Resistant Hypertension

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can indeed give the commitment to my noble friend that NHS England is currently reviewing the clinical evidence for the commissioning of renal denervation treatment, and recommendations are expected next year.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, while innovative treatments have an important role, uncontrolled high blood pressure remains one of the leading drivers of stroke, heart attacks and kidney failure. What work are the Government undertaking to improve prevention and management of high blood pressure, particularly in communities with the highest prevalence and the poorest outcomes?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right in what she says. This is a largely preventable condition and requires much movement from treatment to prevention, as the noble Baroness said. That means bearing down on certain lifestyle factors and encouraging people to seek to give up smoking, or not to take it up in the first place; to tackle obesity and support people in that; and to reduce alcohol consumption. It is important to note that identifying it at an early stage is crucial, because it allows us not only to support lifestyle changes but, where necessary, to provide medical intervention.

NHS: Dementia Treatment Trials

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We do indeed, and I certainly agree with the noble Baroness. A timely diagnosis is absolutely vital to make sure that people with dementia can access everything they need, live well and remain independent for as long as possible. We are committed to recovering the dementia diagnosis rate to the national figure of 66.7%, and as of 31 March the figure stood at 66.3%. That is an increase from the time before and we will continue, through developing the modern service framework, to drive that upwards.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, dementia is projected to reach 1.4 million people by 2040, yet Alzheimer’s Research UK reports that up to 45% of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed. Will the Government commit to a national dementia public awareness campaign to support risk reduction and healthier ageing?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Encouraging people to age well and healthily is indeed part of our whole drive in terms of prevention and moving away from sickness. As part of this, it is absolutely crucial that we have the NIHR and UKRI, which are the relevant arms of our health service where we are investing in that dementia research. Causes, diagnostics and prevention in order to get treatment, care and support, as the noble Baroness says, are absolutely crucial. I would include carers in that too.

Prostate Cancer Screening: AI

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with the noble Lord. While we are ambitious about the benefits of AI and wish to embrace them, we are equally clear that safety, fairness and public trust have to come first. That means that the National Commission into the Regulation of AI in Healthcare, which was established by the MHRA, will review the current regulations and provide the recommendations for a new regulatory framework. I assure your Lordships’ House that AI always will support professionals, not replace accountability.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, AI has the potential to significantly improve options for patients, but this will be possible only if NHS staff have the right skills, time and infrastructure to be able to test and use such tools. How will the Government invest in staff to help drive this innovation and improve outcomes for patients?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is why we are publishing the workforce plan fairly soon, why we are building our cancer workforce and why we are creating new opportunities across multidisciplinary teams. Certainly, the use of AI is absolutely key, and we are, not least, working closely with the Royal College of Radiologists.

Integrated Care Boards: Budgets

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord actually outlines our entire focus. In March this year, we published the neighbourhood health framework that will empower local leaders to develop and scale neighbourhood health. It is important to recognise that this is not just more of the same; this is actually a change. It is a major shift, as outlined in the 10-year health plan on the back of the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, that will mean that we can deliver what noble Lords rightly press me for: better patient-focused care, closer to home and with lower waiting times. That is the entire focus of the new arrangements. All the guidance and the targets that are set focus on that, which has not been the case previously.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Lib Dem Benches.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, since last year the number of patients waiting more than a year for basic community health services has shot up by a staggering 32%. What specific actions will the Government take to ensure that patients receive timely community health services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

In February 2025 we published an overview of core community health services, Standardising Community Health Services, in order that ICBs should not just bear it in mind but act on it when planning for their local populations. I know that noble Lords are aware of this, but I often remind myself that ICBs are the best place to ensure that local health services meet the needs of local people. To assist the noble Baroness, we have also set very clear ambitions in our medium-term planning framework that mean that, by 2028-29, at least 80% of community health service activity should take place within 18 weeks, which would bring it in line with targets for elective care.

