Health Bill

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 28th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have listened with regards to Healthwatch and HSSIB, which are two very important legs of the NHS in terms of independence, patient safety and patient voice. I welcome that and thank the Minister; I know that she is also passionate about those areas.

I thank my noble friend Lord Howe and others who have spoken on his amendment. Irrespective of what one feels about NHS England—I will certainly share my views—it is right that there is an operational plan and a transitional plan. No business would move to such a major reorganisation without having such plans and risk assessments, with key performance indicators and clarity around outcomes in relation to budgets and finance.

My key question is that if savings are to be made, when will they made and how will they be reinvested into direct patient care? With all these changes, what does it mean for the patient? How do they benefit, so that we are not just talking round and round to ourselves about reorganisations?

I have been involved with the NHS for nearly over 40 years—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have been around a long time. I chaired a health authority when I was in my 20s, and I chaired one of the eight regional offices of the NHS. My region was northern and Yorkshire, and we had a budget of £3.5 billion. I have some experience of transformation and of the difficulties, challenges and risks that will be involved. If we do not have these plans or clarity, things will go wrong. That will adversely affect patient care, when trying to improve patient care is what the Bill is really about.

I do not like to see lots of duplication in services. I like direct and simplified governance structures in the NHS. We had them when we had the regional offices. I recollect—it was a Labour Government at that time—that the eight regional chairs rocked up to the Department of Health, I think quarterly although the memory has faded a bit, and sat down with the Secretary of State, the Permanent Secretaries and the chief executive of the NHS Executive. We went round to find out what the finances were within our regions, which hospitals were performing well and which were not, and where there were real issues about waiting lists. It really concentrated the mind. Then we went back and fed it to all the 60 or 80 chairmen within our regions and their respective chief executives. I am not too worried and concerned that there will be a lot of haters, but we must have very clear plans to enable this to happen.

Last but not least, I want to talk about the governance structures; I mentioned them in my speech previously. If we do not have clarity around governance structures and accountability, we really will not deliver. If there is one plea that I can make, can it be that? I totally support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, one of the people who I have most admired over the years is the American paediatrician, Professor Don Berwick—some of your Lordships may know him—who is an international expert on healthcare and a great advocate of the NHS. In fact, he led the Mid Staffs review in 2013. In the States, he led Medicare and Medicaid under President Obama. It always struck me that Don Berwick wrote us a birthday card on the NHS’s 60th birthday. It was a long card and I urge your Lordships to read it one day. He offered a simple prescription for the NHS: “Stop restructuring”. He warned that successive reorganisations drained the workforce’s “energy and confidence” and argued that stability makes improvement easier. Does the Minister agree that his advice would be well taken?

[Lord Mawson (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and I certainly support the amendment. I am encouraged by the letter that we received today that there is an open mind within government and a proper discussion taking place about these very important issues. I am a practitioner, as many of your Lordships know, and we are involved in trying to build some of this new health infrastructure around the country. Indeed, today I have been involved in quite an exciting conversation about a health innovation campus in Huddersfield that we are supporting, which has major implications for this Government’s direction of travel—a lot of which I support—around place, collaboration and other things that the Prime Minister has talked about.

However, we are also in touch at the front end with what is actually happening on the ground, and the word I keep hearing from colleagues across the country is “chaotic”, which is a worrying word to be hearing. Therefore, this debate and the detail that is being discussed today really matter for the NHS, for patients and for those of us who are trying to build this infrastructure. Therefore, I am encouraged that the Minister is starting off in an open, transparent and conversational manner in Committee. It is very helpful.

One of my concerns about the changes taking place at the moment is that there does not seem to be a clear vision about prevention. Those of us who have been involved in this space—in my case, I have been involved in east London, and now nationally, for over 40 years—know that on the ground, in very challenging communities, the real determinants of health often have nothing to do with doctors. If you asked our GPs in Bromley-by-Bow, they would tell you that a person getting a job does more for a person’s health than anything to do with doctors. That is why, in Bromley-by-Bow, we ended up building 97 businesses with local people, because we got real about the social determinants of health. It is about whether you have a decent home that is not damp. It is why we built a housing company, which now has 10,000 properties and owns 34% of the land in Poplar. It is to do with whether your relationships in your family are in a good place and whether you feel part of a community—all these things. The numbers that people far cleverer than me come up with say that the impact of all this is 70% to 80%.

