Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, some concerns about the order have been drawn to my attention, so I have a few questions for the noble Baroness. Pharmacy technicians, on entry to the register, have an NVQ 3 qualification, which is equivalent to two A-levels. By contrast, pharmacists have a level 7 qualification, a master’s degree, which is a different basic training, with pharmacists obviously having much greater scientific and clinical knowledge. There is a worry that large pharmacy corporations could create pressure or targets which result in pharmacy technician supervision replacing pharmacist supervision for financial gain, which could put patients at greater risk because of the knowledge gap between the pharmacist and the pharmacy technician.

With 16% of 237 million drug errors annually being due to dispensing errors, I ask the Minister, who will, after all, be legally responsible in the event of any patient harm, why supervision is not defined in legislation or in the draft SI. I could not find any evidence of definition. The noble Baroness said in her introduction that pharmacists would be required to make a clinical check, but I cannot see that in the order.

I understand that, in the government consultation, 58% of all respondents and 76% of pharmacist respondents opposed allowing pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to supervise the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply of prescription-only medicines in pharmacies. Also, 51% of respondents and 65% of pharmacists disagreed with allowing pharmacy technicians to supervise the preparation, assembly and dispensing of medicines at hospital aseptic facilities in the way that pharmacists do under current law.

That generates a few questions. First, what is in place to prevent any one pharmacist—for example, one working centrally across a chain of stores—writing an authorisation for large groups of pharmacy technicians on the register to supervise medicines preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply from, potentially, every pharmacy on the register, implying indirect supervision en masse? If this cannot be done in a single authorisation, could any one pharmacist write multiple authorisations to the same effect? Is it correct that an authorisation can be made without the explicit consent of the technician, and that, once made, it can be withdrawn or varied only by the pharmacist who gave it? If that is correct, individual pharmacists in pharmacies would be powerless to withdraw the authorisation if they were not the one who gave it, even if they were the pharmacist on the premises and had concerns. It seems that, even if the on-site pharmacist was not the one who issued the authorisation, they might be liable for something that occurred but which they were powerless to prevent. It just does not seem clear enough; that is the reason for my questions.

The government website states:

“Although the presence of a pharmacist in retail pharmacy is not explicitly stated in law, section 70(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 requires that a responsible pharmacist must be in charge of what happens at a retail pharmacy. This means, in law, the ‘physical presence’ of a pharmacist is inferred”.


Can the Minister confirm whether this inference is drawn from the responsible pharmacist regulations 2008, which have been revoked? The General Pharmaceutical Council’s rules are expected to allow for a pharmacist to be absent from a pharmacy, and for a pharmacist to be responsible for more than one pharmacy and, therefore, not physically present in all of them. How will authorisations be tracked so that a local pharmacist can know whether a given authorisation is current or has been withdrawn orally or in writing or varied? The authorisation could have been given by a different person, on a different date and on different premises.

It looks as if a pharmacy technician can hold two or more different authorisations—one of which could be oral, which may be useful in times of emergency or great pressure—but this order requires either verbatim recording or video recording at the time, stating either a date of expiry or that this overrides the previous authorisation. What happens if authorisations conflict? How will a conflict be resolved if, for example, one pharmacist allows the supply of certain drugs and another prohibits it?

This brings me briefly to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which, in its current form, provides sweepingly extensive powers for the Secretary of State to amend the entirety of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and to make regulations regarding the preparation, assembly and supply of lethal substances —particularly in Section 37(4). This could allow pharmacy technicians to supervise, prepare, assemble and supply highly toxic lethal mixtures. Many medicines are incompatible when taken together, which is a concern.

I apologise for the complexity of the questions and the confusion that this order has provoked.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in this debate. First, I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Only last week, I met the Company Chemists’ Association, which very much endorses this order. This morning, I chaired a round table on vaccinations, which showed quite clearly that, if community pharmacies are able to execute vaccinations on a widespread basis, their other work in terms of dispatching and gathering together prescriptions can be done by fully regulated pharmacy technicians.