Compassionate Use Medicine Schemes: VAT

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

It is important to say, first, that this is not a new policy. There is recognition that while early access and compassionate use programmes are crucial, they are voluntary for pharma companies, which are aware, as I say, that VAT is applicable in these instances; it has been in place for decades. To be brief in answering the questions, first, I am not aware of the second issue that the noble Lord raised with regard to discussions—this is a totally different matter, in any case. Secondly, we are working closely with pharma companies, patients and anybody else who needs to be involved to find a sensible solution on this long-standing policy, which I understand was particularly discovered in 2023 by HMRC—so we are dealing with it from then. I have forgotten the third question, but I would be happy to write—oh, I know it. Yes, we always look at where revenue can be used, in a generic sense, but what matters here is that is not new. It was discovered in 2023, and it is entirely up to pharma companies—to which we are most grateful for the compassionate use of medicines, I should add—whether they wish to do it.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, compassionate use and early access schemes are often the only way for patients with rare cancers to access life-extending medicines. What assurance can the Minister give that HMRC’s approach to VAT will not result in patients losing access to these vital treatments? What discussions about the impact has the department had with cancer charities?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Cancer charities are important in this area, and we are certainly engaging with them; they are very invested partners. I understand why people are concerned. This is not instead of the NHS. NHS medicines are provided on the advice and guidance of NICE, and that absolutely continues. As I say, what we need to do, and what we will do, is work with everyone concerned to find a solution quickly, because we want to support the pharma companies that continue to donate what are very important medicines.

Miscarriage Care

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve miscarriage care and support.

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

My Lords, miscarriage can have a devastating impact on women and their families, and we are determined that they receive the support they need. We committed in the women’s health strategy to improve care for women, including carefully considering the graded model of care for repeated miscarriage. The National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce will develop the national action plan to improve maternity and neonatal safety and experiences, and it will follow the pending recommendations of the independent investigation by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

There are around 250,000 miscarriages in the UK every year. Following the recent Tommy’s Graded Model of Miscarriage Care report, will the Government now review the specific requirement for women to experience three miscarriages before being able to access the support that could help prevent another loss?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is an extremely important area, and I acknowledge very much that the current situation is not working for women or their families. To emphasise, we very much welcome the report from Tommy’s miscarriage centre at Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital, which is about the effectiveness of its piloted model of sporadic or recurrent miscarriage care. I visited them when I first took office and was very taken by their work. I am glad they have reported, and, as confirmed in the women’s health strategy, we shall be looking very closely at this. It will deal with and refer to the point the noble Baroness makes.

Healthy Life Expectancy: England

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I recognise the noble Lord’s point. We are certainly seeking to give individuals the ability to grasp the opportunity to live well for longer and to support them in their choices. For example, in addition to the points I made to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, we are working on restricting volume price promotions such as “buy three for the price of two” offers on less healthy food and drink.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, given that the UK is an outlier compared to similar countries, what work are the Government doing to introduce proactive, preventive health measures, such as routine health MOTs for people, to try to reverse this trend?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Baroness to her Front Bench on the important matter of health and social care. I am most grateful for her question. We have to be ambitious, which is what the 10-year health plan is doing, in transforming how we tackle the biggest causes of ill health. We are going to take a whole-society approach and a whole-person approach, rather than dealing just with conditions. To the points made earlier, we will be working with individuals—as in the public—and in partnership with business and civil society.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Face-to-face, physically co-present assessments that are not mediated by technology should probably be the norm in the Bill. Where there is a remote assessment, a recording of it should be required, as that will be essential for auditing and quality control, as well as in the event of any legal challenge later. This group of amendments should be considered together and reworked and we should come back to them on Report.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, it is essential that, as we debate this group of amendments, we keep in mind the fact that the systems that we are creating are for people in the last six months of their lives. We must balance the demands that we place on them at this very vulnerable time with what really matters to them during that time. We should stop talking about microprocess and start really thinking about the individual. In her evidence to the House of Lords inquiry in November, Dr Jessica Young said that

“a system that is too onerous creates stress among the people it aims to serve”.

We must not create a system that is too complex and too protracted for someone who is at the end of their life to deal with.

We have made incredible progress in recent years on facilitating video consultations. That came on hugely in the pandemic. Are we not in danger of taking a retrograde step with these amendments? I fear in particular that we in this House must be careful about standing in the way of technological process. Reading some of these amendments, I wonder whether people might want to add in that we write with feather quills and ink, because it seems that that is what this is really about.