I am not clear, with this real opportunity to reform the NHS in this century and with the things we now know, what this Government are saying about the prevention agenda and how clearly they are or are not joining the dots around the social determinants. Part of this conversation is really important, but part of it needs to be about the prevention agenda. As we work our way through Committee, we need far more clarity about what that will mean in practice and in detail in communities across this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 11 and 14 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Patel of Bradford, who also asked me to speak to this amendment.

First, I want to say that I find it helpful—and, in listening to this debate, even more helpful—to separate out health inequalities and healthcare inequalities. Health inequalities are due to the social determinants of ill health, as we have heard, such as housing and employment, which require cross-government involvement to address—the lowering of the unwanted teenage pregnancy rate was a fabulous cross-government initiative that had fabulous outcomes—while healthcare inequalities are due to the distribution of healthcare services, which is what I am going to address. I get very confused if I do not separate out those two, and I think sometimes we get in a muddle, because it is not for the NHS to deal with housing. I take the point about Bromley-by-Bow, but the NHS is there to deal with health, ill health, prevention and so on, although of course it should be involved in cross-government work.

I shall start my speech with a GP. In 1971, Julian Tudor-Hart, a fabulous Welsh GP who worked in a mining village in south Wales, wrote a pivotal paper in the Lancet. In it, he described what he called the inverse care law: the availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it. Put simply, those who need care are least likely to receive it. That was some 50 years ago, and I would love to tell the House that it was now a historical curiosity, but it is not. If anything, that situation is getting worse. I shall talk about two particular places where we see that most clearly, general practice and our coastal towns.

I shall start with general practice. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has given some figures, and I am going to highlight a few more showing why it is so important to have an equitable distribution of general practitioners. Many of the indices of ill health are due to the drop in numbers of GPs. If noble Lords want to debate with me about that claim, I can show that there is an absolute line towards that.

As the noble Lord said, this week the Royal College of General Practitioners published—the first time it has ever done so—its State of General Practice Report 2026. We have to take its findings very seriously if we are going to address our population’s needs. To pull out just one figure from the report, which the noble Lord mentioned, as of September 2026 there were only 36 more full-time equivalent GPs than in September last year—so slightly better than when I made my speech at Second Reading, but not much. British Medical Association data shows that in the same period the number of hospital doctors has grown by nearly 50%. Those figures are reflected in the number of patients GPs care for, such that the average number of patients per full-time GP has gone up by 12% and at the same time, according to data in the British Medical Journal, the number of patients per consultant has fallen by 18%.

GPs are doing their best to meet the demand. Over the last 12 months, approximately 388 million appointments were carried out in general practice—by the whole team, but largely by GPs. Some 45% of those appointments were booked for the same day, 82% of them within two weeks, and 60% of them were face to face, excluding home visits. That is tens of millions of appointments more than before the pandemic.

The Government have rightly said that care should move out of hospital and into the community, but we have moved the patients without moving the resources. So it is perhaps not a surprise that the Royal College of General Practitioners survey showed that three-quarters of GPs say their workload is compromising patient safety, while the GPs themselves have the highest burnout rates of all the professional groups.

Here is the part I find difficult to understand. Thanks to government initiatives, we now have over 5,000 doctors in general practice training, the highest figure for years, but BMA analysis shows that half of those who finished training between 2018 and 2024 were not working in a GP practice a year later. It is not that the practices do not want them; they just cannot afford to employ them. This is the contradiction at the heart of the problem: demand is rising yet the workforce has not kept pace. As Tudor-Hart predicted, those who lose out most are those in most need.

According to the Health Foundation, after accounting for increased workload and higher health needs in poorer communities, practices in deprived communities receive roughly 7% to 10% less funding than those in affluent areas—and I now know where, in a way, that has come from, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We are not just failing to tilt the playing field towards needs; we are tilting it the wrong way. That is the case for Amendment 11. If we are serious about reducing healthcare inequalities, general practice distribution must reflect the population’s needs.

That brings me to Amendment 14. As we have heard, the Chief Medical Officer’s report on coastal communities found that those living in seaside areas have shorter lives and spend more of those years in poor health. We have heard about the challenges they have—poor transport, geographical isolation, older population. Noble Lords might expect the health service to send more staff to areas with higher levels of illness, such as coastal areas, but too often it is the opposite. In Hastings, a lovely place, each GP cares for more than 3,700 patients, the highest number in England. In Kingston upon Hull, which again is a lovely place, there is roughly one GP for every 3,000 patients, but in Kingston upon Thames the figure is roughly 1,900—similar names but very different experiences.

