NHS: Winter Preparedness

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about two cohorts in respect of which there are concerns about vaccination levels. The first is front-line health workers. Is the Minister aware of what percentage have been vaccinated and what action is being taken to improve the uptake of vaccinations, particularly among those front-line health workers? I know that there are stories and concerns expressed in the press about the rate of vaccination. On the second cohort, will the Minister tell the House which socio-economic or ethnic groups have the lowest update? What targeted plans does the department and NHS England have to increase uptake rates in these groups?

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

First, we have started earlier and done more than ever before to prepare for the winter pressures. The good news is that the flu vaccines are working well to protect people against severe disease, and they are certainly working well in comparison to how they used to. In fact, we are the first country in the world to show vaccines working this well. On the uptake of vaccinations, 60,000 more NHS staff have been vaccinated this year than last year, which is extremely welcome. We have delivered over 17 million flu vaccines, which is tens of thousands more than we had delivered this time last year. We have a particular programme of communication and support and availability to those groups which are less likely to take up vaccinations. Vaccinations are our best line of defence against RSV and flu. I will be pleased to provide more detailed information to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, given that not all babies are currently able to benefit from protection under the two-pronged approach to the RSV programme, what efforts will be made to ensure that other babies, such as those born to unvaccinated mothers, who remain at risk, will be included in any extension to the RSV vaccination programme?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I know my noble friend is very familiar with the maternal RSV programme, not least because of her campaigning, for which I pay tribute to her. It only began in September, and it is already proving successful. We want to see more pregnant women being vaccinated; we have updated and made available information resources in 30 languages for better access to vaccinations. We encourage maternity services to have early discussions with pregnant women about vaccination, and we ensure that training is in place to allow staff to have the knowledge and confidence to address concerns and build confidence. I hope that this answer is helpful not just to my noble friend but to the noble Lord.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I do not believe for one moment that the Minister is complacent. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the reason why the staff vaccination rate is up from last year is because it was at an all-time low of less than 30%, down from 2020 when it was 75%. There are still 750,000 healthcare workers who have not had the flu vaccine and who are unprotected. Based on that figure, what extra steps will the Government take to further incentivise take-up by NHS staff to prevent the crippling of service delivery when it most needed?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right. We have to protect our staff, who are under immense pressure and are not just at risk from flu but seeking to tackle the extra pressures of industrial action. We are focused on making vaccines available to staff in the easiest way possible. We will continue to do so. I should add that we are considering options on implementing advice to expand vaccinations to the over-80s and, in particular, older adult care residents to ensure that any change has the best possible impact. It is important that we continue to drive vaccination rates up. That will protect staff who are providing the care. As the noble Lord said, we also have to continue our programme to encourage NHS staff to take up the vaccine.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, one of the biggest winter pressures on the NHS is the forthcoming strike, which will have an impact on patients, of course, but it will also have a further extremely damaging impact on the crucial consultant cohort which has to cover throughout these periods, many of whom are now simply looking for a way out. What is going to be done to improve the morale and retention of this vital resource?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

In my view, the BMA has chosen Christmas strikes to inflict damage on the NHS at a moment of maximum challenge. It has refused to postpone them to January, which would have helped patients and other NHS staff, as the noble and gallant Lord referred to, to cope over Christmas. At present, our position is that the offer that we made to prevent those strikes happening has not been accepted, as the noble and gallant Lord will know. We are now reviewing where we are going to go. We completely understand the effect on morale and the exhaustion among staff who are covering. We are managing that to the best of our ability. I am most grateful to NHS staff in supporting us to be ready for winter and tackling the industrial action’s effects.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, can I press the Minister a little on the reasons why NHS staff are reluctant to get vaccinated? The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, drew attention to the very low vaccination rate. What are the top reasons for those barriers? What is the Minister doing about it as a matter of urgency, given the significant numbers of people contracting flu this season?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Among NHS staff, as in other groups, there is a vaccine hesitancy. It is not specific and particular to NHS staff but, as we have discussed a number of times in this Chamber, there is perhaps a misunderstanding about vaccines’ efficacy. We also have to acknowledge that conspiracy theorists across the internet continue to have a hold. We saw that throughout Covid. Our job with NHS staff, as with members of the public, is to make it easy and possible to get vaccinations, and to make people feel confident and informed about why they need them and how they support not just them but the people around them. That is particularly important for NHS staff. The noble Lord will be aware that we cannot demand that people have vaccinations, but we absolutely want to encourage maximum take-up.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, many parents shielding their children who have had serious illnesses are having to pay up to £90 each for a Covid jab. Many of those families do not have those resources, so their children are put at risk. Will the Minister look at that?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend will be aware that we take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation about to whom, when, and where jabs are available on a range of matters, including Covid. The committee keeps that constantly under review. Our immediate threat is in respect of flu and RSV; in particular, flu cases are rising, which is why we are closely monitoring the situation, as well as having prepared more extensively and providing more additional support than we have ever done before.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, when it comes to influenza, the focus is often on droplet transmission, but there is also evidence of aerosol transmission, with the deeper lung deposition resulting in greater potency in initiating infections. That means that ventilation and air filtration are hugely important. How would the noble Baroness assess the levels of air ventilation and air filtration in hospitals and other medical settings, and, more broadly, in schools? Are the Government looking to improve that to help deal with all the respiratory infections that we face?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer, but I will be very happy to write to her. She will know how much improvement needs to be made to the estate. She will also be aware of the extra money that the Government have committed. Those decisions are local matters, but she raises a much wider and national matter, and I will be pleased to write to her further.

Women’s Health Strategy

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve women’s healthcare as part of their renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England.

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

My Lords, this Government are committed to prioritising women’s health as we reform the NHS and have been clear that women’s health will never be neglected again. The renewed women’s health strategy will reflect on delivery since 2022, address gaps and go further on totemic issues, including health inequalities and women not feeling listened to, particularly when experiencing pain. The strategy will set this out in the context of the 10-year health plan.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that answer and for her championing of women’s health in her role. She will know that women’s health hubs have been shown to be successful in reducing gynaecological waiting lists and speeding up women’s access to care, and were highlighted as a real success in the 10-year plan. The Minister is a strong supporter of the hubs, but, while most areas now have some form of provision, the rollout has been patchy, meaning that not all women can access their services. Given the removal of the mandatory requirement for ICBs to establish hubs, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the women’s health strategy maintains a clear commitment to the long-term sustainability of women’s health hubs as part of their improved neighbourhood health services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I very much share the noble Baroness’s assessment of the value of women’s health hubs. She will know that I have taken a considerable personal interest in this. The target to establish a women’s health hub in every ICB was the purpose of a time-limited pilot established by the last Government, and that target was met. Women’s health hubs are absolutely effective when it comes to improving access to and experiences of care for women. I have promoted them as the best example of community-based and joined-up healthcare. That is why, as the noble Baroness will have seen in the 10-year health plan, the women’s health hub in Tower Hamlets was specifically highlighted as a best-practice example of neighbourhood health, and we continue to support ICBs to improve their delivery of women’s health hubs.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the latest data from October this year shows that there are over 576,000 women on gynaecology waiting lists and there were 130,000 new referrals in October. How will the Government address this unacceptable wait in the refreshed strategy?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My examination of the gynaecology waiting lists shows a gradual decline since August 2023. However, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that the waiting lists are far too long: it is unacceptable. We are now seeing 57% of gynaecology referrals being seen within 18 weeks, compared with 62% across all specialities. I do not want to hide behind improvement, welcome though it is, but we also know that almost nine out of 10 women on the gynaecology waiting lists are waiting for an outpatient appointment. That is why the big change through the 10-year plan is absolutely crucial, as we move from hospital to community. In the women’s health strategy renewal we will be focusing very much on improvement of gynaecology care. I share the noble Baroness’s view on that.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, looking beyond gynaecology at women’s healthcare overall, do the Government recognise the importance of public health messaging? Breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality in 30 to 50 year-olds. Often it is diagnosed late, yet there are some important public health initiatives such as good diagrams in women’s changing rooms in large stores. I hesitate to mention the name of one chain —although I am tempted to—where there are excellent diagrams to help women understand that, if they have any symptoms at all, they should seek help. There are similar messages about mental health in places that women go. It means we are dealing with women in a more holistic way, irrespective of age.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and we are taking every opportunity to find the right ways to communicate with women about their healthcare. If I had to give a big message, it would be, “Don’t not put up with it”. That is a basic challenge to get across, because so many women do put up with health challenges when they should not. Many women’s health challenges have become normalised—“It’s just part of life, it’s your age” and so on—and I am very keen that, in the renewed women’s health strategy, we will take on that myth and also take on the services to match that.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this Question and pay tribute to her consistent championing of women’s health issues. I also thank her for discussing the particular concerns behind this Question with me. I am sorry to return to gynaecology, but the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has raised concerns that cervical screening coverage remains well below NHS targets. Cancer Research says that low attendance is particularly evident in particular groups: the youngest as well as the oldest age group, and women from poor socioeconomic and ethnic minority backgrounds. Can the Minister update the House on how we can reach those women and encourage them to come forward for screening, particularly by working with local charities and community organisations that understand their communities far better?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is a very important point. The 10-year health plan restated the aim of eliminating cervical cancer by 2040 through the improved uptake of cervical screening and HPV vaccination. To the specific point, which is such an important one, in June—not many months ago—we announced that screening providers can offer home testing kits to underscreened individuals in the exact groups that the noble Lord refers to. I believe this will help tackle deeply entrenched barriers that keep some people away from life-saving screening. I am sure the whole House will reflect on the wise words and advice of His Majesty the King in imploring us all to take up the screening opportunities that there are. I certainly agree with that.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, women over the age of 50 are particularly susceptible to fractures as a result of osteoporosis. The Government have announced that they are going to have fracture liaison services throughout the country by 2030. I wonder whether, as part of the women’s health strategy, the Government could begin the rollout of the fracture liaison services urgently.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As my noble friend rightly observes, the Government have committed to rolling out fracture liaison services across every part of the country by 2030. We already expect musculoskeletal services to be fully incorporated into integrated care planning and decision-making. I am also glad that, since 2022, NICE has recommended two new drugs for treatment. The women’s health strategy will look at what gaps there are in the original strategy, but this is one area in which progress is already committed to.

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the women’s health strategy should be clear that female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice and a crime? Has she seen the article in the British Medical Journal suggesting that it should be rebranded as “female genital practices” and somehow normalised? Will she be clear that the Government will have no truck with this and that the Department of Health will produce a proper rebuttal, so that this argument does not gain any traction in our country? It is a worry that this is happening to young British girls, whether here or overseas. We have to stop the practice and carry on the good work that the Government I led put in place.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and powerful points. I certainly agree about the abhorrence of this practice and its total unacceptability and illegality in our country. I can say to him that this is a cross-government matter. I work closely with Ministers in other departments and will continue to do so to ensure that policies across many departments deal with the matter of FGM in the way that he describes. We cannot allow it to have any continued existence in this country.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting the Statement before us, but do so with a measure of frustration—a feeling shared by countless citizens. This frustration with the ongoing and deeply damaging resident doctors dispute is directed at both parties, the Government and the British Medical Association leadership. We are witnessing a breakdown in negotiation, a failure of common sense and, critically, a failure of duty towards the patients who rely on the National Health Service.

First, let me address the actions of the Government. The manner in which this dispute has been handled is, frankly, not best practice. We have seen periods of silence followed by 11th-hour media interventions by the Secretary of State. This pattern suggests not a serious negotiation but a high-stakes, last-minute political gamble, PR approach. The way the reported details of the last-minute offer were put before the public and resident doctors serves only to deepen this suspicion. This approach disrespects the process and the professionals involved. Given that the issues addressed in the Government’s 11th-hour offer have been known since the general election, why did the Government choose a high-stakes, last-minute intervention, rather than presenting the offer within a calm, realistic timeframe that could have facilitated constructive consideration by resident doctors?

Further, I must express my dismay at the tone sometimes employed by the Secretary of State. Using rhetoric that seeks to divide resident doctors from the public is counterproductive. This dispute will not be solved through grandstanding but through respect and meaningful compromise. The Government must reflect on their tone and timing.

However, the frustration I feel over the Government’s handling is matched in equal measure by my frustration over some of the tactics and demands employed by the BMA leadership. The pursuit of this round of strike action, especially scheduled at the most challenging time of the year, is, in my view, deeply irresponsible. The BMA has a singular responsibility that transcends typical union negotiations. Their members are the direct custodians of people’s health. We are currently grappling with two severe pressures on the NHS: the rising tide of flu and the deliberate scheduling of this strike to coincide with the Christmas period. To choose this time, when hospital rotas are already thin and the NHS is under maximum strain, is totally unacceptable. It shows a disregard for the welfare of the most vulnerable patients. We on these Benches wish to thank the consultants, those resident doctors who decide to go into work, and the other dedicated staff who will keep our NHS safe during this unnecessary strike, for doing the right and decent thing.

The core demand pushed by the BMA leadership is full pay restoration. While I acknowledge the significant financial pressures facing resident doctors, a demand for full restoration to a prior decade’s real-terms value is neither achievable nor reasonable in the present economic climate. By focusing the entire dispute on this single maximum pay demand, the BMA leadership is allowing the Government to ignore the far more crucial systematic issues that genuinely plague resident doctors and threaten the future of the NHS workforce.

