, which will look at post-discharge. We had a good debate about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said from the Front Bench, doing that assessment differently may be better in the long run—we do not know. In particular, when it comes to young carers taking up that role, it is even more acute that it is recognised in the new arrangements.

I will not move the new clause to a vote, but I would like the Minister to be cognisant of young carers and assure us that these needs will be highlighted to hospital trusts and local authorities in the discharge planning process.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South for introducing the new clause. She set it out very well and she is right to highlight the interplay with the section 78 provisions in the Bill, because there is a risk of some jarring if we do not get this right.

As we know, the 2011 census reported that there are almost 166,000 young carers between the ages of five and 17 in England. However, research carried out by the University of Nottingham and the BBC in 2018 suggested the figure could be much higher, with around 800,000 children providing care. It is estimated that nearly 260,000 of those carers are providing high levels of care, so there is certainly an issue out there.

As we know, being a young carer has a significant impact on children and young people. Caring for other family members inevitably affects school attendance and exam results, with many young carers paying a heavy price for their dedication to their families. It often limits their ability to take up their full academic options. On average, young carers achieve a grade lower than their peers in their GCSEs and are less likely to go to university. Every single classroom in the UK is likely to have at least one young carer.

As my hon. Friend said, the new clause would ensure that arrangements for discharging patients without a care needs assessment do not unduly impact on young carers. Their needs must still be identified when an adult is discharged from hospital. But the new clause goes further than that: it applies to all discharges, so there must always be a check to see if a young carer is involved. One might think that a check ought to done anyway, but evidence shows that it is patchy at best. Before covid, hospitals were struggling with the many issues we have discussed in relation to staffing. It is not always easy for people to do everything they would want to do before discharge. The new clause would put into law what is already being done in the best-practice examples.

There is already, in theory, a general right to an assessment under the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Care Act 2014. The Children and Families Act states that all young carers under the age of 18 have a right to a needs assessment as a responsibility of the local authority, which

“must take reasonable steps to identify… young carers within their area who have needs for support.”

However, Barnardo’s 2017 report “Still Hidden, Still Ignored” identified that young carers were “slipping through the net.” The report led to many recommendations, including Barnardo’s calling for hospital staff to actively ask questions to identify young carers at the point of discharge. Hospital staff are in a key position to ask questions to ensure young people do not slip through the net, and it is clear that more needs to be done in this area. The new clause offers one way of reducing the possibility that young carers slip through the net.

As my hon. Friend said, young people are often reluctant to identify as young carers. They do not want to get their parents into trouble sometimes, and it can be a difficult conversation. The new duty would take a lot of that pressure away because the responsibility would sit with the hospital professionals to ask the patients on discharge. That would stop the young person feeling responsible for involving official services in family life. Of course, we want local authorities to be able to identify these people to ensure the right support is in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bone. The new clause would introduce a requirement for an NHS body to notify the relevant local authority once it had identified that a young carer had primary responsibility for caring for a patient on discharge. The local authority would be required to carry out a young carer’s needs assessment before discharge to establish the appropriateness of the young carer providing care and what support should be in place to enable safe discharge.

I entirely understand the sentiment and intention behind the new clause, which the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol South set out very clearly. We have touched on the importance of this issue in previous debates about carers. Young carers often do not even realise that they are carers. They undertake their caring responsibilities, go to school, come back again and undertake caring responsibilities again. They are arguably some of those most in need of support and identification. These young people are essentially having caring responsibilities for a loved one, family member or friend thrust on to their shoulders at a very early age. However, I am not convinced that the cause is best advanced by the new clause and I will try to explain why. In her response, the hon. Member for Bristol South may agree or say she is unconvinced by my explanation, as is her right.

Existing legislation already requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of need for all young carers on request or on the appearance of need. That assessment must consider whether it is appropriate or excessive for the young carer to provide care for the person in question, in the light of the young carer’s needs, wishes and circumstances. Regulations already provide a detailed framework, including the matters to be considered in such assessments and the skills of the person undertaking it.

As members of the Committee will be aware, the discharge clause in the Bill, which we debated some days ago, revokes the existing requirements for hospitals to issue assessment and discharge notices as part of the discharge process for adults, because they contribute to lengthy discharge delays. The current requirements trigger local authority duties to assess the person’s long-term social care needs, prior to the person’s discharge. We know delayed discharges have a negative impact on patient outcomes.

My concern about the wording of the new clause is that making young carers’ assessments a requirement of discharge would risk reimposing further significant delays, at a time when supporting the safe hospital flow of patients has never been more important. I am also unclear how such an assessment system would be enforced.

Current discharge guidance clearly sets out that, as part of discharge planning, consideration must be given to any young people in the household who have caring responsibilities or may have some on discharge. Guidance states that they may be entitled to a young carer’s needs assessment or to benefit from a referral to a young carers service.