The GPs and nurses who work in those places describe it vividly. In Skegness, an area where I spent many of my childhood holidays, staff told researchers about constant firefighting, burnout and isolation, and about patients who could not get their appointments because of poor transport. The problem extends beyond general practitioners to community nursing, where recruitment and pay parity have fallen even further than for GPs.

The evidence is clear that reducing healthcare inequalities requires services and workforce planning to reflect the needs of the communities they serve. That is why Amendment 14 matters. It would explicitly place the need to reduce healthcare inequalities between coastal and inland communities within the Secretary of State’s duties under the Bill. Funding must reflect the health needs of the population, not merely the number of patients on a practice list. As care moves out of the hospital and into the community, staff and resources must move with it.

These amendments are not seeking preferential treatment for GPs. They are seeking fair treatment according to need. Robust evidence spanning more than 50 years shows that more GPs per head of population means better health outcomes, fewer premature deaths, a better patient experience, more preventive work and a lower cost to the NHS.

I hope the Minister will recognise that these amendments would give practical effect to the Bill’s ambitions to reduce healthcare inequalities. The inverse care law was identified 50 years ago but we should not accept that it remains patients’ experience today. They did not choose to live in the deep end, but we can choose whether to leave them there.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

I too put my name to Amendment 11. I do not want to repeat everything the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, have said, but it is so important that people have access to a GP. Too often we hear that people cannot get to see their GP. That is one reason why A&E departments in hospitals are becoming overwhelmed—because people then go there. I too am concerned that GPs are being asked to see far too many patients. Many patients cannot be dealt with in just 10 minutes, and the stress of all this is creating burnout for GPs, as we have heard. So please can we ensure that everyone has access to their GP without having to wait weeks or fight with the receptionist?

Patients need continuity of care. We all know that, when GPs know their patients, the outcomes are hugely better. I am not medical, but it is common sense that if a patient can get to see a GP quickly, things can often be resolved sooner and conditions picked up earlier, making treatment easier. We need to ensure equality of access. If we can get the GP system functioning better everywhere, that will help to deal with some of the enormous strain placed on other parts of the national healthcare system at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for opening the debate on this group, starting with the amendment laid in the name of her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their consideration on a topic that is key to this Bill and to all our work. I will return to this, but it includes the 10-year health plan, which provides the framework for all that we do.

I start with Amendments 6 to 11 and 13 to 20. I assure your Lordships of our commitment to tackling inequalities. We have debated this several times in this Chamber and rightly so. I certainly agree with the comments made, including those from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. This is about people’s ability not just to access services but to achieve the right outcomes for them regardless of who they are, their background or where they live.

I turn to Amendments 8 to 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. These test whether the duty on the Secretary of State is strong enough. It is right to discuss that point. I appreciate the intention—which was emphasised by my noble friends Lady Royall and Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—to ensure that we are taking action, because that is ultimately what we are here to do. However, I would caution against amending the Bill in the way that the amendments seek to do. As a number of noble Lords will be aware, the “have regard” formulation in legislation has a number of precedents across the statute book, and it is familiar to government departments and to decision-making in the public sector.

There was an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and my noble friend Lady Royall over Sections 2A and 2B of the NHS Act. I tread with some trepidation at this stage, but we do not believe that it is necessary to change “may” to “must”, certainly for the duty in Section 2B. This is for the reason I have just outlined about risking confusion because it is moving away from the usual way of doing things. It would also potentially reduce the ability of Ministers to make decisions about priorities. There is no practical intention to reduce the importance of tackling inequalities. The noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, has moved from her place.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

It was cold down there.

Neighbourhood Health Services

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We do not intend to bring forward the investment standard that the noble Baroness seeks. I am aware that a discussion is going on—probably as we speak—through the Health Bill, which is about to be introduced to your Lordships’ House. That is about increasing accountability and responsiveness to local needs and improving outcomes. I say to the noble Baroness that our fear is that bringing in yet another approach, through an investment standard, risks undermining that.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, since 1948, successive Governments have shifted care into the community without a simultaneous shift of people, estates or money. We have just heard that general practice now receives its lowest share of the NHS budget for a decade. Will the Minister agree to address this so that GPs can deliver continuity of care, which we know improves access, reduces demand, improves outcomes and fundamentally delivers better value for money?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that that is what I feel the whole neighbourhood approach to the NHS is. As she is aware, it is about joining up around the person and bringing together teams, including GPs. It is important to acknowledge outcomes: we have delivered nearly 14 million additional appointments through GPs in the year to June 2026, and patient satisfaction is going up with GP access. We need to look at what the situation is as well as the concerns.