This failure is a stain on both parties. The Government must return to the table with a genuine commitment to a multi-year funded plan that addresses the systematic non-pay issues, and the BMA leadership must immediately reassess the morality of its current strike schedule and shift its focus from an unrealistic pay demand to achievable reforms in training and conditions.

I have two further questions for the Minister. The recent offer included a promise to create up to 4,000 extra speciality training posts. However, the BMA leadership has claimed that these posts are simply being cannibalised or repurposed from existing locally employed roles. Will the Minister confirm categorically that these 4,000 places represent genuinely new, funded training opportunities that increase the total number of doctors retained in the NHS career structure and are not merely a reclassification of existing roles?

Given that the pay restoration demand is deemed unachievable, how will the Government—outside of pay—guarantee fundamental reforms to the working time directive enforcement, the quality of training rotations and the rota planning to ensure that resident doctors are used efficiently for patient care and for the development of their skills, thereby making a medical career in the NHS sustainable and attractive?

Our healthcare system cannot afford this deadlock. I urge both sides to put down their political weapons, swallow their pride and focus on the real-world issues before the consequences become truly tragic.

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

My Lords, the Government have made a comprehensive offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes. I listened closely to the assessment of the Government’s performance made by the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Scriven, and it is not a reflection I agree with. This has dominated the agenda, and the Secretary of State has taken a proactive and collaborative approach with the BMA resident doctors committee. For example, he has had 18 meetings and seven phone calls with the BMA; he has sent 10 letters; and there have been dozens of meetings with officials.

I cannot recognise the suggestion of a hands-off, confrontational approach: the Secretary of State has consistently chosen to do everything he can, particularly to cancel the Christmas strikes, which are timed for the most damaging period of the year. The Secretary of State even went as far as to extend the BMA’s strike mandate, giving it time to call off strikes while it consulted its members and an option to rearrange if the offer was rejected. I am astounded that the BMA rejected the offer that was put before it. It was a comprehensive offer to resident doctors to resolve their disputes, providing those currently applying with more training job opportunities, prioritising UK-trained graduates, and it would have put money back in the pockets of resident doctors. Among a whole range of things that noble Lords have rightly acknowledged, the rejection of the offer means that NHS colleagues will be cancelling Christmas plans to cover shifts and patients will have their operations cancelled as the NHS prepares for the worst.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked: what happens next? In these circumstances, it is a very powerful question. The Government will consider our next steps, with our first priority being to deal with strikes. I reassure noble Lords that the focus of the department and the NHS will be on getting the health service through the double whammy—as has been well referenced by noble Lords—of flu and strikes. We have already vaccinated 17 million people, which is 170,000 more than last year; we will continue to work intensively with front-line leaders to prepare for the coming disruption.

On the offer, the BMA asked us to create more training places, which is what we would have done. The offer would have created 4,000 new speciality training posts for resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1,000 for this year. Under this deal, more doctors in non-training roles would have had the opportunity to progress their careers and become the consultants and GPs of the future we all want to see. Sadly, this offer is no longer on the table, thanks to the rejection by the BMA membership. That is why our focus has to be on dealing with strikes and getting through.

Our operational response is to mitigate the impact of any industrial action. We should acknowledge, as we have heard from the Front Benches, that flu rates are the highest they have been in the last five years for this time of year. I am sure that all noble Lords, while recognising legitimate concerns about access to training places, will remain concerned that an offer that would have made a real difference has been wholly rejected and strikes are going ahead. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I do believe there was a way out and the BMA membership has chosen not to take it.

On the estimated cost of strike action, the July strikes cost the NHS around £250 million. If those costs repeat themselves for November and December, strike action will have cost around £750 million in this year alone. The cost of the five-day resident doctors’ strike in July could have paid for training for over 1,600 GPs over three years or 28,000 hip and knee replacements. But, again, the Government’s offer has been rejected so we will have to make our first priority dealing with the strikes.

Through the Employment Rights Bill, we want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation; we want productive and constructive engagement; we want to respect the democratic mandate of unions; and we want to reset our industrial relations. For me, this sets us back considerably, sadly, and that has been clearly acknowledged. What do strikes do? They suck up time, resources and energy, and the costs for the NHS, as I have already stated, are around £250 million. While we have made a number of offers and acknowledged legitimate concerns, I do not believe that that has been treated in the way it should have been.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the 4,000 roles. That was in response to the BMA, which asked us to create more training roles, which was a fair request and exactly what we would have done. It would have created 4,000 new speciality training posts for resident doctors over the next three years, with an additional 1,000 this year. It would have meant more doctors in non-training roles having an opportunity to progress. But, as a Government, it is our duty to consider our next steps, and our first priority will be to deal with the strikes.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister respond to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven: are these genuinely new training places? I put this question last week and did not really get an answer. I understand that resident doctors are concerned about the inability to plan ahead for training places, and want to have a place that will last for up to a year or longer. They are at the age where they want to put down roots and probably marry and have a family, but because of the way training is organised, that is not possible.

Furthermore, I am not quite sure if it was a 29% or 30% pay increase in any one year, but whatever it was, I understand that this still leaves resident doctors with an under-pay performance of less than 17% compared to 2009. They are being paid less than a train driver, a tube driver or even an Uber driver. I believe we owe them the respect they deserve. My father and brother had to work every Christmas or new year. In my father’s time it was every other night and weekend on call. We have come a long way since then, but we need to give the British-born doctors who want to train a priority in the system which is not being shown to them at the moment.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has just made a very good case as to why the offer which has been rejected would have been so helpful. On the issue of pay, our door has remained open to the BMA and to reasonable, realistic solutions to resolving the dispute, on which we have been repeatedly clear. I know the noble Baroness did not say this, but I say more broadly that there can be no suggestion that the BMA was not aware that we can go no further on pay this year. Resident doctors have already had a good deal on pay—an average 28.9% rise over the last three years—but pay expectations have to take account of the fiscal position and the impact across the whole of the NHS and beyond. I am glad to hear that noble Lords are in agreement with that approach.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the BMA pay claim has been ridiculous right from the start, and I share my noble friend the Minister’s outrage at the decision to carry out these strikes at a moment when the health service is on its knees, certainly in Birmingham. We are in a critical situation: the service is working under huge pressure, and ambulances are finding it very difficult to discharge patients at A&E because we cannot get the flow of patients through the system.

Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I wondered if my noble friend the Minister shares my view. I remember the 2014 junior hospital doctors’ dispute. Although that was ostensibly about pay, what came through was frustration at the way training and working lives were organised, with inflexible placements and utterly insensitive rota allocations. It made junior doctors’ working lives increasingly difficult. This was 2014. Does my noble friend the Minister think that part of the reason we are here now is that nothing was done to respond to the substantive issues juniors raised at the time, and that at some point, there will be a constructive way forward? I am convinced that tackling the way junior and resident doctors are treated in the health service will have to be at the heart of what we do.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, and I share his view. I am sure he will be very familiar with this, but it is worth reminding ourselves that in the Statement we are debating, the Secretary of State said last week:

“On jobs, I have much more sympathy with the BMA’s demands. I have heard the very real fears that resident doctors across the country have about their futures; it is a legitimate grievance that I agree with”.


As the Secretary of State outlined and my noble friend referred to, we have inherited

“training bottlenecks that … leave huge numbers of resident doctors without a job … UK graduates”

used to compete

“among themselves for specialty roles; now, they are competing against”

the rest of the world.

“That is a direct result of the visa and immigration changes made by the previous … Government post-Brexit, and … compounded by the”


then Government’s

“decision to increase the number of medical students without also increasing the number of specialty training places”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/25; col. 429.]

This has not just come about, and I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of the history of this.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister was asked what happens next. May I ask her to consider this? Notwithstanding what has already been discussed tonight in this Chamber, the general public out there are going to face a long period with a lot of bank holidays. If we think back to the Covid period, people, for different reasons, were reluctant to dial 999 or 111 to get medical advice or to seek assistance. I know from a personal point of view that I would really not want to be admitted into an emergency department unless I was literally dead. People have a fear of this: we see the trollies and hear now of the shortage of staff. I say that having worked in an operating theatre over a Christmas period.

Can the Minister say what plans the Government have already made to give accurate information to the general public about how they should proceed during this Christmas period if they have relatives who are showing cardiac symptoms or severe respiratory problems? There is a need for some practical guidance on what to do and to encourage people—if they are sitting at home and are genuinely that ill, they must seek help.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with a number of the points made by the noble Baroness, particularly her last one: people must seek the help they need. I assure your Lordships’ House that the entire focus of the department and the NHS will be on getting the health service through this double whammy of flu and strikes. Despite the huge extra numbers, there will still be people who are not vaccinated. Therefore, in addition to seeking help when needed, I also make a plea to those who have not yet been vaccinated please to do so; that will help immensely.

It is probably worth saying that the next round of strikes will bring the total number of days of strike action to 59, over 14 rounds of industrial action, since March 2023. So I remind your Lordships’ House that this did not start with this government but has preceded it for some time.

To the noble Baroness’s point about performance, I pay huge tribute—as I am sure we all do—to the dedication of NHS staff at this time. During the November round of strike action, the NHS set an ambitious goal to maintain 95% of planned care. It succeeded in doing that, which is totally down to the NHS workforce pulling round. We also proved last time that we could maintain a near full programme of elective care. Our immediate plan, which the noble Baroness asked about, is to replicate this over the upcoming five days of industrial action in December. There is no reason for these strikes, and I know the effect they have and the concern they create for the general public. The noble Baroness allows me to remind us that these strikes are not supported by the general public.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, one of the four priorities named in the Budget delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reducing waiting lists. If this strike goes ahead, what increase would there be in the waiting lists? Secondly, the Secretary of State in his Statement said that he is putting

“money back in … doctors’ pockets by”

funding

“royal college portfolio, membership and exam fees … backdated to April”,—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/25; col. 430.]

and increasing the allowance for less-than-full-time doctors to £1,500. Where is the money coming from? Is this funded, or will this money be borrowed?

Finally, taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every year. Are the Government persuading resident doctors to keep their social contract with taxpayers? It seems to me that calling this strike at this point in time is a bargain betrayed.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly understand the noble and right reverend Lord’s point. The offer we made—which covered a number of the areas that the noble and right reverend Lord referred to, plus more—is not applicable because it was not accepted. We put it forward, developed it further and did all we could that was realistic. The noble and right reverend Lord asked whether it is funded, but I will change the tense of his question: it would have been funded, but the offer was rejected and therefore is no longer on the table. That is why it is not going ahead.

On waiting lists, as I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, we have proved that we can maintain a near full programme of elective work, with 95% of planned care being maintained—and, again, let us pay tribute to the NHS staff who have done that. But let us not suggest that there are no effects. It affects the staff who step in to cover for their colleagues. We have an NHS in desperate need of reform. We are turning it around, but these strikes get in our way. As I mentioned, we cannot underestimate the amount of effort, finance, direction and morale—the list could go on—that these strikes take up. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for raising those points.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the outrage, fury and frustration about this industrial action. My noble friend the Minister and others around the Chamber are absolutely right to pay tribute to the workforce, and I give a particular shout-out to nurses. We are always focused on doctors—I hope noble Lords present who are doctors will forgive me—but nurses do a splendid job, and too often we forget that they work for relatively little pay as well.

I was glad that when the Secretary of State was negotiating, he was talking about the training places, because the training bottleneck is absurd. I know many brilliant young resident doctors who are so frustrated and have a terrible deal, so I urge my noble friend to pass on to the Secretary of State my view that, when he is next around the negotiating table, training places should be there in the negotiations.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend rightly refers, as I did earlier, to the training bottleneck. The Secretary of State was glad to acknowledge the need to tackle training. While he felt that there was no point on pay to be accepted, he certainly felt that the BMA resident doctors committee had a good point on jobs. To be honest, that is why it is so disappointing to be where we are today.

I will pass on my noble friend’s generous comments to the Secretary of State. He offered to introduce emergency legislation in the new year to prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors with significant experience of working in the NHS in speciality training posts. That would have made a huge difference, but it has been rejected. He also offered to increase the number of training posts over the next three years, from the 1,000 that was originally announced to 4,000, bringing forward 1,000 of those training posts to start next year—that would have made a huge difference. I could go on, but I have made my point.

I agree with my noble friend’s point about acknowledging the role of nurses. In fact, if my noble friend will allow me, I will go further: we are talking about the whole healthcare team. That is another point to the issue on pay: while the BMA doctors committee continues to press for a pay deal far in excess of anything that anyone else is getting, the impact across the NHS, both on staff and on services, continues to be under threat—and we cannot allow that.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, as a doctor, I feel that a doctor withdrawing or withholding services from a patient is dishonourable and unethical—full stop. I find no reason that I can support for a doctor to withdraw their services, because their patients are trusting them with their lives. As far as I am concerned, junior and senior doctors should never go on strike, whether or not the issue with pay is justified—that is a separate issue; there are other ways to discuss and handle that. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, about what should happen now, junior doctors or resident doctors, or whatever they call themselves, should go back to work and not go on strike—not now and not ever.