Amendment 65 would mandate a whole range of steps beyond clinical assessments to be undertaken face to face. It also seems to disapply the flexibility provided in the Bill with regards to the person meeting the panel. Is it the intention of this amendment that a person who cannot travel to appointments, whether physically or because of the risk of infection, must be denied a choice over how they die? These amendments will affect hugely those who live in rural areas and far from their GP, let alone a hospital with a relevant specialist. They will affect those whose immune systems have been compromised as a result of extensive chemotherapy and those whose mobility is affected by their terminal illness and who find it impossible to travel. Are we not at risk of denying access to these people when such challenges are not unusual, given the nature of what they are experiencing with their terminal illness? Is it the intention that someone who is, for practical medical reasons, unable to meet the independent advocate or the panel, but is able and willing to do so via video link, will immediately be ineligible even if they fulfil all the other criteria? It is difficult to see a basis on which that can be justified.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I am coming to the end of my speech; I do not think I have to take an intervention, so I would like to finish my point.

It seems to me that this is about making the choice of an assisted death difficult or impossible. We need to think carefully about the checks that we are putting in place for people in the last six months of their lives. We need to make sure that the system really will work for them.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we should thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Gerada and Lady Pidgeon, for raising important counters to a lot of these contributions, because it is important that we do not fetishise face-to-face communication as infallible. It offers no guarantee that comprehension happens, that people listen and that there is no misunderstanding. We should know that because we sit face to face in this Committee every Friday and goodness knows it has not guaranteed much of that.

I have put my name to several of the amendments in this group because, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, just said about how we must make this as easy as possible for people with six months to live, the Bill’s sponsors have rightly built the need for eligibility into the Bill. You cannot just wander in and say, “I’ve got six months to live, get rid of me”; you have to pass the eligibility assessment. We are trying to work out whether face to face as the default would be a better way of guaranteeing that there is no abuse, which is reasonable.

I remember the ITV documentary referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in which I heard the Bill’s sponsor in the other place, Kim Leadbeater, admit that she was uncomfortable with what has been labelled “death by Zoom”—the model that she was watching in Oregon. Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said, it was actually Kim Leadbeater who rightly noted that it looked too much like a tick-box exercise. We need to be wary of anything that goes in that direction, but, because this is what I saw in that documentary, I expected a basic requirement in the Bill for face-to-face assessment, except in exceptional circumstances. So I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to respond on why the Bill still permits so many encounters with doctors, including the panel, to be conducted remotely, meaning that somebody may access assisted death without having seen a doctor face to face. One might pause on that, at least.

Despite the virtues of telemedicine, of which there are many—we can all see the reasons why, on occasion, it is important, just as we all use Zoom for meetings and so on—this is a question of whether it is superior and whether it can be relied on. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, gave a vivid example in response to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in which she said, “At least the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, knows what it is like to be the doctor doing the consultation”. Well, some of us know what it is like to be the patient on the other end of it. To be honest, it is not always a case of “trust the expert” and all that, because there absolutely may be crossed wires, hanging around, frustration and all sorts of things going wrong.

Professor Martin Vernon, who chairs the ethics and law special interest group at the British Geriatrics Society, said:

“Assessing somebody remotely, digitally, without a face-to-face assessment, particularly if they have complex health and social care needs, is nigh-on impossible”.


There is something in that, too, which we should consider. Non-face-to-face Zoom or phone encounters are particularly challenging for certain groups, such as people with communication difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, reminded us of the issues for people with hearing difficulties in our debate on a previous group. We all know that there are difficulties of language.

Of course, older people are likely to make up the majority of those being assessed for assisted dying. Without wanting to caricature oldies as being technically illiterate—although there is a smidgen of truth there—there is something else to consider. Older people sometimes present their best selves on the phone. They put on their best voice. There is nothing wrong with that, but they chat away as though everything is fine and, even on Zoom, they sit there looking their best.

However, when you see them face to face—I am not now talking about a doctor assessing them—they are dishevelled, pale and frail. Something else happens. Because the assisted dying decision involves highly emotional and existential issues, purely remote assessments potentially undermine the relational aspects of care that will help ensure that decisions are well considered and autonomously made. We have to think about those direct, personal interactions. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is right: these are the last six months of your life—allegedly; that is what you have been told. People are vulnerable, distressed and not quite sure. All these amendments are suggesting is that it would possibly be better to see the doctor. If you cannot get there, that is all fine, nobody is being inhumane; but the doctor sees you and assesses what is going on. It is a necessary if not sufficient way of establishing the eligibility criteria.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, talked about how this might be appropriate for online legal proceedings. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is aware of the evidence on the use of video links in court proceedings and trials. In Transform Justice’s survey of court users, 70% of respondents said that it was difficult to recognise whether someone who was on video had a disability, while 74% believed that those who had no legal representation were disadvantaged by appearing on video; in other words, the vulnerable always suffer in those instances.