IVF Treatment

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

All of this is important, not least because noble Lords will have seen in the women’s health strategy that we want to ensure that every woman can access effective fertility services easily and safely. I would certainly agree that there are areas where the fertility evidence base could be strengthened, and we are looking at how we can best support research and data collection, which was another point raised by noble Lords. We are currently working with NHS England, which will become part of the department, because we want to support equitable commissioning but also the right evidence base so that information is properly available. At present, there is scant evidence that many of these add-ons are anything other than optional and not recommended.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, would the Government consider requiring the HFEA to share data on these inappropriate and harmful add-ons with the General Medical Council so that fitness to practise concerns can be acted on?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It is important that, where there are concerns, they are acted on. Perhaps the noble Baroness, with her experience, has a particular way in which that could be followed up, but certainly the GMC would be expected to take action if there was incorrect and unacceptable practice. I am not suggesting that in respect of add-ons to fertility treatment; I am focusing on the need for fair, equitable, NHS-funded fertility services and ensuring people know that there is not evidence that their chances of conceiving will be improved currently by any of these add-ons that are being offered, which is the worrying situation that we have.

Healthcare Services: Acute, Primary and Community

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for securing this debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for saying many of the things around primary care and general practice that I want to say. I always feel that I am here defending my own profession.

The NHS was founded on a vision of care delivered close to home—in communities, general practices and by district nurses. Yet, over recent decades, a profound imbalance has appeared in resource allocation. Hospital-based care has grown in workforce, infrastructure and funding, while services that form most of the patient’s first point of contact have been left to wither, as we have heard. When I started general practice, on 17 February 1991, I had time with my patients and time to do what my patients—many noble Lords in this room—wanted.

The mantra of moving care into the community has not been associated with a simultaneous move of resources, people, infrastructure support or estate. I now do more than any other GP in any other comparable health services. General practice in this country does more and to a greater degree of complexity than in any other. I do everything except open heart surgery in my consulting room—I confirm, for Hansard, that I do not do that.

The consequences of this non-shift are evidenced across the full breadth of primary care. Millions of patients cannot register with an NHS dentist. Many resort to emergency departments for toothache—or, worse, leave decay untreated until it becomes a serious health problem. Optometrists, who are often the first to detect conditions such as glaucoma, diabetes and hypertension, are increasingly unable to sustain NHS-funded services. Continuity of care with a GP, which I will say a little bit about later, is becoming a rarity, while community nursing is stretched to breaking point.

These crises, which include physiotherapists and all the other community specialists that we have heard about, are not separate. They are symptoms of the same structural neglect: a system that has consistently prioritised acute, visible hospital care over the quieter but equally essential work happening in surgeries 360 million times per year, in consulting rooms and in communities. General practice alone receives less than 8% of the NHS budget—the lowest proportion for decades. This risks replacing continuity of care—the bedrock of my profession—with brief transactional encounters, despite clear evidence that continuity delivers better, safer and more effective care. Without continuity, the NHS becomes a maze where patients get lost.

On workforce, no system succeeds without the people to staff it: practice nurses, health visitors and district nurses. The quiet architecture of community health has been hollowed out over decades. Over the same period, the consultant workforce has increased by 120%, while the number of GP partners has fallen. Even with that fallen number, around one in five GPs cannot find full employment because we do not have the funding to employ these doctors.

When community care buckles, the consequences flow downstream. The result is a system paying premium prices for intensive care to manage problems that should never have reached that threshold. This is not simply an administrative question but a moral one. What kind of health service do we want: one that catches people only when they fall, or one that walks alongside them and, where possible, prevents the fall altogether?

What does “fair distribution” mean? It means teams without walls. It means multidisciplinary teams built around the patient rather than the disease or body part. It means shared records that follow the person rather than sitting in silos. It means social prescribing that connects people to their communities before loneliness becomes a clinical problem. We need step-down facilities that bridge the acute ward with a patient’s home.

I had all those resources 20 years ago. Noble Lords will remember the Tomlinson review in the early 1990s: integrated, step-down, community-based, multidisciplinary hospitals. Please let us stop reinventing the wheel. When community care buckles, the consequences flow directly downstream. As I said, redistribution is not simply an administrative question but a moral one. What is required is not another review or reorganisation but sustained political will, clear frailty pathways, a realistic workforce plan, training that ensures that all doctors—I mean all—spend meaningful time in community settings, and a rightful place for community practitioners on integrated care boards. When will we finally redress the balance and stop the imbalance of more and more resources going into hospitals rather than where patients receive most of their care?