There is a separate and long-standing issue with training, which has been referred to. Some years ago I reviewed medical training and was chairman of the Specialist Training Authority. There is a need now to review doctors’ training completely, particularly postgraduate training. It is not sufficient to allow for more training posts—that does not solve the issue. What is required is a complete review of the training of speciality doctors. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his discussions, can make that offer and set up a review. I have no reason whatever to support the junior doctors’ strike.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is an honourable man, as we all know in your Lordships’ House. I heard his comments on how he sees withdrawing labour in this regard, and I hope they are heard more widely. He makes a good point about reviewing training. Unfortunately, we are currently in the position of having made an offer that was rejected. The offer we made is not going ahead, so I cannot give the commitments that the noble Lord might like. We will deal with the strikes in the first instance, as I know noble Lords would expect. I am sure that if we ever get back to a constructive discussion, the issue of a review could be put forward, as the noble Lord suggested.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on strikes. Why are we still allowing in overseas doctors, when domestically trained doctors cannot secure the speciality jobs that they are applying for? When will the legislation that the Government have talked about come in? It really would make a difference.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can only agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness about what a difference it would make. It was actually included in the comprehensive offer that we made to the BMA on 8 December. Our first point was about introducing emergency legislation, which would—exactly as the noble Baroness asks for—prioritise UK medical graduates and other doctors who have significant experience of working in the NHS for speciality training posts. At the risk of repeating myself, I can do no more than to say that the BMA has rejected that, as part of the offer, and so it will not go ahead. Had the BMA accepted it, we would have been absolutely willing and able to introduce that emergency legislation. Our job will be to consider the next steps, now that we have had confirmation of the rejection of the very point that the noble Baroness rightly emphasised.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, has not the time come for the BMA to reject the way the resident doctors committee is behaving? I do not believe that the NHS I know would be supportive of its actions.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that the BMA will hear what your Lordships’ House has said today and, in particular, the point made by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I could conclude this important debate by referring to a YouGov poll which was conducted on 12 December. It found that only 33% of the public support strikes in this area and that 58% of the public oppose strikes. The public have made their voice clear, as has your Lordships’ House, for which I am grateful.

Breast Cancer

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, too many women are dying of breast cancer. Even with a national screening programme, tragically, 11,500 die from breast cancer each year in the UK. AgeX, a large and important research study, is investigating the effects of routine screening of women over 70. Results are expected in 2027. The UK National Screening Committee has been closely involved throughout, and we will use the findings as soon as they are available.

[Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. She is right that a common cause of death in women is breast cancer, but age is a primary risk. One in three breast cancers occurs in women aged over 70 but, shockingly, nearly half of breast cancer deaths occur in women over 70. Yet the NHS stops inviting and encouraging women to have a mammogram at 70. Given the evidence, can the Minister bring the review of the age limit to a close more urgently than 2027, stop the discrimination against older women and ensure that women continue to be invited to have a mammogram after the age of 70?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very powerful case; I am grateful to her for doing so. The UK National Screening Committee continuously monitors emerging evidence through horizon scanning and maintains active engagement with international peers. Should robust evidence regarding the extension of breast screening age thresholds become available, the committee will look at it right away. In the meantime, a suite of public-facing information communicates to women aged 71 and over that they can have screening every three years if they wish. I realise that does not quite meet my noble friend’s request, but I hope it indicates movement to support women aged 71 and over.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, women over the age of 70 are entitled to receive free breast screening every three years. However, for those who are digitally excluded, both awareness of this and the practical process of making an appointment can present real barriers. What steps is the NHS taking to ensure that women over 70 are aware of this right, and how is access to screening being made easier for those who struggle with digital access?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Part of the 10-year plan, as we move from analogue to digital, will be ensuring that digital exclusion will not be a barrier. As I mentioned in response to my noble friend, it is indeed the case that women aged 71 and over can have screening every three years, and that can happen by women calling their local breast screening service to ask for an appointment. In other words, analogue is still possible, not just digital.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. Is the Minister content that sufficient resources are applied to the molecular characterisation of screen-detected breast cancer in such a way that those over the age of 70 who have breast cancer detected are appropriately treated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I should be able to answer, I admit, but I would rather be honest with the noble Lord: I would prefer to write to him because of the specific nature of his question. I am content with the role of the research trial and that we are now harnessing AI tools through the EDITH trial backed by some £11 million of government support. Using cross-cutting AI tools in respect of the breast cancer screening pathway will be of great assistance.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I feel quite shocked after the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. I recently went for my final invited mammogram, so I did a little research. I did not come up with that figure, and I wish I had because it changes everything I was going to say; it is very important. People who do not necessarily enjoy the wonders of the world of AI and all these other things do not know all this. They are told, “Right, you’re over 70, you’re pretty much all right now”. Some people do not get any advice and, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, said, we should review this as a matter of urgency.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I hope I have outlined to your Lordships’ House how the AgeX trial will greatly assist. Clinical evidence, as and when it is available—it is sought actively—is acted on by the National Screening Committee. I emphasise to the noble Baroness and the noble Earl who raised it previously that, as I said to my noble friend, NHS England is producing public-facing information to communicate to women aged 71 and over that they can have screening every three years if they so wish, and I hope that women will take that up if they so wish.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, I was unaware that women over the age of 70 can have screening every three years, and I am very grateful to have heard that today. Given the ages in the House of Lords, might it not be possible to do some screening of women here for breast cancer? What are the statistics for death from breast cancer in women over 70? How serious is the issue in terms of the number of fatalities?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, and more than 50,000 were diagnosed with it in 2023. My noble friend Lady Hodge gave further information. On the point about offering screening here, my strong suspicion is that it will not be practical and it is better for people to go to their community. I will speak to my ministerial colleague, Ashley Dalton MP, in whose portfolio this falls. My recollection is that it is in letters or advice, but I want to check. It should be in there but, if it is not, perhaps it could be, so I will put forward my noble friend’s suggestion.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, up to what age will it be possible?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I do not know if I dare comment about vested interest, but why not? I am not aware that there is a final limit. It is on request.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s strategy to have a dedicated cancer plan, but can the Minister say when this plan will be published, particularly in relation to breast screening? Will she give an indication of the uptake rate by women from disadvantaged backgrounds and women from ethnic minorities? The uptake rates are very low. Will these also be considered in this national plan?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The answer to that latter question is yes, and the noble Baroness will not have to wait too long to see the national cancer plan.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, as a breast cancer survivor, I cannot estimate enough the benefit of breast screening leading to early diagnosis. In that respect, I urge my noble friend the Minister to talk not only to her ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations but to oncologists within the Department of Health to ensure that we get an earlier date for publication than 2027. Women, particularly those over 70, want reassurance about the prevalence or non-prevalence of cancer within their body.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We certainly do speak with the devolved Governments, as my noble friend highlights. As I have said, this whole area is guided by the scientific and independent advice of the UK National Screening Committee, which is closely involved in the AgeX trial to which I have referred. I assure my noble friend that action will be taken as quickly as possible.

Emergency Adrenaline

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of community access to emergency adrenaline following the authorisation of needle-free delivery methods.

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

My Lords, the Government welcome the approval of needle-free adrenaline delivery methods. In July, the medicines regulator, the MHRA, recommended consideration of changes to legislation to allow the supply of and access to such methods of emergency adrenaline delivery, particularly in schools. The Government are currently considering that recommendation, as well as any changes to regulations that may be required. The Government may assess community access to emergency adrenaline as part of any legislative changes.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as the mother of a severely allergic needle-phobic 17 year-old, the authorisation of needle-free adrenaline devices such as Neffy is a potentially transformative development. These products offer families vital peace of mind by enabling life-saving treatment without needles. The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, for which I am a parliamentary ambassador, is urging better access to such treatments, but Neffy is currently available only privately. Could my noble friend the Minister confirm when it will be accessible on the NHS and whether wider rollout could improve adrenaline availability in public settings?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I very much understand my noble friend’s personal involvement in this area. I congratulate her on her work in promoting the availability of needle-free delivery of adrenaline, and I too welcome its approval. It is down to local area prescribing committees to provide advice to integrated care systems on whether to include new products such as nasal adrenaline and whether they should be included in local formularies. This takes into account available evidence, as well as any relevant guidance. Following this Question from my noble friend, I will seek a view from NICE as to whether it is considering developing guidance in this area, as I know she would find that helpful.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it has been four years since the Commission on Human Medicines first examined widening public access to adrenaline auto-injectors. It is an excellent initiative, but it requires national co-ordination. What progress have the Government made in establishing a national lead for allergy—which some refer to as an allergy tsar—given their previous support for the idea?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We have been focusing our efforts, as I said, on whether changes to the law are required to allow wider access to, for example, adrenaline nasal sprays, which are a welcome development. Our focus is on that, rather than on the appointment of a tsar, to which the noble Earl referred. We will be establishing national clinical directors, and I am sure that this will be considered in that regard.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, with the disaster of poorly managed allergy, only 24 ICBs have been able to state the extent to which they have services, and none are able to state whether they have a specialist nurse and dietician. Will the Government use the opportunity of the single patient record to provide guidance to ICBs for commissioning, to make sure that those who have serious allergies, such as we have heard about, can get the advice and support they need and be guided to the most appropriate way to manage their allergy in the immediate emergency and in the long term?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the single patient record gives us all sorts of absolutely key opportunities, including in this regard. It is important that we note how common allergies are—they affect nearly one-third of the UK population. Although in most people allergic reactions can be mild to moderate, in some cases they are severe. We need to cut that risk and, in particular, tackle the approximately 50 suspected cases of deaths each year that we currently have. I agree with her contention.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, following on from the previous question, new delivery methods are welcome but we need a workforce to implement them. As the noble Baroness said, it is concerning that not a single integrated care board currently holds the information on whether it has specialist allergy nurses employed in its area. How can the Government ensure that patients have access to these new treatments when local commissioners are failing to track, co-ordinate or prioritise the specialist skills needed to deliver them?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is an important part of the availability, as the noble Lord has highlighted. The kind of issues under consideration when we look at the availability of these welcome products include, in addition to their ease of use without specialist training in community settings and their use through proper training, suitability for different age groups and the temperature sensitivity of the products. Training will be part of how we look at developing the workforce plan, but I take the point about assessing what training is needed when we think about where they will be available. That is very much part of our consideration.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, based on the statistics the Minister just cited about the number of lives that would be saved if emergency adrenaline was easily available in the community, can she say what training would be required? If the drug is given inadvertently to a person who is not in anaphylactic shock, what will happen?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a point on the practical and safety concerns that we would need to consider in widening access to adrenaline in the community. I should add that that would be regardless of the administration method. On his point, and following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it is essential that training ensures safe administration, whatever the formulation, because we do not want to create an unsafe environment. The training will be appropriate to what is needed. However, I must emphasise that we are in the process of considering this, but with a positive outlook and an intent to provide.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, to be helpful to the Minister, I know she will not be able to give an absolute commitment at the Dispatch Box, but with the Government’s 10-year health plan focusing on digital integration, will she commit to embedding a national allergy register within the single patient record, which would deal with many of the issues noble Lords have raised on this Question?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord always seeks to be helpful. That is indeed a helpful suggestion, which I will gladly take away, but I will not be able to give a commitment, as the noble Lord is aware.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a little unhappy with the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel. My understanding, having seen medical students being given injections of adrenaline during a physiology class to see what would happen—in larger doses than you would probably need in this case—is that they might feel a bit faint. I would have thought that giving a non-injection method is even safer and that the likelihood of side-effects is much lower. Is that not fair?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that is fair and I certainly bow to my noble friend’s expertise in this regard. I thank him for that, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his question. However, I feel a little inadequate on the medical front here.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

As I set out last week and will repeat if noble Lords will forgive me, I completely agree with what the Government Chief Whip said about noble Lords ensuring that they speak to the amendments and do not give Second Reading speeches, but, at the same time, I think it is important that all noble Lords who want to speak to an amendment are given the opportunity to do so.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her amendment in this group. It seeks to ensure that someone who currently is or has recently been deprived of their liberty will not be eligible under the Act. This amendment refers to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which is also the Act underpinning capacity for the purposes of this Bill. I appreciate the underlying logic behind the amendment, which has opened up a valuable discussion of who exactly should have access to assisted dying services. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree, whatever their position, that there should be robust provisions and safeguards in the Bill and that it should be available only to those who are suffering from terminal illnesses who are of sound mind, so that we do not inadvertently open it up to those with issues related to their capacity.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, for her contribution in place of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley. It is very important that, given the backlog in the system, not just those who have DoLS but those who have made an application for DoLS are deemed not to have capacity when seeking to end their lives. It would be very interesting to hear the Government’s perspective on this and that of the noble and learned Lord.

These questions all fundamentally ask whether the Bill is right to use the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as the basis for defining capacity. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for offering to meet those who have tabled these amendments. That is very constructive and helpful and should be acknowledged. I also look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord’s responses to some of the issues that have been raised.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions on this group. To echo the comments of my noble friend the Chief Whip, the Government remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying and on the passage of this Bill. Whether the law in this area should change is a matter for Parliament. As before, any comments that I make will focus on amendments where the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

This group relates to deprivation of liberty and eligibility for seeking an assisted death. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Baroness Keeley for tabling the amendments in this group. Amendments 16 and 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, seek to prevent individuals who have been deprived of their liberty within the last 12 months under the Mental Capacity Act being eligible for an assisted death. In the case of Amendments 16A and 114A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Keeley, someone would be ineligible as a result of an application for deprivation of liberty having been made, irrespective of the outcome of that application.