We will work with the Department for Education to ensure that protections for young carers are reflected in new statutory discharge guidance, accepting the sentiment behind the new clause. That will include setting out as part of the discharge planning process how young carers should have a needs assessment arranged, where appropriate, before a patient for whom they provide care is discharged. That is the more appropriate way to capture or operationalise, for want of a better way to put it, the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s new clause. It is up to her whether she feels that that is sufficient, but I have set out our response to the new clause she proposes.

[Karin Smyth]

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I do not think that is sufficient. I will not press the matter to a vote, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, when it comes to things being on request it is problematic, and that is the crux of the matter, as in the guidance that the Minister read out. I understand the need for hospitals to not have lengthy discharges—and it is not good for the patient—but sorting out the hospital’s problem on the backs of young people and carers is not a good message that we want to send from here.

I appreciate that the Minister in his final comments said that this would be very much part of the thinking about discharges, but we should also remember that these young people have really had the most shocking experiences in the last two years with covid, and are already—again, as my hon. Friend said—falling massively behind. Added to the destruction from covid, many young carers live in some of the most disadvantaged families, really keeping those families together, so they are further left behind.

On the Minister’s exhortations to the service and local government, it would be helpful to further underline the strength of those, and I am sure that most of the Committee feel that. Young carers have had probably the worst of times during covid and for them now to have to shoulder more responsibility because of the discharge problem and the need to get people out quickly would further exacerbate the situation. They need more help, not less, and I hope that that will be communicated back to the service. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 65

Review of the surgical consultant appointment process

“The Secretary of State must review the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and its most recent guidance and, within six months of the passage of this Act, publish a report on the surgical consultant appointment process.”—(Justin Madders.)

This new clause requires a review of the legislation which governs the NHS surgical consultant appointment process.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Health and Care Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 28th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Justin Madders]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 46 would amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is a recognition that, as a result of the move to integrated care systems, the whole concept of the NHS being run as individual businesses really ought to go. We have already pointed out in our discussions the apparently contradictory duties placed on NHS bodies in this regard. Some consider themselves as quasi businesses and refuse to disclose their business plans or provide information about their business dealings under the Freedom of Information Act. That makes it difficult for staff to understand the precise nature of proposals. I will come to some examples of that later. I have to say that they take their lead from the Government a bit in that respect. As we are no longer in the era of markets and competition, and NHS bodies no longer have to compete with one another, commissioners really do not need to enter into complicated contractual arrangements. So there is not really the need for them to cite commercial confidentiality as a reason not to comply with FOI inquiries. The interests of trusts, the public and patients should be aligned. They should not be subservient to wider commercial interests.

The Minister may say that this is not an issue, that the NHS is already open and transparent and that everything is sweetness and light in the garden. It certainly should be, but we think there are occasions when that has proven not to be the case. It might also be argued that NHS trusts and foundation trusts have to have some protection from FOI requests so that they can conduct their affairs properly when they are properly engaged in commercial activities such as procurement. That might well be the case, but we can illustrate from the experience of trade union colleagues, especially in the case of contracts for clinical services placed with private providers in the outsourcing of facilities to subcos, that the reality is somewhat different. We often hear that the staff representatives hear that the trust they work for is considering outsourcing some service. Of course, these are the staff who carry out that particular work. Rumours and leaks slip out before there have been any discussions with trade unions, but the trust has already made the decision to outsource and starts talks on TUPE transfers before any real dialogue has taken place.

There is a great deal wrong with that approach, given the requirements that we have talked about previously with regard to the NHS constitution. The point here is that, where management have refused to discuss anything other than the results of a decision that they have already made, staff and trade unions often have to resort to FOI to get answers to the questions they are asking. They put in their FOI request relating to how the trust has made its decision to outsource the service. Then they get the reply, “We’re not going to tell you, because it is commercially confidential.” I think the fear of trusts is not that a commercial interest is endangered but that its reputation is going to be damaged. They are not confident about negotiations with staff representatives and know that the cases that they have built are painfully weak and will not stand up to rigorous external examination.

Staff, understandably, are anxious and curious because they know that their terms and conditions are often tucked away in the business case under the heading “Savings”, which is where the debate really ought to be. That is why we never get to the truth of these things. So it is not really an issue of commercial confidentiality. It is about refusing to be open and transparent about the true intentions. This has been well documented with the subco sagas. In around 20 cases, trusts had decided to form subcos to deliver facilities management services. We could look at all the tax implications of that and the ducking and diving that follows, but we are not going to do that. We need to point out that in those cases the subcos are fully owned by the parent trust. There is no intention for them to procure anything, because that is what forming the subco delivers. There is no information or collection of details on bids from other organisations. There is no commercial competition aspect to this at all. In many cases, trusts are asked by the staff to provide the business case for going down the subco road and the answer they get back is, “Well, we are not giving you that because it is commercially confidential.” The trusts may have at least pretended to look at options, and even scored them, to arrive at the decision they have already made, but why is that process secret? Who would receive a commercial advantage from seeing that information? The trusts might argue that disclosure of the financial case might give the bidders information that they could exploit, but if there is a proper competitive tendering process, that should not be an issue at all. Even if it were, the recourse is to redact the numbers in the one or two places where they are most sensitive. The rest of the business case ought to be disclosed, but that is not what happens.