Integrated Care Boards: Budgets

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

To develop further the reply I gave to my noble friend, ICBs have been asked to reduce their running cost allowance to a cap of £19.40 per head of weighted population for the financial year 2026-27, which the noble Lord was asking about. I have to emphasise that by focusing on 36 ICBs and building them around nine clusters, people in ICBs will be able to pool budgets, cut their running costs and be more efficient. I think that is very welcome.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

Can the Minister comment on whether the mental health investment standard introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022, which requires the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the share of NHS funding for mental health, will be replicated for primary care?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand why the noble Baroness is asking that question. I cannot confirm that that is the case, but I will gladly raise that point with my colleague the Minister for Care.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Mattinson (Lab)]

I am speaking very briefly so, if the noble Baroness does not mind, I will continue. Many of those stories have been told very movingly here today.

The point is that 52% of us have cared for or witnessed a family member who was terminally ill and suffering at the end of their life. Unsurprisingly, experience of this rises with age, up to 66% in the 50 to 64 year-old age group, and higher as you get beyond that. Research—for example, England’s first ever citizens’ jury, so more qualitative and deliberative research—tells us that support for law change grows the more that people understand the issue and hear about it.

Meanwhile, the backdrop to this debate is that trust in our democracy has never been lower. Too often, the public do not feel listened to. Confidence in this unelected Chamber is at its lowest ever: a desultory one in five has confidence in the House of Lords to do its job. At the end of last year, YouGov found that just 2% had a lot of confidence in the House of Lords and only 17% had some confidence. Some noble Lords have quoted a poll that suggests that the public would like to see us doing better scrutiny. Yes, in abstract, they absolutely would, but, with reference to this particular Bill, a YouGov poll recently found that 58% disagreed with the way the Lords has dismissed the Bill while only 17% found it acceptable. Again, public opposition rises, as you would expect, with greater experience by age, consistent with the lived experience of the impact and pain of the alternative.

As this debate draws to its close, we should all be aware that the way the Bill has been treated by this Chamber risks having profound implications for the Chamber itself and its reputation, as well as the absolute tragedy of ignoring the passionately held public view for assisted dying.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I remind the House that Harold Shipman was a murderer convicted of 15 life sentences plus four years. He did not provide an assisted death. I would like that to be on the record.

I stand here as a general practitioner with over 40 years’ experience and, as I have said many times, as president and chair of the Royal College of GPs. Over the decades, I have had the privilege, though not always an easy one, to care for patients at the end of their lives. For some, I have been present at the moment when life passes to death. It is an extraordinary moment—not, as it is often portrayed, bleak or clinical or purely tragic, but something far different. When death is well supported, when it is anticipated and when it is held by family and those who care, it can be a moment of stillness, connection and a sense of peace that feels unexpectedly profound. It is one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had as a doctor. In those moments, one thing is always clear: the patient is at the centre. Their wishes, relationships and dignity all shape how that final phase of care unfolds when it goes well.

However, that is not the whole truth. I have also cared for many patients whose deaths have not gone well: patients who have refused treatments or have starved themselves rather than endure what lies ahead; patients who, sadly, have ended their own lives, unable to bear the weight of their diagnosis; and patients whose illnesses have taken away from them the ability to make their own decisions, and whose deaths have been placed into the hands of others—families, clinicians and the systems acting in their place.

That brings me to the heart of this debate. The question is simply, though uncomfortably: whose death is it? For decades, medicine has placed patient autonomy at the centre, bounded by capacity, consent, clinical judgment and protection from coercion. We speak of choice, dignity and the individual’s right to determine what happens to their own bodies; we have built systems, laws, safeguards and languages all around that. Yet, at the moment when autonomy might matter most—the manner and timing of one’s own death— it is withdrawn. At that point where a patient is dying, we say, “Not here. Not you”. To my mind, that is not just a tension but an inconsistency that demands reflection, which is what I have been doing over the last few months.

I say with respect that much of what I have heard in this House has strongly focused on risk, even today, but risk is not unfamiliar territory in medicine. It is our daily working environment. We do not eliminate uncertainty; we manage it. We make complex decisions every day about treatment, capacity and withdrawal of care under conditions of imperfect knowledge, guided by safeguards, judgment and professional accountability.

Alongside this focus on risk, there has been a tendency, again as I have heard today, to imagine worst-case scenarios and to construct arguments at their point of failure rather than their point of function— the “what if?”—and to build in increasing complexity to cover every possible scenario that might come up to manage these hypothetical fears. We have even heard today about the 100 languages that are spoken. How do we manage learning disability? How do we manage people who are disabled? We do this every single day, a million times per day.