Noble Lords may wish to consider that the amendments would introduce a departure from the Mental Capacity Act framework by linking a lack of capacity in one area—capacity to consent to care and treatment arrangements that amount to confinement—to lack of capacity in another area, that being capacity to make the decision to end one’s life. Amendments 16A and 114A go further and would make a person ineligible on the basis that only an application for deprivation of liberty had been made. This may result in a situation where the application was unwarranted, but that person would still be ineligible for assisted death.

Regarding the European Convention on Human Rights—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I want to ask what the Government’s view is. This actually changes the whole basis of the Mental Capacity Act. The Mental Capacity Act concerns existing capacity. These amendments move into retrospective or future capacity, which is completely incompatible with the Mental Capacity Act. Do the Government have any views about that significant change of capacity and the test of the capacity of an individual?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I hope that the comments I have made already indicate where we are concerned, rather than going into further areas, but I would be very happy to look at the noble Lord’s point.

I also wish to raise points relating to the European Convention on Human Rights. As before, these are potential risks that I am raising to inform noble Lords’ decision-making, but I wish to be clear that the underlying policies are rightly a matter for Parliament. Noble Lords may wish to note the requirement for an objective, proportionate and reasonable justification to treat those who have previously lacked capacity in a different context differently from others who have not. Noble Lords may also wish to consider whether there is justification for different treatment where an application for deprivation of liberty has been made, but not necessarily completed or approved. In the absence of justifications that are sufficient to persuade a court, the amendments may conflict with ECHR obligations, specifically Article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination, when read with Article 8.

I confirm to noble Lords that, if a court finds that primary legislation is incompatible, it may make a declaration of incompatibility. This does not invalidate legislation. As is usual, the Government would then consider—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point, which I think was the question I asked last time. This is very relevant to the question that I posed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. It is very important that we put protections in the legislation, so that they are not subsequently unpicked, whether by domestic courts or the European Court of Human Rights. If they are only in a code of practice or guidance, it would not provide protection against those legal challenges. Will the Minister just confirm that what I have said is correct?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that my noble and learned friend will comment on the noble Lord’s points, but the point I wished to make, which might be helpful, is that it is usual practice for the Government to consider and address these matters. Noble Lords are aware that there is a range of ways of dealing with that: by amending primary legislation, through a remedial order or by a declaration of incompatibility. That is the usual practice.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

On human rights law, does the Minister agree that, if Parliament forms a considered judgment that there is a basis for a differentiation in this context or any other, it is most unlikely that a court is going to intervene on the sensitive subjects of social policy that we are concerned with here?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I hear the noble Lord, but my role today, as I am sure he understands, is to advise your Lordships on the risks as we see them and for noble Lords to decide how they wish to interpret them with regard to these amendments. But I am grateful for the point that the noble Lord makes.

Noble Lords may wish to note that these amendments would lead to different treatments for those detained under the Mental Health Act from those detained under the Mental Capacity Act. Only those detained under the Mental Capacity Act would be excluded from assisted dying. Noble Lords may wish to consider whether this is justifiable, given that the criteria for detention under both Acts are similar. The decision on which Act to use is largely a matter of professional discretion. Operationally, these amendments could also create confusion for practitioners, because they depart from the principle that capacity assessments are decision- and time-specific, so additional guidance and training would be needed.

Finally, as noble Lords will be aware, these amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials, which means that they may not be fully workable, effective or enforceable in the way that they are currently drafted. However, the issues raised are rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider and decide.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I have heard this outline of the Government’s position. Am I correct in understanding that the Government have no position on ensuring that the Bill is safe for vulnerable groups of people?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I would not make that assumption.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

The question that a number of noble Lords are concerned about, when discussing this amendment, is that the Mental Capacity Act was passed in 2005. Of course, the guidance has been updated, but it might be helpful to those in the Committee who are concerned that this Act is 20 years out of date to talk about any guidance that has been updated, so that it is not seen as out of date—if that makes sense. This is just to clarify that we are not dealing with an Act that was set in stone in 2005, as things have changed since then.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and feel that this would probably be a very appropriate point to move on to my noble and learned friend.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I will just pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is saying. I think he is saying that the Act has been updated over the years and that people have taken account of improvements. He is absolutely right; from my own knowledge of the working of the Act, he makes an absolutely valid point.

I repeat what I said earlier—that we need to discuss this. I will deal with the interventions after I have given my response.

First, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, is right in identifying the risks that arise. That is why I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right that we need to build in some form of enhanced protection.

As far as the intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is concerned, this amendment is limited to DoLS under the Mental Capacity Act; it does not include any exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the courts on somebody whose liberty has been taken away. The noble Baroness is very welcome to come and discuss that with us, and I will give her notice of any meeting that we have.

As far as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is concerned, how one provides effective protection depends first on the discussions that take place. I would envisage tabling an amendment on this or maybe agreeing that somebody else tables one. I cannot tell noble Lords the extent to which it will involve the Minister having powers, but it is something that we will discuss.

The points that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Merron, made about discrimination relate to people who have had a deprivation of liberty order in the past, or even those who have one now, who will be excluded altogether from the right to assisted dying. The nature of the Mental Capacity Act is that this should be done on a case-by-case basis. I am proposing that we discuss how to provide enhanced protection rather than excluding.

In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Baroness, Baroness Berger, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, feel able to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments covers two distinct but connected questions. The first question, posed by Amendment 17, is, in my judgment, a very helpful one, because the answer will clarify the role—or lack of role—played by a person’s GP in the process being pursued by that person in seeking an assisted death. It seems to me, from reading the Bill’s provisions, that the involvement of a person’s GP in that process, although very likely, is not legally necessary provided that the patient fulfils all the conditions set out in Clause 1(1). Clarification from the noble and learned Lord would be very helpful.

The second question, posed by my noble friend Lady Fraser’s Amendment 62, is also one that I hope can be answered very simply by the noble and learned Lord. Am I correct that it is implicit in Clause 5 that the preliminary discussion between the patient and the registered medical practitioner need not involve a doctor physically situated in England and Wales and need not be face to face? Equally, am I correct that it is unnecessary to state in Clause 1(3)(b) that the steps set out in Clauses 8 and 19 must be taken

“by persons in England or Wales”,

because Clauses 8 and 19 already explicitly provide for this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As I have said, I will keep my comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

On Amendments 17 and 309A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, Amendment 17 is a probing amendment that seeks to establish whether people who are registered with a GP in Scotland but live in England would be excluded from eligibility for an assisted death under the Bill. Noble Lords may wish to note that Amendment 17 would have limited effect as it amends only Clause 1, which is largely descriptive. Without further amendments to Clauses 10 and 17, which contain duties to assess eligibility criteria, Amendment 17 would not impact those criteria and would introduce conflicting provisions.

Amendment 309A would amend the corresponding eligibility criteria in Clause 10 to include a person registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England, Wales or Scotland. It would not amend Clause 17, which contains the assessment by the panel. Therefore, Amendments 17 and 309A would require further consequential amendments to ensure that the Bill is coherent. This would include amendments to ensure that data recording obligations and the associated criminal offences apply to Scottish GPs. These consequential amendments would likely require consultation with the Scottish Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, referred to, in line with the guidance for Private Members’ Bills.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for tabling Amendment 62. The purpose of this amendment is to establish why the Bill requires only the actions set out in Clauses 10 and 11 to be undertaken by people in England or Wales, and not the preliminary discussion under Clause 5. Our understanding is that the reference to the preliminary discussion in Clause 5 is not mentioned in Clause 1(3) because Clause 5(3) already requires that a person wanting to have a preliminary discussion must be in England and Wales. Amendment 62 would require steps under Clauses 8 and 19 to be taken by persons in England or Wales. As drafted, the Bill requires that most of the steps in Clauses 8, 10, 11 and 19 will already have to take place in England and Wales.

In addition, Amendment 62 would have the effect that, when the Secretary of State makes regulations under Clause 19, the Secretary of State must be in England and Wales at the moment they sign the regulations. This could lead to the regulations being improperly made and challenged should the Secretary of State not physically be in England or Wales at the time of signing the regulations. This raises a practical issue of workability, as I am sure the noble Baroness understands.

On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, relating to Scotland and guidance that the Government have provided to the sponsor, as I am sure noble Lords will understand, and I have reiterated, we are providing technical and workability support to the sponsor on devolution issues, including those that have been raised. This is an evolving situation that will continue throughout the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this short debate. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, who discussed the issues with me yesterday and was incredibly clear in the way that she raised them today. She also raised the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.

I will deal with three issues: first, where the GP practice has to be to satisfy the eligibility requirements; secondly, whether the Clause 5 conversation has to take place with an England and Wales GP, or whether it can take place with a Scottish GP; and thirdly, how we will deal with the clashes between Scotland and England. I am aware, because the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, told me about it, of the deposit return scheme and how that went wrong. I am conscious of that as an issue.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, asks with his amendment whether the GP to whom you have to be a member of the practice can be in Scotland. The answer is no under the Bill at the moment. The Bill is clear that you have to be in a GP’s practice in England or Wales. Everybody has said to me that it is perfectly normal for a person living in England in the border areas to have a GP in Scotland, and asked why cannot we change the Bill to say that your GP could be in Scotland, because that reflects how people actually live.

I am sympathetic to that, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, legitimately points out that, if that happened, I would need to make various other changes. For example—and the noble Baroness made this point—under Clause 7, where there is a preliminary discussion it has to be sent to the GP, and the GP has to keep a proper record of it. How can I enforce that unless I expand the provisions of the Bill to allow Scottish enforcement, for which I would need Scottish agreement? My view in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is: let us see whether we can make it work, but it will require discussions with Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has already been very helpful in the undertakings and clarificatory comments that he made earlier in the debate, so I shall be very brief. In following up those comments, I will return to the question that I raised on the previous group. The Bill seems consciously to steer clear of insisting that a person’s GP must always be involved in the process being pursued by that person in seeking an assisted death, other than the GP having a duty to note in the patient record that the preliminary discussion has taken place. The entire process, in other words, could be conducted by the patient in conjunction with hospital-based medical consultants.

Do I understand correctly that the noble and learned Lord is willing to look closely at ways of making sure, by whatever means, that the crucial judgments made by clinicians about a patient’s capacity, about coercion and about that person’s settled wish to end their life are firmly and soundly based? The route to achieving that may well be the GP practice and the multidisciplinary team within it, but, as we have heard, that source of information may not be practical or useful in every case. Will the noble and learned Lord therefore ensure that he will consider more generally in the round possible safeguards that will forestall the possibility of superficial or cursory assessments being made—especially, perhaps, assessments by hospital consultants, who may have enjoyed only a brief acquaintance with the patient?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on proposed safeguards relating to general practice. I will keep my comments limited to the amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. On that basis, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the operational workability concerns in relation to Amendments 19, 20, 21, 29, 30B, 265A and 443A.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I beg the Minister’s pardon but she is referring to my Amendments 30B, 265A and 443A, not those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am most apologetic and grateful for the clarification. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will forgive me, too.

I will continue. The GP must also have seen them at least six times in face-to-face appointments during those two years. Noble Lords may wish to note that these amendments introduce requirements that may result in people seeking GP appointments that are not clinically necessary. This may have an impact on wider access to GP services. Noble Lords may also wish to note that, even if a person has seen their GP the required number of times over the two-year period, their GP could still refuse to provide the explanatory letter, as they are not under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance, as per Clause 31. This would result in the person being unable to access an assisted death.

Lastly, Amendment 220, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, seeks to add an additional step in the assisted dying process. It would not be a compulsory step; therefore, it would not have a major impact or be unworkable. However, this amendment has not had technical drafting support from officials and, although the issues raised are rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider and decide, would likely require further consideration in order to be made fully workable, effective or enforceable.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

If there are on average 3.5 consultations a year face to face, with calls and so on bringing it up to 8.7, it would not necessarily make for additional unnecessary appointments for a person with such a condition. That is my first clarification. My second is about a letter being required and the doctor concerned not wanting to assist in the process. The letter is not about the process. The letter would go into the person’s history over the two years they have been consulting the doctor. It has nothing to do with the process of seeking an assisted death.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Acknowledging that the amendments that I was referring to were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, I have nothing to add to the points that I have already made, other than to say that the noble Baroness used the word “average” and therefore there is a question about workability. Therefore, our interpretations on the noble Baroness’s second point do differ.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I indicated my position in my intervention. I will summarise my understanding of the amendment, what my response is and next steps. All the amendments in this group seek a requirement in addition to having a GP before you can have an assisted death. My noble friend Lord Rook suggests having a GP for at least 12 months and having seen him twice before the first declaration. The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Grey-Thompson, refer to having an “established relationship” with a GP. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, refers to one consultation and a home visit before the application. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, refers to a two-year relationship, an average number of visits face to face and then a letter that relates to the medical condition, the treatment and the state of mind of the patient.

As I have indicated, the GP, in the structure of the Bill, is not somebody who has to be involved. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, encapsulated perfectly that the GP is somebody who is receiving information. All these provisions for making it necessary to have a better relationship with your GP than just having a GP do not touch the safeguards. Quite separately from that, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. These provisions have an air of utter unreality if you are saying that a condition of an assisted death is a particular relationship with a particular GP. I do not think that any of these safeguards work or reflect the current drafting of the Bill.