The report similarly found that there were significant issues in assessing evidence and character. We can learn from other areas, but the main thing is that the default should be face to face. That should be in the Bill. I agree with Kim Leadbeater on that one—that is a headline. I do not understand why, Kim Leadbeater having noted that, it is not in the Bill. There should be exceptions if people are too ill, too far away or having a ball in Tenerife for their last six months. Yes, we get all that, but the default point is: face to face, where possible, as much as possible.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak at the end of this important and significant debate. I thank Kim Leadbeater MP and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for leading this significant Private Member’s Bill through Parliament. I must add that this is a free vote on these Benches, and I am therefore not speaking on behalf of my party.

We have heard passionate speakers on both sides of this debate and many Members flagging important issues they want to see looked at to ensure that processes work and safeguards are in place. I have every confidence that these will be addressed in Committee. I want to emphasise that I was particularly moved by the very personal stories last week from the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Alderdice. Throughout our lives we are able to make decisions about most things that affect us: where to live, what to eat, how to live your live, what to do each day, and so on. Yet the one thing we do not have any control over is our end of life.

When someone has been diagnosed with a terminal illness, I believe it is only right, with the necessary safeguards in place, for them to be able to choose at the right time and place for them to end their life. BBC News ran a very moving package earlier this year about a man in the United States. The gentleman was terminally ill but, having seen relatives die terrible, drawn-out deaths in significant pain, he wanted to die on his terms. The safeguards were strong; his family supported his wishes, and he died at home with his family around him as he had wanted. This should be a right here too.

As we have heard from others across this Chamber, this is already happening here now. Loved ones who are able to do so are travelling to Switzerland or staying at home and taking their own lives. This leaves behind devastation for their families, who pick up the pieces afterwards and are haunted by the experience. Like my colleagues in this House, I have been overwhelmed by the many personal letters and emails I have received from people across the country with their own stories; I thank each of them for taking the trouble to share their personal thoughts on this issue.

I am at an age where, in the past two years, I have lost my father-in-law and my mother-in-law to long, drawn-out illnesses. Sadly, my own mother has terminal cancer. I would have liked all of them to have had the option to decide whether they wanted the right moment for them to go to sleep and leave this world; I know that my father-in-law certainly wanted this. I do not want people to have to suffer in pain and discomfort, as many do now even with the palliative care services that exist. I stress that investment in palliative care services sits beside this legislation, not as an alternative.

This Bill is about improving health at a time of suffering. It is about being able to live with dignity and die with dignity. For those people with a terminal diagnosis, this is not a choice between life and death; it is a choice between death and death. Having some control over the dying process and being able to die on your own terms must be a right. I want people to have that choice, control and freedom.

This legislation has gone through line-by-line, rigorous scrutiny in the elected Chamber. On a free vote, our MPs voted for this Bill. It is not for this House to obstruct this legislation, which has been supported by elected Members of Parliament. I hope that this Chamber will play its proper role in reviewing the legislation without seeking to prevent the Bill moving forward. I support the right of individuals to choose their end of life, and I hope that this House will do the same.

Anti-depressants: Cost, Risks and Ramifications

Baroness Pidgeon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I assure the noble Lord that NICE keeps all its clinical guidance under active surveillance to ensure that it can respond to any new evidence that is relevant, including relevant clinically related literature, that could possibly impact on its recommendations. More broadly, guidance recommends that suicidal ideation should be monitored in people with depression who are receiving treatment, particularly in the early weeks of treatment. That includes specific recommendations on medication for people at risk of suicide.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, a study in 2019 found that a third of women were prescribed anti-depressants by their GP to combat symptoms of the menopause. What are the Government’s current assessment of this situation and of adherence to NICE guidance in this area? If the Minister does not have full details to hand, perhaps she can write to me.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I would be very pleased to write further to the noble Baroness. This is a very important point about support for women during the menopause. However, a prescription is made only after discussion with the patient about it and other alternatives, and the clinician has to follow and comply with the guidelines. Patient choice is absolutely key here. Every individual is an individual, and only what is appropriate should be prescribed—if needed.