Even the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Chris Whitty, warned in his oral evidence that we are

“layering layer upon layer of complex bureaucracy on top of one another”,

and, in my mind, expecting the dying patient to jump through endless hoops, be that having to see their GP six times in six months, living at the same address for 12 months or having repeated assessments. We have heard powerful testimonies about relatives who have died. Can you imagine, at the moment of their death, asking them to do repeated serial sevens—that is, counting backwards from 100 in sevens—or to draw a clock face to assess capacity?

Let me take my own profession: general practice. Listening to some of the debates here, one might think that when a patient receives a terminal diagnosis general practice fades away—that we retreat or that care fragments. This is not my experience, nor that of many of my colleagues. When a patient enters their final phase of life, general practice leans in. We intensify care; we place patients on dedicated pathways; we ensure rapid access to benefits; and we maintain continuity with a named clinician, who is more likely than not a GP. We co-ordinate care with community teams, palliative care specialists and families and we ensure that we do our best to provide continuity in and out of hours. We organise ourselves around the patient. We do not move away. Instead, we gather more closely. Are there failures? Yes, of course—no system is without them—but end-of-life clinicians across disciplines try, often beyond expectation, as I have, to keep the patient at the centre and to get it right.

Cancer Outcomes in the UK

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to contribute to this debate, and I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I declare my interest: I am a practising GP just across the river, and, over the past 40 years, I have diagnosed and cared for many tens of thousands of patients with cancer. We currently use AI to help us: we use it with our e-consultation system, which can identify red flags. Together with our electronic medical records, that explodes at us and asks, “Have you thought of cancer?” We already have the brightest and the best; they are just located in general practice. As has been alluded to, I disclose that I am a former chair and president of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

I agree with many of the contributions that have already been made. In the contributions that I have made already in my short time here, I have drawn attention to the mounting pressures facing general practice and the implications for patients and the wider NHS, and I will focus briefly on that. I worry that initiatives such as the national cancer plan, which rightly place primary care at the forefront of early diagnosis and referral, are in danger of overestimating what general practice can realistically deliver in its current state for the patients we serve.

Without addressing the underlying constraints in the workforce, funding and capacity, we risk placing further pressure on a system that is already under real strain, as has been mentioned. In so doing, we may undermine the very ambitions that the plan is trying to achieve. These pressures are compounded in some areas by outdated or inadequate premises, which further restrict GPs’ ability to expand capacity and to do what is expected of us.

The Royal College of General Practitioners has repeatedly warned that general practice has not received a sufficient share of NHS funding to match rising demand. Without increased investment, the shift of care into the community will not be sustainable. The King’s Fund, which has been mentioned several times today, has highlighted a persistent structural imbalance in the NHS, with a higher proportion of funding and staff allocated to hospital services than to primary and community care.

Despite general practice being the front door of the NHS, the workforce remains heavily concentrated in hospital services. As highlighted in the Health Service Journal—HSJ—last week, the proportion of NHS doctors working as GPs has fallen significantly, from one in five a decade ago to closer to one in seven today. Less than 15% of the workforce—GPs and nurses—are now located in primary care, with 80% of the nursing and medical workforce now working in hospital settings. This cannot be right, given that evidence published over the past 70 years, both in this country and across the water, shows that placing GPs at the front door of any health service results in more accessible, higher-quality and more cost-effective care, including cancer care. Moreover, evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners shows that strengthening continuity of care—the bedrock of my profession—can reduce avoidable hospital admissions and improve cancer diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Patients prefer continuity of care.

Recent figures published in Parliament, and highlighted in the Health Service Journal just last week, show that the share of NHS spending on general practice has fallen to about 8%—its lowest level in the past decade, down from 9% around five years ago. It always amazes me that there are currently 360 million consultations per year—GPs are about 180 million of those—for an average cost of £150 per patient per year. Noble Lords can do the maths: every man, woman and child on average consults six to seven times per year with their GP for £150. These figures reflect a long-standing structural imbalance in how care is resourced and delivered, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. To me, that raises a very clear implementation risk for the cancer plan, which relies heavily on GPs for early diagnosis and cancer pathways. Without adequate investment in primary care capacity, we will not be able to do that.

We need more GPs. Health Foundation modelling indicates that we need an additional 6,500 GPs by 2030 to meet the needs of our ageing, increasingly complex population. We need more GPs spending longer with their patients and communities to achieve the ambitions laid out in the cancer plan. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to address the current imbalance, whereby general practice receives a relatively small share of NHS funding while delivering a substantial proportion of patient contacts.