It is clear from listening to the debate that people who are concerned with the care should form a basis for the decision. It may not necessarily be making the decision—a lot of people would say that they should not be making the approval—but their input is vital. That was the insight of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, which was very much reflected around the Committee. I am willing and keen to reflect that insight in the Bill. But the route is not through newness in relation to the GP. It is reflecting the proposition that the multidisciplinary team dealing with the patient must have some input. I do not know whether that satisfies the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but that is the purpose of what I am taking away from this very valuable debate.

As for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, we are going to speak about prisoners on the next group. Can I reserve my position in relation to prisoners to avoid there being too much duplication?

In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

I have never been so popular; it will not last, I know.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her amendments. I pay tribute to her for her sincere and long-standing commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in society. If we cast our minds back to Second Reading, many of the contributions made and concerns raised were regarding those who are the most vulnerable in our society. I remember at Second Reading being particularly touched by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rees—he is not in his place now—who raised concerns about the vulnerability of some ethnic-minority communities, particularly those from disadvantaged communities as well.

Let us quickly rush through some of the points. On Amendment 22, which would make prisoners ineligible for end-of-life services as envisaged by the Bill, I completely understand the underlying principle. Many have spoken, rightly, about the vulnerability of prisoners. While for some it might seem wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has suggested, that a prisoner who has a terminal illness may have a way of cutting short their sentence by means of this Bill, as my noble friend Lady Coffey alluded to, others may say “Good riddance”. I also recognise the argument that prisoners with a terminal illness should be treated with the same compassion and care at the end of their lives as other terminally ill people subject to the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Markham recognised.

We also have to recognise some of the concerns over moral hazard. I do not know how large the incidence of this would be. Would it really encourage those who are terminally ill to commit crime? No studies have been done, but I am open to that concern. There is also the idea about higher levels of suicidal ideation, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. These are really important points that we have to take account of.

The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Deben spoke about the pressure of reducing the prison population, while the noble Lord, Lord Carter, spoke about the higher rate of suicide among male prisoners. These are all reflections that should give us cause for concern, and things we should take account of as we consider what we will do between Committee and Report.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for raising the issue of those who are pregnant. As the noble Baroness said, this was not debated in the other place, so I am grateful that the noble Baroness was able to give us the opportunity to debate it. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, for sharing statistics about expectant mothers. It was important that we heard those stats. I cannot begin to imagine the difficulty an individual in those circumstances may face. I understand the concern that it does not seem right that the safety of an unborn child may be endangered under the provisions in the Bill. I also understand that there might be precedence in other legislation. I wonder what the noble and learned Lord’s reflections on that are, given his expertise.

I note the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on access to this for those who are awaiting trial. Once again, I would be very interested in the noble and learned Lord’s legal experience on whether that seems relevant and should be within this Bill. During the debates on the Mental Health Bill, my noble friend Lady Berridge was assiduous in spotting gaps in legislation or inconsistencies between different Acts. My noble friend has done the same thing here by raising concerns over the vulnerability of those with education, health and care plans. I think this needs further consideration.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her amendments relating to those who are homeless or who live in insecure and temporary accommodation. I welcome the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Gray. I still remember a conversation I had with one homeless charity that we are all one or two unlucky events or bad decisions away from homelessness. I heard from homeless people who told me that they had a great job and a great family life and that everything was going their way. They lost their job, which then led to them losing their marriage. After incidents of sofa surfing and testing the patience of their friends, they ended up homeless. It could happen to anyone. It is important that we do not dismiss the homeless as people who cannot be bothered or are idle. It could happen to anyone. Any noble Lords who have met those in homeless communities will know that some people had been incredibly successful but, after two or three bad decisions or unlucky things that happened in their life, they suddenly found themselves homeless. They are also judged by the way they look when they are homeless.

I remind all noble Lords that the Bill relates only to those who are suffering from a terminal illness and those who have been given an expectation that they will not live for longer than six months. We have to be very careful that, although we have sympathy for the homeless and prisoners, the Bill relates only to those who have a terminal illness. I know there are concerns that the Bill may be widened beyond that, but that is the debate at this stage. We should be quite clear that we are focusing on those with a terminal illness. So, much like on the question of prisoners and others, I recognise the arguments on all sides, but this is an opportune moment, not only because of time but because of the noble and learned Lord’s legal experience, to hear his reflections—after the Minister, obviously.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am most grateful.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group. As is my consistent introduction, my remarks will focus only on issues where the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. Many of the points that follow relate to the European Convention on Human Rights. These are risks that I am raising to inform noble Lords’ decision-making, as I said on the first group. I wish to be clear that the underlying policies are a matter for Parliament. I say to noble Lords who referred to my ministerial colleagues in the other place that it is the role of Ministers, whether in your Lordships’ House or in the other place, to flag the risks to the Bill, including potential legal challenges. As I said, policy decisions remain a matter for the sponsors. Decisions in this regard rest with Parliament.

I begin with Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and Amendment 30C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. These amendments would make prisoners, a defendant on remand, a defendant on bail or those detained by a hospital order ineligible for assisted dying services, even if they have a terminal illness and meet all other criteria. Aside from the right to liberty—Article 5—the ECHR requires that prisoners, a defendant on remand or a defendant on bail should have the same rights as those who are not. The rights engaged by this amendment are Article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life and Article 14 on prohibition of discrimination. Noble Lords may wish to note the risk that making these groups ineligible for assisted dying would, on the face of it, lead to a difference in treatment, which would need to be objectively and reasonably justified in order to comply with ECHR obligations.

Likewise, making ineligible hospital in-patients who are under a hospital order would lead to a difference in treatment. Without sufficient justification for the discriminatory treatment, this may be a breach of the ECHR, which could lead the courts to issue a declaration of incompatibility.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has also tabled Amendments 24, 458, 308 and 347. The purpose of Amendments 24 and 458 is to exclude those who are pregnant from accessing assisted dying, while that of Amendments 308 and 347 is to make persons who are homeless, or living in supported or temporary accommodation, ineligible for assisted dying services. As I have previously noted, the reasons for this difference in treatment would need to be adequately justified to avoid the risk of a successful challenge under the ECHR.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

Can the Minister give her perspective on whether the arguments laid out today would be justifiable as reasons for a different form of treatment between the two categories: prisoners and non-prisoners?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It is important I reclarify that that is a policy decision. What I am doing with your Lordships’ Committee is advising on risks, to assist noble Lords to make their decision regarding this policy.

Amendments 30A and 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would exclude any person with an education, health and care plan from being eligible for an assisted death, except in cases provided for in regulations made by the Secretary of State. As drafted, these amendments could impose unclear and potentially undeliverable legal duties on the Secretary of State and are potentially not aligned with how EHCPs work in practice or in law. The amendments give rise to a number of unresolved operational questions that do not work with other provisions of the Bill and they are not drafted with sufficient specificity. That could lead to confusion for those interpreting the legislation and unintended outcomes.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

We are about to have a meeting to outline special additional conditions, so can I clarify that the Minister is not saying that that is not possible and just that the particular conditions outlined in Amendment 119A are not possible?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

First, I am referring to the amendments before us. Secondly, I am advising on risk and workability, again for the assistance of your Lordships’ Committee, which, as is correct and proper, will make the decision.

These amendments appear to treat people with EHCPs differently from those who do not have them. This could give rise to potential incompatibility with Article 14 of the ECHR, when read with Article 8, and would require reasonable justification for differential treatment.

Finally, as noble Lords will be aware, the amendments in this group have not had technical drafting support from officials, so the way they are drafted means that they may not be fully workable, effective or enforceable. However, as I have said, the issues raised are rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider and decide.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to a number of articles of the ECHR, but she has not referred to Article 2, which is the duty on a state to protect life. That is why the courts have imposed a duty of care on the Prison Service and the Government to protect prisoners from committing suicide. My question goes back to what I said earlier: how do the Government reconcile that duty with a vulnerable prisoner applying for an assisted death? How does that square with the duty under Article 2 and the duty of care to prisoners?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I refer the noble Lord to the provisions within the Bill. His earlier question was very much about policy. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will also refer to this, but this is a matter of policy and therefore it is for Parliament to decide.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am obliged to noble Lords for all their questions. I will deal with the four issues that this group raises: prisoners, pregnant women, homeless people and those who are the subject of an education, health and care plan.

Turning first to prisoners, I declare my interest as chair of a prison charity, Liberty Kitchen. I have been involved in prison issues for a very long time; indeed, I was once the Minister responsible for prisons. When I was in that role, every time a prisoner committed suicide, it was deemed a failure of the Prison Service and something that we took incredibly seriously.

As far as prisoners are concerned, I will make two points. First, this is about people who are terminally ill and have six months or less to live. The question that the sponsors address is whether prisoners should be treated differently from the rest of the population. The posit is: if you are a prisoner and get a terminal illness, is the condition of the prison so terrible that you should never allow a prisoner ever to have that right?

Wheelchair and Community Equipment Strategy

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt, not just for securing this important debate on a vital issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, but for his campaigning, along with other noble Lords, groups and individuals outside your Lordships’ House over many years. I am also grateful to noble Lords not just for their contributions but for sharing their experiences, some of which are painful to relate and to hear.

On the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, I welcome her experience and approach. I welcome her to your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness spoke of choosing to speak in this debate because of its featuring, among other things, dignity and fairness. I was touched by her description of what and who a GP really is within their community. I know that we all look forward to hearing more from the noble Baroness. Perhaps I might say that the Government have promised more GPs—and we are delighted to have more GPs sitting on our red Benches.

This has been an affecting debate, not least as people described the impact of services not being, as they should be, in the right place. I am sure we would all agree that there is more work to do, but I will take this opportunity to outline what the Government have done and are doing. We are focused on ensuring that disabled people have access to the services and support that they need to lead a fulfilling life. My ministerial colleague, Zubir Ahmed MP, is the relevant Minister and I look forward to sharing the points and questions raised in this debate with him.

Integrated care boards are responsible, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just quoted, for the provision and commissioning of local wheelchair services based on the needs of their local population. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, recognised the importance of flexibility. However, flexibility cannot be an excuse for not providing—a point I have heard rightly and repeatedly today.

There are no plans to publish a national strategy for wheelchair provision. I know that will be disappointing to noble Lords, but NHS England has developed policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs, which are crucial in this, to ensure the commissioning of effective, efficient and personalised wheelchair services, including the wheelchair quality framework, published in April, in collaboration with the NHS England national wheelchair advisory group.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to arrange for the provision of community disability equipment to meet the assessed care and support needs of people in their area. Our 10-year plan for health gives that freedom and autonomy to serve local people to local commissioners. In this regard, it is important that we are giving systems a greater degree of control and flexibility over how funding is deployed to get this done.

I have heard about delays to wheelchair provision. I say this not as any excuse at all, but the pandemic continues to have an impact on wheelchair services, not least because some providers have not only reduced their services—with the inevitable outcome—but now face a backlog of referrals. I was interested to explore that some services have also experienced lower referral rates during the pandemic. This of course led to a surge in referrals later. It has meant that waiting times for both adults and children have fluctuated, as services have worked to recover.

However, we need action to address waiting times and I absolutely recognise the impact that delays have. To that point, in October, we published the NHS Medium Term Planning Framework, which requires all ICBs and community health services to actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks, and to develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly referred to the need to focus on measuring outcomes. The community health services situation report will be used to monitor ICB performances against waiting time targets in 2026-27, and currently monitors waiting times for children, young people and adults under wheelchair, orthotics, prosthetics and equipment. These targets will guide systems to reduce the longest waits. Additionally, the model service specification for wheelchairs sets out that wheelchair assessments have to take place in the most suitable environment, including hospitals, the key thing here being that they are based on the need of the individual.

My noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords rightly spoke of delays in discharge being linked to temporary or short-term loan wheelchairs rather than long-term provision. Access to temporary wheelchair provision to support hospital discharge is determined locally by ICBs; it does not fall within the remit of NHS wheelchair services, which provide services to people of all ages with long-term mobility needs. I heard the point made very clearly about the technology and quality of wheelchairs, which is one of the things I will be raising and discussing with Minister Ahmed.

Reducing waiting time is part of improving the quality of wheelchair services, but it is not the whole story. The quality framework, which the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, asked about, is very much designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers to get it right. I have heard, from the experience of noble Lords in the Chamber and also from those outside, that this is not always the case, and I understand that. However, the quality framework sets out the quality standards relevant to all suppliers and aligns with the CQC assessment framework. To the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, this is about aiming to tackle the inequalities that we know exist—I acknowledge that—in outcomes, experience and access.

NHS England statutory guidance sets out how ICBs should be working with people, communities, key partners and local authorities. That is why each ICB must have executive leads who work closely with local authorities and who promote integrated working for the benefit of people, including those with a learning disability, autism, Down’s syndrome, and children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.

As was referred to in the debate, NHS England introduced personal wheelchair budgets in 2019 and gave a clear framework for ICBs to commission personalised wheelchair services, focusing on outcomes and also on integrated care, giving people greater choice over the wheelchair provided—and I have heard what noble Lords have said today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke quite correctly about the impact of the quality of services on the ability to be in the employment market. That is about quality of life as well as the economy, and I share her views.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, discussed dissatisfaction with services; I heard that mentioned a number of times. NHS bodies and local authorities must arrange for dealing properly with complaints.