Let us assume for a moment that the trust has made a strong case, as it will have to do under the new provider selection regime. Will the new regime set out disclosure requirements in respect of business cases and so on? Looking at what NHS trusts do, are they actually put at a disadvantage by having to disclose their business case? We know what will be in those business cases, as the Treasury sets out guidance as to what is required, and most of the cases are about a rationale for change. That should not be a secret, and the old Office for Government Commerce set out guidance that covered how FOI requests were to be dealt with during the various stages of a public procurement. That guidance said clearly that business cases can and should be disclosed.

I will briefly address the wider issue of FOI requests. As the Minister may or may not be aware, I am a regular submitter of FOIs to his Department—indeed, all Government Departments and the wider NHS—and I have to say that over the past few years I have been more disappointed than delighted by the responses I have received. Many are rejected for a variety of reasons. It seems I am not alone in that respect: only this week, openDemocracy issued a new report on FOIs, called “Access Denied”, so I think we can all guess what they found. I will run through a few highlights from that report anyway: it said that 2020 was the “worst year on record” for FOI transparency. The Government exploit legal loopholes to deny access to information and, most controversially, the clearing house that openDemocracy reported on last year does not simply advise Departments on their responses, but plays a much more hands-on role, which includes drafting responses to FOI requests. I do not think that is because they want to help Departments to be as transparent as possible, but because they want to help them to avoid revealing the truth. Transparency and a commitment to the principles of freedom of information start at the top with the Department, and it should be leading on this subject.

On a slightly more positive note, there are better examples. There are trusts that work with their staff and even with the wider public and patients. They have open discussions. They do not hide their case; they make their case. If they have to engage in a tender process, they involve staff in specifications, options appraisals and questions to bidders at every stage of the process. If they can do it, why can’t every trust do it? The answer is that trusts can wriggle out of their obligations by using these loopholes in the Freedom of Information Act request procedure, and nobody is able to challenge that. It is time that changed, which is why I ask the Minister to support this new clause.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend and echo everything he has said. I have spent a great deal of my time in this place looking at the issue of wholly owned companies, trying to stop them from happening and questioning why they are happening. I think I remember sitting opposite the Minister in an Adjournment debate talking about the excitement of VAT rules and tax exemptions, a subject that is beyond the individual ken of most of us, but once we dig into it we find that the mixed messages the Government gave were not very helpful, and that underlying this problem is the culture of secrecy.

We have alluded to why this is so important: we need the openness provided by agenda meetings and locally accountable people—people we can actually talk to about our health services—and setting that culture from the top is really important. Ultimately, this is about patient safety, because once we have a culture in which there is a presumption of denying information and having to jump through hoops to get it, that permeates the entire organisation. That, sadly, is why we continue to revisit problems with patient safety. This issue is therefore really important, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

I rise to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. He is absolutely right that this new clause follows neatly from the previous one, because I am in no doubt that if women were more involved and more listened to and had more power within the healthcare system, the debacle around vaginal mesh would not have got so far, and we would not sadly still be in a state where the recommendations have not been implemented. This is about power, listening, and having a voice in the system with regards to reproductive healthcare planning.

In the Chamber last week, I said regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East’s menopause revolution that when we worked on a women’s health strategy in the late 1980s, we barely mentioned the menopause. We were looking at reproductive rights even then, and for those of us who have followed this issue over a period of 30-odd years, it is deeply worrying to see where we still are. Again, this comes back to very basic patient care. I will certainly be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East tomorrow to start the menopause revolution, which is going terribly well. We are hoping for serious improvements in healthcare over the coming years, and this new clause highlighting reproductive healthcare planning is really significant for the voice it should give to women at this important stage in their lives.

[Edward Argar]

It is possibly lucky for the Government that the hon. Member for Swansea East is not on this Committee, because she can be extremely persuasive. In my role at the Ministry of Justice, she managed to get a number of things out of me by persistent campaigning.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate today. Women’s reproductive health remains a priority, and it is vital that women’s voices are listened to, particularly when it comes to their own healthcare. That is why we are developing a new section of the reproductive health strategy, which will of course sit alongside the developing women’s health strategy. They will both seek to address issues relating to women’s reproductive health.