Delays in accessing primary care risk translating directly into delays in cancer detection, where, as we have heard, earlier diagnosis is often critical to outcomes. Ultimately, if we expect earlier cancer diagnosis to be delivered through general practice, we must ensure that general practice has the capacity to deliver it.

GP Contract

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, the new GP contract appears to be baking in access over continuity: my GP, when I want to see him. How will the Government protect continuity of care, which is after all what keeps the NHS safe and provides value for money, and which patients welcome?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We have already said that through our 10-year plan, and this contract very much ties into the main pillars of the plan. We found GP services in a very difficult and challenging state, as I know the noble Baroness will be more than aware. We regard GP services as the front door. We want to see that continuity of care and we expect GPs to organise it accordingly. We all understand that it is not always possible, but clearly the best form of care, whether in the community or in hospital, is on a continuous basis and wrapped around the patient’s needs, not the other way around.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 25th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, although this was emergency legislation, we have had detailed and constructive debates on prioritisation. We have also had the opportunity to debate some of the deeper issues around the supply of medical specialty training places, and I am grateful to the Minister for her letter. We will continue to hold the Government to account on the delivery of these places over the coming years. As we have said previously, the Bill is not a complete solution to the problem, as the Minister graciously acknowledged. We accept that it is a step forward.

During our debates, we touched on a number of issues, including whether UK citizens who are graduates of UK medical schools should be given first priority. We discussed the issue of international medical graduates who chose to contribute to the UK system of healthcare rather than go to another country, but who may now find themselves at the back of the queue. We discussed graduates of overseas branches of UK medical schools, some of which follow the same curriculum as UK medical schools, and whether some could be granted so-called grandfather rights. We also pressed for secondary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We understand why the Government have come to their position and why Ministers have not been able to take action on these points in this emergency legislation. However, given more time, I hope Ministers will continue their work to resolve these concerns, which were eloquently set out by a number of noble Lords from all Benches.

There was some debate about whether this was really emergency legislation or whether, in reality, it was simply giving the Secretary of State a bargaining chip in negotiations with the BMA. That may be no bad thing in itself, but the question remains of whether emergency legislation should be used to give Ministers bargaining chips.

Before I sit down, I thank the Minister and her officials for all their engagement throughout the Bill. As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we look forward to working closely with the Minister as the Government press ahead with its implementation.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I know it is not normal to speak at this stage, so I will be brief. I thank the Minister and everyone who has worked on this Bill, but I want to raise one or two anxieties which have already been touched on.

I believe that the Bill fundamentally challenges one of the principles that I have always held dear, which is fairness. It is unfair to international medical graduates, who we have entreated to come to this country for the last two decades—we have even paid for them to come —to work in hard jobs, in places where UK graduates did not want to do them. Now that we have more people than places, we are basically pulling the rug from under them. We are jeopardising their careers, their futures, their families and their visas.

It is also unfair to those UK nationals who chose, again in good faith, to study overseas and now have been treated like international medical graduates, when they are not. Finally, it is unfair to the commitment that the Department for Education has made around transnational undergraduate and postgraduate education. This Bill, I am afraid, takes away that commitment and says that we do not really mean what we say.

However, I look forward to working with Ministers and officials to see whether we can address some of what I fear will be the unintended and, I suspect, intended consequences of this Bill.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Gerada Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

If my noble friend is correct, I will absolutely and humbly correct myself. Maybe we could have a drink afterwards and compare notes on that.

On the question of freedom, I too am a passionate believer and fighter for freedom. However, the freedoms I care about are not only the freedom of choice but the freedom not to be impoverished by taxes and not to see my nation, my country, ruined by the health, welfare and productivity costs of carcinogenic, nasty toxins such as cigarettes. The financial cost on ourselves, and particularly on our children, of this industry is absolutely enormous and is still growing, even if the numbers have stalled. So the freedom from addiction and debt should be included in any discussion of what the freedoms are. For those reasons, I will be voting against this package of measures.

[Baroness Gerada (CB)]

My Lords, I am also against these amendments. I will disclose a conflict of interest: I started smoking when I was 16—and 33 years later, like many of us who start to smoke at that age, because it is a childhood disease, I gave up.

We know and have heard about all the health effects of smoking, but we also have to realise that smoking is an easy addiction to start. I have looked after every addiction—heroin, cocaine, alcohol—and smoking is the easiest. You need only two cigarettes for 80% of people to be addicted, like me, for 33 years, and many people, like me, try to give up.