The approach of the 10-year health plan identifies disabled people as a priority group. Our neighbourhood health service will support disabled people, and the 10-year plan focuses on choice and control over their care. I have heard what noble Lords have said, and I will take that back. I hope the steps we have made will make a difference, but I recognise that there is so much more to do.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to rise as I want to ensure that everyone feels that their voice has been heard in this debate. We do not want to make law on a basis on which people look back and say that we did not properly debate a particular issue. If all noble Lords who wish to speak in this debate have spoken, I am very happy to make my contribution, but if there are any other noble Lords who wish to make their point, I should give way.

Well, that answers that question; I tried my best. I want to make that point clear. It is really important that everyone who feels they want to speak can do so, but I also say to noble Lords, including my noble friends, that it is also important to respect the rules and conventions, to speak to the amendments and not to repeat Second Reading speeches or make wider debates. I hope we can get that appropriate balance. I have taken time making those points, so I will try to be brief.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, especially for the way in which she delivered the Select Committee process that preceded our deliberations in Committee. The evidence submitted to that committee will be invaluable to noble Lords as we continue our work to scrutinise the Bill.

Without making a long speech, I will reflect on the specific amendments on changing the minimum age. I was talking to a noble and learned friend about this, and he said that, frankly, the law around age is a mess—and that has come out in some discussions. Sometimes we are speaking from our own experience. My two children are in their 20s, and I wonder whether they would really have the capacity to make this decision. But at other times, I sit in awe of them and the decisions they make. They express maturity way beyond 20 years, and, in fact, more maturity than much older people.

It very much depends on the individual in these cases. We have to look at whether there is a way to achieve that right balance; otherwise, we will just be making another age limit. You can join the Army at 16 but you cannot serve in combat until you are 18. The Government are talking about reducing the voting age to 16, but then we are hearing debates on neurological competence and capacity. It is important that we understand and express these points.

The point that came out for me in this whole debate about neurological development is that there is no such thing as “the science”. Science is contestable. We heard this from noble Lords who are experts in their field. We must be very careful about saying that “the science says this”. It also has implications for other decisions.

I turn to a couple of points which may already be treated in the Bill. I want to check the understanding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on what is in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked: what happens if a new treatment is available? Clause 2 says

“which cannot be reversed by treatment”,

which probably takes care of that point, but I would like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to share his interpretation and say whether it addresses her concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that we should think about these young people who will be suffering and in pain, yet nowhere in Clause 2 are the words “pain” or “suffering”. We must be very careful to read what is in the Bill when we are making these points.

I welcome the intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that while he is quite clear about 18, he is sympathetic to the idea of cognitive development and maturity between 18 and 25, and there might be some discussion. Who knows—I cannot speak for the noble and learned Lord, who has looked into this issue very deeply—but perhaps in those discussions he may be persuaded. He is saying 18 at the moment, but clearly he is open to enhanced measures for those aged between 18 and 25. That is something that I hope the whole Committee will welcome.

There are many other points that I could make, but it is important to hear from the Government and what the noble and learned Lord believes in response to the points that have been raised.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the age of eligibility for those who are provided with assistance under the Bill. I have made it clear previously, and reiterate, that I will keep my comments limited to the issues on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Lawlor and Lady Hollins, seek to raise the age at which an individual would be eligible for the provision of assistance under the Bill. The points that I wish to raise here relate to the European Convention on Human Rights. There are potential risks that I am raising to inform the decision-making of noble Lords, but the underlying policies are rightly a matter for Parliament. Under the convention, the amendments in this group could give rise to legal challenge; for example, that excluding people who are under 21 or 25 from accessing assisting dying may not be justified under Articles 2 or 8 of the EHCR, or that this amounts to unjustified discrimination under Article 14.

Noble Lords will be aware that differential treatments, such as raising the age of eligibility, may be lawful if it is possible to persuade the courts to agree that the age limit is justified, necessary and proportionate. There would need to be a reasonable justification for restricting access to assisted dying to people aged either 21 and over or 25 and over. Noble Lords will want to consider this in relation to these amendments.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Can the Minister be clear? If we decided to limit—whether by age or in some other way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, might decide—and put that into primary legislation, is that then not the law of the country? All that the European court could then do is say that it is not compatible but remains the law—or is the Minister saying something different? If we pass primary legislation, that is the law of the land, is it not?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The point that I was making just before I sat down was that noble Lords will want to consider the points that I have raised in relation to these amendments. I am sure that they will take into account what the noble Lord has just said too.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to the debate. I have made my position moderately clear in relation to what we should do—and I sense that the Committee is happy that we should take that course.

I completely understand the points about people aged 18 being impulsive and often emotionally immature. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, that is why the Sentencing Council refers to it. However, it is a different question here as to what the age limit should be. If people are emotionally immature, they will not have a settled view about what to do in these circumstances, but some people will. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked: what happens if there are new developments in medicine that would extend life? The answer is that you would not have six months or less to live, which I think was the answer that he was giving in relation to it.

I have made my position clear. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, in the light of where we have got to, to withdraw her amendment so that we can move on to the next issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I can be extremely brief, because of the confirmation given by the noble and learned Lord and also knowing that the substantive issues of domestic abuse, interpreters and various other matters will be dealt with in their appropriate place.

At the risk of underlining my reputation as a legal geek, I invite the noble and learned Lord’s attention to his Amendment 350, and in particular the Member’s Explanatory Statement. I understand the amendment, but I do not understand the statement. The amendment leaves out from “to” to end of the line and inserts “section 12(4) and (7)”, which are about “sharing of specialists’ opinions”. The Explanatory Statement says:

“This is a drafting change (consequential on subsection (4) being added to clause 12)”.


Now, Clause 12 already has a subsection (4), and the noble and learned Lord’s amendments to Clause 12 are to subsections (5) and (8). I do not know whether the Explanatory Statement has confused me and in fact the change is not consequential on a new subsection (4) being added but just stands in and of itself. It may be that I am confused unnecessarily, but if the noble and learned Lord could just clear up that minor point, I would be grateful.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, shall be brief. All but three of the amendments in this group have been tabled by the Bill’s sponsor and, as has been discussed, they make a series of drafting changes to the Bill, including making sure that terms are consistent throughout and removing ambiguity and duplication.

The Government are neutral on all the policy choices reflected in these amendments, as they are on the Bill as a whole, but have as usual provided drafting support to make the Bill legally workable. As a part of the discussion today, it is of course for the sponsor and for Parliament to determine whether any of the amendments that the sponsor has chosen to table have changed the intent of amendments that were debated in the other place.

Amendment 7 in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to amend Amendment 6 by changing a reference in Clause 1(2)(b) from “a preliminary discussion” to “their first preliminary discussion”. It does not make any wider changes to the Bill to provide for more than one preliminary discussion to take place, so this may lead to uncertainty. As with all amendments that have not had technical input from the Government, noble Lords may wish to note that the current drafting of this amendment may require further consideration to make it fully workable, effective and enforceable.

Amendments 8 and 9, on which I raise no major workability issues, appear to be trying to achieve the same purpose as Amendment 6, tabled by the Bill’s sponsor. But I would note that Amendments 8 and 9 have not had the technical drafting support from officials and therefore may not be fully workable, effective and enforceable.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the interventions. These changes are only drafting changes. Some legitimate points were made, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Lawlor, but they did not really go to the drafting points.

I go to the concerns various Members have expressed. Amendments 6 and 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would prevent doctors having a conversation with people—I am not saying this in a bad or a good way, but that is what she wants to do—particularly before they reach 18. There is a point there, but it is nothing to do with the change I have introduced in my Amendment 6. My amendment would simply make it clear that there has to be a preliminary discussion before you can go ahead to assisted death. I have done that to make it clear that it is one of the eligibility conditions; it says nothing about what should be talked about or whether such a conversation should take place under the age of 18.

In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, Clause 6 states:

“No registered medical practitioner or other health professional shall raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person under the age of 18”.


I do not think that the noble Baroness’s amendment would add to that protection. The key point is that all Amendment 6 is doing is saying that you have to have a Clause 5 discussion.

The next point, raised by a number of Peers, is that I am watering down the protection in relation to domestic abuse. That, as a matter of drafting, is wrong. It is only a matter of convenience that, having defined domestic abuse as including everything so defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, you get coercion, control and economic abuse as forms of domestic abuse. To avoid having to repeat that every time the Bill refers to training, I have simply referred to domestic abuse, and that is then defined at the top of page 41. I very much hope that people will accept that that is the position.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who is shaking her head, raises a different point about the position in relation to abuse that is not domestic. Perhaps your lawyer is exercising undue influence on you. That is a point that I will respond to in writing, but it is not a point raised by my drafting change, because all the restrictions have been in relation to domestic abuse, not to what the lawyers would call undue influence. But it is a perfectly legitimate point, which I will come back to in correspondence with her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right; on that point they do change the policy intention. I am grateful. I would welcome the thoughts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on that.

Finally, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Howe, I have been asked on his behalf to formally speak on his Amendments 301A and 305A. In speaking to those amendments, I want to highlight the threshold which is set for determining whether an individual is in England and Wales at the time of the first assessment. I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to pick up this point.

As the Bill is drafted, the question as to whether somebody is ordinarily resident in England and Wales rests on what is called the

“opinion of the coordinating doctor”.

My concern is that an opinion without any further evidential requirement may be too low a bar, particularly given the need to guard against the risk of what has been called death tourism. In other parts of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord has used the word “satisfied”, and I think we would agree that that entails a higher evidential bar than merely “opinion”—indeed, that is also higher than “believes” or “reasonably believes”. “Satisfied” is a higher standard. When the noble and learned Lord replies, can he use that opportunity to explain why the test here is only “opinion” and not “satisfied”, as that test is used in other parts of the Bill?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the issue of residency and eligibility criteria. As I have already made clear and will now repeat, I will confine my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

First, I turn to the amendments which narrow the residence criteria in respect of eligibility for assistance under the Bill. Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would change the residence criteria for assistance under the Bill from requiring a person to be “ordinarily resident” to “permanently resident”. Unlike “ordinarily resident”, “permanently resident” does not have a set definition in the context of UK immigration law. It is possible that it would be taken as referring only to those who have citizenship or indefinite leave to remain, which is a much narrower scope than the current wording of “ordinarily resident”.

Similarly, Amendments 23, 309, 300A and 306A would restrict access to assisted dying support to British citizens or people with indefinite leave to remain. This may result in migrants on long-term work or study visas who have resided in England and Wales for longer than 12 months being denied access to an assisted death, thereby potentially giving rise to indirect discrimination based on race. These amendments may be subject to challenge under Article 14 of the ECHR when read with Article 8, on the basis that this may amount to unjustified discrimination. This differential treatment would require an objective and reasonable justification.

In addition, under various international agreements, the UK has an obligation not to discriminate against EU, EEA and Swiss nationals on the basis of nationality, although the agreements do not prevent restrictions on the basis of residency. Since these amendments would prevent individuals from those countries from accessing these services on an equal basis to UK citizens in the same circumstances, they are likely to be contrary to the UK’s international obligations under those agreements.

Amendments 11A, 258A, 306B and 449A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seek to change the residency requirement from “ordinarily resident” to “domiciled”. These amendments would add complexity and potential uncertainty to the eligibility requirements. “Domiciled” refers to the determination of a person’s permanent home largely for tax purposes, meaning that a person can be domiciled in a place without being resident there. It is not a familiar concept in domestic law outside of taxation, so it is unclear how it would apply in this context. Further elaboration in guidance would be needed to make these amendments workable. It is also unclear what practical impact this change would have when the Bill would still require people to be physically present in England and Wales in respect of the steps under Clauses 8, 10, 11 and 19.

I will next turn to Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, Kim Leadbeater specifically introduced this concept of England and Wales, and, in Committee, Stephen Kinnock did not raise any issues with it at all in terms of operability or similar. I am astonished to hear some of the other elements that are now coming out for the first time in the consideration of this Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sorry to hear of the noble Baroness’s surprise. I am simply setting out where the Government have particular concerns within the scope to which I referred. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer may be able to comment more appropriately, if he wishes to do so, on the points that she raises.

Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would widen the eligibility criteria to include UK citizens of pensionable age who are living abroad. There are two main issues with this amendment. The first is that the UK has obligations under international agreements that enable residents of partner countries to receive certain benefits, including some health service provision, in the UK. These agreements are, as I mentioned, with the EU, EEA states and Switzerland. As I set out, these agreements prevent restrictions based on nationality, although they permit those based on residency. Therefore, the amendment would have the effect of opening access to provision of assistance under the Bill to EU, Swiss and EEA residents of pensionable age, provided that they satisfy other eligibility criteria. Widening access only to UK nationals of pensionable age would be contrary to the UK’s obligations under those agreements.

Secondly, by including those who have “moved to live abroad”, the amendment would enable pensionable-age citizens from Northern Ireland or Scotland who have moved abroad to access the provision of assistance, in accordance with the Bill, if they satisfy the other eligibility criteria.

For all the other amendments in this group, on which I make no comment, any workability concerns are less significant. For example, Amendment 10 would remove two eligibility criteria from Clause 1, while Amendment 13 would change the requirements relating to ordinary residence in England and Wales. As Clause 1 is largely descriptive, these amendments would have limited legal effect without corresponding amendments being made to operative provisions later in the Bill.