It is not just addiction that is the problem. It is not even about death, although death is a bad outcome to have. It is also about all the other complications. Like many smokers, I have lost many of my teeth. Our eyesight goes. We have skin problems. Smoking causes all sorts of things.

As a GP for nearly 30 years, I am pleased that I have seen a massive reduction in people with smoking-related diseases. My surgeries used to be full of what we call blue bloaters and pink puffers and full of people with premature heart disease. It is not an accident that I no longer see that in my consulting room; it is because of the hard work of our Chief Medical Officers, the Department of Health, ASH and many others to stop normalising smoking.

On the issue of the black market, there is of course a price differential. Wherever there is a price differential you will get a black market, whether it is diesel, cigarettes, alcohol or whatever. But the Bill is about stopping people starting—as the noble Lord said, preventing the next generation that has not even been born from starting. We have to focus on prevention, which is what the Bill is about.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, called this a world-leading policy. It is world-leading, because no one else in the world has chosen this policy. One wants to know why. At least the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, admitted that this was novel and therefore untested. Can we at least have a little humility by admitting that the Bill is an experiment? It is a risk.

How you do age verification, as rather wittily described by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, is a bit untested. How will we cope with the 84 year-old versus the 85 year-old—will there be a scrap? It is said that it is not going to happen for many years, but I thought the idea of legislators was that you were meant to think about the future, not just tomorrow, and the long- term implications of policies that pass.

Let us be honest: there is no good practice to copy with this Bill. There is no evidence about exactly how it will work or whether it will work. The claims on its behalf are largely based on modelling and speculation, and that is not evidence; it is not scientific. Therefore, the moral high ground and the sense of certainty deployed by those who are enthusiastic about the Bill, and the disdain towards those of us who are sceptical about it, are just a little misplaced.

I therefore request that, as we go through the very short Report stage, because a lot of us have been through a longer Committee stage, we are honest about things such as cost-benefit analysis—what is lost, what is gained—and, rather than moral righteousness, consider whether this is actually fit for purpose, even the purpose of those people who are putting the Bill forward. Whatever the intentions of those promoting the Bill, many of the clauses in it are counterproductive.

I know we are not on this section yet, but as an ex-smoker who started vaping, I am utterly distraught that we now have a Bill that, to all intents and purposes, treats vaping and tobacco as interchangeable, despite a denial by the Government. I do not think that there will be the health gain that is claimed.

My final point at this time—because I will be back —is that it is a little rich to sneer about freedom. Saying the word “libertarian” gives certain people a thrill; they can feel as though they are morally virtuous. I do not consider myself to be a libertarian, despite what Wikipedia says. However, I fully embrace living in a free society. I do not think that freedom is something I should be embarrassed about, nor that saying that people should be given choices about their lifestyles makes you to the right of Genghis Khan, or whatever it is that people are implying—or, worse, in the pay of big tobacco, which is the inference of many of the contributions. At some stage relatively soon, lots of adults—the 84 and 85 year-olds, because these kids do grow up to be adults—will be denied a choice. This Bill affects adults.

People can make choices about whether they take risks in their health. I suspect that practically everyone I know is using those weight-loss injections. To me they are a bit risky—I think, “Are they safe?”—but I am not mounting a campaign yet, because half this House would be out. People say it is worth the risk. A lot of people do daft things such as going skiing—mad; too risky for me. There are all sorts of things. People have been known to have the odd extra pint or eat the odd greasy breakfast. People take risks and make choices about their health all the time.

I do not want more people to smoke, but I also think that, in a free society, we have to give a certain degree of room for people to make choices—even the wrong choices. We live in a free society. Deciding the right and wrong choice is what happens in authoritarian regimes, but in a free society we say, “I don’t think you should do that, but I’m not necessarily going to legislate so that you can’t do everything I personally disapprove of”. We should not even say, “You shouldn’t do that, because I know best for your health what you should and shouldn’t do”. In medical ethics, there are times when you go to your doctor, who says, “Take this”, and you say, “I decline to take that medication; I do not want that intervention”. In a free society, a doctor cannot force you to do what you do not want to do—even the virtuous health professional who we are all meant to revere.

As we carry on this Report stage, can we all show a bit of humility? Living in a free society puts before us difficult moral decisions. There is no necessarily right or wrong. We are allowed to scrutinise a Bill that is put before us without being accused of somehow being evil because we do not go along with the Bill. Just because the Conservative Government, when they were in, and the Labour Government now agree—if that is the basis on which we should not scrutinise, we might as well all go home. I am sad to say that, for some of us, the Conservative Party has had far too much agreement with the Labour Party over recent decades.