While these are choices for noble Lords, these amendments may introduce inconsistencies and ambiguity into the Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, these amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials, so the way in which they are currently drafted means that they may not be fully workable, effective or enforceable—but, of course, the issues raised are rightly a matter for noble Lords to consider and decide on.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Given that Jersey and the Isle of Man, if I am correct, are not EEA countries, how is the contract for health service delivery affected by this Bill in the light of the problems that I highlighted right at the beginning of what has turned into quite a lengthy debate? I was trying to look at a carve-out for those countries so that those contracts could continue, but I was told that it was deemed out of scope of the Bill.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will understand that I am restricted in the comments that I can appropriately make here. I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer say that all these matters needed consideration, and I am sure that he will expand further on that very point.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I will come to that question when I go through the points.

The purpose of Clause 1(1)(c)—namely, that to qualify you have to be ordinarily resident in England and Wales and have been so resident for at least 12 months—is, as noble Lords have said, to avoid people coming here specifically for the purpose of having an assisted death. It therefore would not be adequate to say that people should be ordinarily resident at the moment they apply, because they would have come specifically for that period. Hence you need a period, and 12 months is taken as a reasonable period in relation to that.

The phrase “ordinarily resident” appears right throughout the statute book in a whole range of settings and reflects the policy choice made by regulations or statutes. It says, “We want to give this right to people who permanently live in this country”, using the word “permanently” not in a legal sense but in an ordinary sense. In applying that phrase, the courts have not generally had any real difficulty as to what it means. It is a reflection of this Parliament saying that we want to give particular rights to the people who live here, and sometimes we say, as we are suggesting here, that we do not care what their citizenship status is—if they live here permanently, they get that right. For example, in relation to the National Health Service we say that if people live here permanently, they get that right.

With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the cases have made it pretty clear that you can be ordinarily resident here but have temporary absences abroad—for example, if you go to work as a diplomat abroad, serve in the Armed Forces or take a job that takes you away for two months. The big case is somebody whose family lived here and who went to be educated in India for a period of time, who is still held to be ordinarily resident here. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, I do not think that adopting the phrase “ordinarily resident” gives rise either to injustice or to legal difficulties.

I will deal with the points made by individual Peers. I am very sympathetic to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as I made clear in my intervention. I do not think she was putting in the word “permanently” other than to probe the question of those who live on the Isle of Man or Jersey and get all their medical treatment habitually in England. When the doctor in England says, “I will help you go home to the Isle of Man to get an assisted death”, assuming that it becomes legal in the Isle of Man, the doctor there will be committing a criminal offence under the Bill unless there is an amendment.

The BMA has proposed an amendment that, if you help somebody go home for an assisted death—home being, say, the Isle of Man or Jersey—and it is legal there, that should not be a criminal offence. I talked to the BMA about that. We need to work together to see whether we can get an amendment that satisfies the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has made. I would welcome her input in relation to this.

Supply of Blood and Blood Products

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the supply of blood and blood products this winter.

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

My Lords, NHS Blood and Transplant has expanded donation capacity to meet the nation’s needs, opening three new donor centres and additional mobile sessions, adding 3,900 weekly appointments. However, blood stocks remain fragile, and we urgently need more donors, with 71,000 appointments still to fill over the festive period. I urge everyone, including noble Lords, to donate. Noble Lords will have the opportunity at tomorrow’s dedicated parliamentary session in Portcullis House to help to ensure a resilient and reliable blood supply this winter.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging reply, and particularly for the reinstatement of the parliamentary donation service. However, as she says, this is a very heavy winter season for the NHS. It is a heavy flu season and a heavy holiday season, which puts pressure on donors. Is she confident that she will fill those extra donor slots and that there will be security of supply for the winter? Is she looking at specific campaigns aimed at those of black heritage and younger people, because it is important to get people early? She might remind Members of this House that you can start being a blood donor in your 60s but, if you start earlier than that, you can go on for a while longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly echo the noble Baroness’s comments. It is thanks to the generosity of donors—including the noble Baroness herself, who is I know is approaching her 50th donation—that overall blood stocks are at target levels, but she is right about the extra pressures coming through because of winter. The launch of the national campaign to highlight the constant need for blood in this season and to recruit new donors was set under way last month. We also have targeted media campaigns; for example, in areas of the country with larger black heritage communities to highlight the urgent need for more donors from that group.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I confess to 120 donations and thank the Minister for all the work that she is doing on this, particularly for tomorrow’s session, but she is absolutely right that only a tiny proportion of the population are blood donors. Talking personally, it is not always straightforward for working people to get those appointments. The noble Baroness is right that we are very short on black and ethnic-minority donors. With that thought in mind, would it be possible to look at artificial intelligence to make it easier for working people, particularly from ethnic minorities, to make those appointments during the working day?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is also to be congratulated, of course. As he said, despite our having some 790,000 regular donors, only 2% of the population gives blood, so we are not full up and we look forward to more donors. To the point that the noble Lord raises, which is important, we are increasing capacity for appointments to donate, but we are also looking at additional digital and logistical improvements, including in how people can book appointments. We are also piloting a new appointment reminder and better communications. There is room for improvement, and we are taking those steps. The noble Lord makes very good points in this regard.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, following on from the previous question, to address the major barrier of donor inconvenience, will the Government look urgently at consulting employers and unions on a national campaign to encourage the adoption of a “donate time” policy, offering a flexible blood break for employees to attend donation sessions during the working day?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is part of the potential solution, in addition to where donors go, how they are communicated with and how easily they can make appointments. We will certainly put the noble Lord’s suggestion into the mix; it is certainly something that I have discussed in respect of the Civil Service, and it varies across departments.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, we are seeing reductions in the number of donors, whether it be in blood or in organ donation. Are we not getting to a serious situation where the Government need to think about how they can increase donations to historic levels?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am not sure that I agree with the reflections of my noble friend, although I do agree that we have a shortfall of some 200,000 donors to shore up and grow our blood supply. As I said, the situation remains fragile, which is why we need more support. We are constantly working to identify gaps and opportunities to strengthen and diversify the donor base through a donor base resilience programme, launched just this year. It is not just numbers; it is also the range of people, as we heard in earlier questions.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that during Covid we used non-traditional venues to encourage vaccination? I will give an example that we talk about a lot: football clubs. In Plymouth, that resulted in people who had never been able to see the football club go and get their vaccination. I believe that if we invested heavily in similar approaches, we would get many more young people giving blood. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right. We have to go to where people are and not just expect them to come to us, and using a whole range of venues is important, as are mobile donation facilities. This is constantly kept under review: the service is constantly reviewing where the most successful places are and looking at new venues and new opportunities to take up.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, to continue on the line of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, I remember that when we were looking at vaccine hesitancy, we looked at how we could reach certain communities—they do not like being called hard to reach because they feel they are being patronised. Quite often, it was through faith organisations; sometimes, it was through community leaders. What work has been done on the lessons learned from the vaccine hesitancy campaigns to encourage more people to give blood? I want also to ask about guidelines. I was speaking to a noble friend who said she had volunteered to give blood but was told that because she had passed the age of 66 and had never given blood in the UK before, she was not allowed to donate. Can we have some clear guidelines for those who are willing to give blood, especially Members of this House?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Of course, is the answer to the noble Lord. On his point about reaching certain groups, we have invested across 51 organisations this year that are very much rooted in the community, and 31 of the projects across those organisations have worked nationally to boost awareness, understanding and behaviour change in black, Asian, mixed-heritage and minority-ethnic communities, where we need more people to come forward to donate blood in order that we have the blood we need for the conditions that they are there to meet.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I should admit that I never decided to become a blood donor. Once, when I was at Chatham House, a van from the blood donor service was due to come to St James’s Square the next week and my secretary informed me that she had booked me in to give a donation. I thereafter donated for 20 years. That shows that there are a lot of us who would sort of get round to it if we thought about it, and taking the caravans to businesses and working with the businesses to encourage their members to donate is one way that clearly helps to get passive potential donors to say yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord gives a good example—sometimes we need other people to sort us out to give blood—but the main point he makes is absolutely right: we need to speak to people through our campaigns. Each donation can save up to three lives. We need to tell people the effect of what they are doing too, and I am glad that we are taking innovative steps to raise awareness, including advertising on London buses.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the Minister for letting me get in just in time. I am interested in plasma. As many noble Lords will be aware, we have been importing 100% of our plasma needs ever since mad cow disease, so it is an area in which we are quite vulnerable and I know the blood services are trying to correct that. Can the Minister give us an update on where we are on that?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We are making considerable progress in diversifying where plasma comes from. We are also making good progress in demand management and ensuring that there is no waste in blood products, which will also greatly assist us. I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord with a full description of the advances that we are making; it is an exciting time in that respect.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Kamall on the Front Bench. I have not taken part in these debates before, but I have to say that I find it quite disturbing that we should be making laws because perhaps we do not like walking down a street where people are puffing vapes. I do not, but there are lots of things I do not like that people do, and I am not going to ban them all—well, perhaps I would, actually, but I am not going to.

Similarly, if you cannot be hooked by passive vaping, as my noble friend Lord Kamall said, I am not quite sure why we are taking it so seriously. As I understand it, vaping is not addictive; nicotine is addictive, but vaping itself is a different matter. It also seems to me that we are legislating unnecessarily. I am afraid, to broaden the subject slightly, that this will lead to yet further influxes of cheap and nasty vapes, which may or may not be, as the noble Baroness just said, influenced by other matters.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Let me first turn to the opposition to Clause 138 standing part of the Bill, which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister. Clause 138 amends the Health Act 2006 to insert new provisions relating to vape-free places in England. These provisions allow the Secretary of State to designate certain places and vehicles as vape-free, but only where they are also smoke-free.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about evidence. The fact is that evidence is developing, as the noble Lord himself rightly acknowledged, but we do know that while vapes are less harmful than smoking, there is a reason why the Chief Medical Officer says:

“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.


Vapes are not harm-free; there are legitimate concerns regarding the unknown long-term health impacts of vaping. They produce aerosol that exposes people to nicotine and potential toxicants, which poses health risks to children and medically vulnerable people in particular; for example, they can trigger asthma attacks. It is therefore important and right—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan—that the Government act to protect more vulnerable groups from potential health harms. I should also say that evidence suggests that, in adolescence, the brain is more sensitive to the effects of nicotine, so there could be additional risks for young people compared to adults.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, many businesses and enclosed public places already have in place, on a voluntary basis, schemes to prohibit vape usage on their premises. We want to introduce legislative requirements to make it clear to the public where it is illegal to use vapes and to enable enforcement agencies to enforce accordingly. I know that noble Lords understand the reasons for wanting to be clear about what is and is not legal, and this Bill and the provisions in it are very much part of that.

Again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, welcomed, the main answer to all the questions today— I will continue to go through the various amendments—is that we will be consulting on making indoor settings that are subject to existing smoke-free legislation vape free. The consultation in this area and beyond is crucial, because we also plan to consult on making some outdoor places where children are present vape free—for example, children’s playgrounds, and the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about how we will recognise the difference between harms. I can assure him that this is an area we absolutely want to get right. We do want to ensure that adult smokers who are using vapes as quit aids are doing so in appropriate places, such that they do not return to smoking. That is exactly why we will consult before making regulations and carefully consider the responses to ensure the policy seeks the appropriate balance.

Amendment 182A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, would not be able to be made vape free. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her views on this. As I have already outlined, vapers pose potential risks to both users and non-users, especially indoors. We had a debate in an earlier group about the workability or otherwise of designating particular areas as able to police themselves. It is quite important to say to the Committee that the vast majority—around 90% of those over 16—do not currently vape. Just because someone is in an over-18 setting does not mean that they are content to be exposed to these second-hand harms.

As discussed, this is a particular concern for medically vulnerable people whose conditions may not be in the least visible to the vaper, who I am sure does not wish to cause harm—for example, those with asthma. Additionally, people who wish to vape will still be able to do so in outdoor hospitality settings—for example, in the outdoor smoking areas of an over-18 nightclub. We have been very clear that we will not be consulting on including those outdoor areas in the scope of vape- free places.

Ultimately, the Bill grants powers to make places vape free and does not itself make any place vape free. The consultation will ask questions relating to areas that should become vape free, any necessary exemptions and any additional evidence on the second-hand harms of these products. Therefore, in our view there is no change needed to the primary legislation.

It is appropriate now to turn to Amendments 181 and 184, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which would seek to limit the locations that can be designated as vape free. As I have already outlined, the current power allows us to respond to evolving evidence at a later time and ensures the Bill is future-proof. The noble Lord asked about the process. I can confirm as I have done previously that the power for vape-free places will be through an affirmative regulation. That will mean, as the noble Lord knows, a debate in both places. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about vape-free areas being specified in the Bill. I hope I have explained why that is not the case. It is particularly important as we talk about evolving evidence that we look to the future. That is why we will be consulting and why we will turn to regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned vape-free schools and asked whether that measure applies to children or adults. I can confirm that it is about the area rather than the people in it. So there are no limitations on people of a certain age; it is the area that would be designated.

I turn to Amendments 182 and 187 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, which relate to vape-free policies in schools and colleges in England that are made vape-free places. It is my view that these amendments are not necessary. As I have said, we have already made it clear that we will consult on making schools, sixth-form colleges and early years settings vape-free places. Public consultation will allow us to gather views from a wide range of stakeholders, including those who run education settings. Enforcement officers will have the power to issue on-the-spot fines or pursue convictions where they deem it necessary for the offence of using a vape in a vape-free place. However, we anticipate—this may be helpful to noble Lords—that there will continue to be a role for internal sanctions for pupils found vaping on the premises. Schools are already required to publish a behavioural policy.

In relation to education provisions for pupils on vaping, we have worked closely with the Department for Education to incorporate education on the risks of vaping and nicotine use in the recently updated relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance for schools and teachers; I am sure that the person referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will benefit from that in future.

I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and his intention in Amendment 183, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also spoke. I agree that it is important that patients receiving care in a mental health setting have access to appropriate smoking cessation tools; that is particularly true given that smoking rates among those with a long-term mental health condition are far higher than in the general population. As I have mentioned previously, in England, we are considering making inside hospitals—but not outside them—smoke-free. I appreciate and am alive to the fact that there are particular considerations in the case of mental health facilities, but I assure noble Lords that we are keen to get things right in this area and are going to follow the evidence. We want to ensure that vapes can continue to be accessible as an effective quitting aid for adult smokers; noble Lords have made strong and important points about this. As outlined, we believe that the details of any exemptions are best explored through the consultation process, although we understand the intention behind the amendment.

I hope that this provides reassurance and understanding to noble Lords that the settings that will be in scope of the vape-free policy will be fully considered by consultation and then considered under the affirmative procedure. I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response; I also thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group. I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that any further extension of the designation of vape-free places will be done via the affirmative procedure, which is very welcome.

I have a couple of outstanding questions; I suspect that the Minister and her department were not able to get the answers quick enough, thanks to the power of the internet or whatever, so I wonder whether the Minister could write to noble Lords on these matters. First, is there any evidence yet from studies of passive smoking in outdoor settings? As I said, the studies I looked at were all on indoor settings; nothing has been done on outdoor settings. It would be good to know what evidence the department currently has. I also ask the Minister to share that evidence, with the appropriate links, so that we can all understand it. usbI understand that the consultation is all about seeking further evidence, but it would be interesting to know what evidence the department currently has—on the understanding that the evidence is evolving, as the Minister rightly said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Udny-Lister, who is unfortunately not in his place, are to be thanked for enabling us to focus on the issues around the use of heated tobacco. We have touched on this subject at earlier stages but, when previously discussing heated tobacco, the Minister promised to write to noble Lords about the evidence that her department possesses of the harms caused by heated tobacco. I am sure that is high on her agenda, but the question is crucial in the context of these amendments since, whatever the answer is, it will have a direct bearing on the use of the Secretary of State’s powers to designate locations as heated tobacco-free.

There are various published studies, as she will know. A study published by UCL found that people who switched from cigarettes to heated tobacco had lower levels of exposure to harmful chemicals than those who kept smoking, but higher levels of these toxins than those who stopped using tobacco altogether, which I guess is not a surprising finding. Other studies state that it is too soon to know how using heat—not burn—products will affect someone’s health in the long term, since research looking at these tobacco products is still, I understand, in its early stages and, in the main, funded by the tobacco industry. We therefore need clear evidence, born of independent research, on both the relative harm of heated tobacco compared to burning tobacco, as well as the absolute levels of harm that result from its use.

I am a non-smoker. I understand the concern that heated tobacco should not be a loophole for large tobacco firms to get around the law, but I am also concerned that in the absence of long-term evidence, portraying heated tobacco as being in the same category as cigarettes carries the risk of failing to reduce harm for that small percentage of smokers who wish to quit but have not taken to vapes for one reason or another.

Pending fresh research findings, I think, alongside my noble friends, that there remains a legitimate question about how the Government intend to treat spaces, both indoors and outdoors, where heated tobacco is used, and about whether they believe there is a clear proven case for including heated tobacco in the generational ban. In particular, does the Minister consider uncovered outdoor areas to be different in this context from enclosed spaces, in terms of both health risk and social behaviour? As she knows, the hospitality industry has concerns about extending the indoor smoking ban to outdoor hospitality areas such as pub gardens, and I welcome the assurance she gave on that a few minutes ago. The indication from the Government thus far is that hospitality areas will not be caught by any outdoor ban, but if that is true of smoke tobacco, can the Minister confirm that there is no similar intention as regards the outdoor use of heated tobacco?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to limiting the Government’s ability to create heated tobacco-free places in England. I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, opposes Clause 139 standing part of the Bill. Clause 139 provides the power to designate certain places and vehicles in England as heated tobacco-free. Places can be designated heated tobacco-free only if they are smoke-free. As I have mentioned, we plan to consult on making heated tobacco-free all indoor places that are currently smoke-free. We also plan to consult on making certain outdoor spaces heated tobacco-free. As with smoke-free places, the consultation will cover children’s playgrounds, the outdoor areas of schools and early years settings, and areas outside healthcare settings where medically vulnerable people may be present.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked an important question about evidence, and I will write with more detail as soon as possible. However, I reiterate what I said in debates on previous groups and elsewhere: there is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all tobacco products are harmful, including heated tobacco products. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, for their supportive comments. Laboratory studies show evidence of toxicity from heated tobacco and that the aerosol generated by heated tobacco devices, like other forms of tobacco, contains carcinogenic compounds. Recent evidence has also indicated that exposure to second-hand emissions from heated tobacco products is associated with significant respiratory and cardiovascular abnormalities in bystanders.

The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, also tabled Amendment 185. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked me to repeat—I am glad to do so—that, as I have made clear, we are not planning to consult on making outdoor hospitality settings in England heated tobacco-free.

Amendment 184A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to exempt areas where it would be reasonable to expect that only over-18s are present from any future restrictions on heated tobacco places. This amendment is similar to the one already discussed in relation to vape-free places, which would mean that some indoor areas, for example nightclubs, could not be made heated tobacco-free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for this discussion. I say at the outset that, although I do not support accepting the amendments, I have a lot of sympathy with a number of the points made, which I will come on to. However, while I completely understand the pressure on small retailers—I will come on to that—I struggle to accept that the Bill is the fount of all evil, which I feel is the direction we are going in. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who spoke about the need to see the Bill in its overall context. I associate myself with those comments.

I absolutely agree with the intention behind Amendment 191, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting businesses to implement the measures in the Bill, which much of this discussion has been about. As I have said previously, we will continue —it is a continuing thing that is not in the past—to work closely with retail bodies such as the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores on the implementation of the measures, which will include the development of guidance.

I heard the concern of noble Lords about what guidance will be given. Again, I understand those points but, to say it in other words, we will support retailers through this transition. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned, what is being asked of retailers is not unusual for them; they are very familiar with age verification. I will come back to that later. The measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill will come into force across a range of dates and therefore it is important that the associated guidance is available at the appropriate time. In other words, there will be time to make this transition and there will be support for that. We are firmly committed to publishing the guidance in a timely manner.

Turning to Amendment 188, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I say to nearly all noble Lords who have spoken that, although I understand the intention of the amendment, it is unnecessary. As noble Lords have acknowledged, the Government are already taking action to tackle the absolutely unacceptable rise in retail crime. The Government will not stand for violence and abuse of any kind against shop workers. Everybody has a right to feel safe at their place of work and we have long championed specific protections for retail workers.

To protect the hardworking and dedicated staff who work in stores, the Crime and Policing Bill introduces a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to. The Bill also removes legislation which makes shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or below a summary-only offence. That sends a clear message that any level of shop theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Howard.

Alongside legislative action, we are also providing over £7 million over the next three years to support multiple policing bodies to help to tackle retail crime. As I have mentioned, we will continue to work closely with retailers and will utilise the lead-in time to best support them in preparing for and implementing the measures in the Bill. This will include government communications and information campaigns to inform both the public and retail workers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked what assessment the Government have made of the impact on small businesses. Page 82 of the impact assessment specifically addresses this. As noble Lords are aware, an impact assessment should be expected and is required for any Bill. That means that the Regulatory Policy Committee also took a view; it published an opinion on the impact assessment and provided a fit-for-purpose rating. This included a green rating for the assessments of small and micro businesses’ assessments. I hope that will be useful.

I turn to Amendment 200A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard. This would require the Government to create a financial assistance scheme specifically to subsidise the cost of purchasing age-verification technology to enforce on the sale of nicotine products. I heard the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Bennett, who spoke against that amendment.

There are no plans to mandate the use of age-verification technologies to enforce the age of sale of nicotine products. It will be for businesses to decide how they ensure that they sell only to people 18 years or over, including whether to use age-verification technology to support them in this. As I mentioned earlier, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, checking that a customer is over a certain age is a well-established and well-trodden path for retailers. They should continue to take reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not sell products to anyone underage. Most retailers already follow recommended practice, and I am grateful to them; they regularly ask for identification from customers to verify their age.

To provide clarity for retailers on the types of ID that can be used, the Bill provides powers to specify in regulations the steps that may be taken to verify a customer’s age and satisfy the age of sale defence. This will include the types of digital identities that can be used, and work will continue with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which is leading on this work. I emphasise that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting retailers through the changes brought in by this legislation, including through the publication of clear guidance in which they will be fully involved.

I hope that I have provided helpful reassurances and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, including the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I could repeat that my amendment was intended as a probe to raise a set of general concerns surrounding the retail sector. I was reassured by the Minister’s reply, including her references to the provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill. But we need to bear in mind, as we debate the Bill, that retailers are not the source of the problem that the Bill seeks to address—yet they will be the ones to lose out.

The Bill is projected to cost retailers more than £1 billion in profits over the next 30 years, plus what I am sure will be a considerable amount more from the reduced footfall that many will see over time. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was right: there is considerable worry in the sector, which is exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding the timetable for the Bill’s implementation. It would be helpful, perhaps when we reach the next stage of the Bill, for the Minister to give us an idea of how the Government intend to proceed as regards the processes of consultation—consideration of submissions, as well as the actual implementation—and what the outline timetable will look like. The transition needs to be as inclusive and smooth as possible, and practical guidance and support will be essential, especially for small retailing businesses. I have no doubt that the Government have this in mind, but we may need to return to it on Report, just to underline the point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will be grateful to my noble friend, with his considerable experience in health policy, for the clear and cogent way in which he introduced his amendment. I am very supportive of the principles behind the amendment, as it seeks to ensure that decisions taken after the passage of the Bill are informed by robust, independent evidence and that Parliament is equipped with the relevant and authoritative information it needs to provide proper oversight of the regime for vaping and nicotine products, information that is constantly updated as the body of evidence evolves.

Critically, this principle applies equally to the Government. Proposed new subsection (5) in the amendment would require Ministers, when making regulations under the Act, to have regard to the proposed panel’s reports and recommendations. That is a sensible idea. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham was right to remind us that there has for some time been a gap in the public health mechanisms regarding the production of such reports. If we were to recreate a mechanism of the kind suggested, the regulatory frame- work would evolve in response to the realities of science and the market rather than outdated information.

It is also important to recognise, as the amendment implicitly does, that although our primary concern here is health, regulation in this space cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider economy. When sales of currently legal products are restricted or prohibited, this inevitably impacts businesses, consumers and, sometimes, wider society, and those economic effects can themselves have unintended consequences for public health and people’s lives. There is also plenty of evidence of unintended consequences and the effectiveness of previous episodes of prohibition. The risk of a rise in consumption of illicit products is an obvious example, as is misinformation propounded on social media. The Government should make and review decisions with as clear a view as possible about those sorts of trade-offs.

For those reasons, I hope the Government will take on board the very sensible suggestion contained in this amendment.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for this debate, which concludes the work of the Committee. As I have said before, I certainly share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who tabled this amendment, to ensure that regulations are based on the best available evidence. I appreciate the consideration he has given to the amendment and the reason he put it forward.

I say in response that we continue to monitor emerging evidence, which we have much discussed, on vapes and nicotine products, including commissioning independent research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. For example, we commissioned a comprehensive analysis of all youth vaping studies—referred to in the debate—which was published recently, and a five-year-long living evidence review that will collate the latest and most robust research into the health impact of vaping. This living evidence review is accompanied by a scientific advisory panel, which includes independent experts, appointed independently from the Government on merit, who the Government can call on for advice on the latest evidence. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, earlier this year we announced a landmark 10-year study that will include in its investigations the long-term health effects of vaping on young people’s health.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that misperception of the harms of vaping is of concern; I take that point. Vaping absolutely can play a role in helping adult smokers to quit, as we have discussed, but children should not be vaping and nor should non-smokers. We are committed to carefully considering the scope of restrictions, to avoid unintended consequences and the misperception of harms, which is an area for further work.

We also fund a vaping expert panel, which provides valuable guidance for trading standards professionals on the enforcement of regulations. Under many of the powers in the Bill there is a requirement to consult before making regulations and, on 8 October, we published a call for evidence on issues where more evidence is needed before we can consult on specific proposals. We will monitor the impacts of measures brought in by the Bill and subsequent regulations. We will also be able to update regulations in future to ensure that policy is responsive to evolving evidence, should this be necessary.

It is our view that we have access to appropriate expert advice, which I know is the noble Lord’s intention, and we will consider the best available evidence in making regulations. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to the debate. It is both helpful and timely at the conclusion of Committee to have exactly this debate. In a funny way, perhaps we should have had it at the beginning, because it helped to fill out some of the details of the ways in which the evidence base for the vaping and nicotine product regime will be assessed and understood.