However, I take on board the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in respect of qualifications and the wide gap in those qualifications. There are also issues to do with terminally ill adults and medication and prescriptions, particularly around contraindications. If that happens, it could have severe consequences for the patient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate. I noted the discussion between noble Lords about whether they could agree with several noble Lords at one time; the answer is yes because I can do so, too. I feel that the questions asked will shine a useful light.

I am grateful for the support that this order has received and for the understanding that it is about releasing capacity and meeting what people need these days, as compared to the situation in 1933—or, indeed, at any time since then. This is about our move from hospital to community; our reliance on and welcoming of the whole pharmacy sector; and what that sector can bring to us. This sector is a tremendously important part of our National Health Service and allows us to provide services when, where and how we need them; I add my thanks to pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and their professional bodies for their work in this area. I hope that, overall—I picked this point up—noble Lords will see that this order is about supporting pharmacy services, supporting patients and cutting the red tape that frustrates both the sector and those who use it.

I turn to the specific questions asked by noble Lords; I will of course be glad to write if I do not manage to address any of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised concerns about the order, particularly in respect of pharmacy technicians’ qualifications. Let me say at the outset—this is quite a good framing, really—that pharmacists are of course absolutely critical in delivering pharmaceutical services, but the fact is that they cannot deliver without a dedicated team. That is what we are building on.

Pharmacy technicians are ready for these changes. Their training and expertise enable them to take responsibility for many activities that would previously have been the sole responsibility of the pharmacist. I can certainly say that post-registration training and professional guidance will be supporting these changes into practice. I say this to noble Lords: the answer to a number of the questions that have been legitimately asked is the professional guidance, because, as I know noble Lords will understand, this cannot all be laid out in legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about definitions in respect of clinical checks. Let me start by talking about the professional guidance, which will set out what the pharmacist’s role is to be—including when and how there will be a need for a clinical check. It is important to say that the sector wanted pharmacy technicians to be able to work autonomously; that falls outside what “supervision” traditionally means. Therefore, we are introducing a second form of delegation, which will allow pharmacists to authorise a pharmacy technician to undertake or supervise dispensing activities without the need for direct supervision by the pharmacist. We are aware that we need to give the sector the legal clarity that noble Lords have asked for with regard to what “supervision” means in this context; I can refer noble Lords to a detailed annexe that was published alongside the consultation, but the point is well made.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised various questions in respect of what I will refer to as indirect supervision en masse and the need for a responsible pharmacist. So let me give the reassurance that these proposals do not remove supervision or change the legal requirement that a responsible pharmacist must be signed in at a registered premises when dispensing activities are taking place and when open to the public. We have stressed at every stage of formulating this policy our commitment to maintaining the legal requirement that noble Lords are rightly concerned about, whereby every community pharmacy must have a pharmacist on the premises.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked why there is a reference to “any member of staff”. The reason is that pharmacists will be able to authorise any member of staff to hand out checked and bagged prescriptions but they must be authorising only staff who are trained, competent and confident to undertake a task. There will be updated professional standards and guidance to ensure that good governance supports the safe implementation of these changes in practice. Therefore, it could not be, for example—the noble Lord might have had this in mind—an assistant in a supermarket who happens to be working in the pharmacy. That would not meet what is required. Again, that is an important point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked how authorisations will be tracked and what happens if there is conflict. I go back to my opening comments that practice matters cannot be set out in law. They will be addressed in professional standards and guidance, as I have said. That will be set by the regulators and professional leadership bodies to support the implementation of these changes into practice, and we look forward to working with those bodies. That should include professional expectations for record-keeping requirements when an authorisation is given. Training is to make clear to all staff—I return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—that they need to follow standard operating procedures for when the authorisation is given, when they should consult the pharmacist and when a supply should not go ahead. That will all be part of that.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about matters relating to Northern Ireland. As I mentioned, when pharmacy technicians become a registered profession in Northern Ireland, which is expected by April 2027, we will work with the Northern Ireland Department of Health to enact the other changes as soon as possible.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Merron for that helpful information. Initially, up-and-running pharmacy technicians were to be registered by 2025. Why the two-year delay in terms of Northern Ireland? Maybe she would be so good as to ask Minister Nesbitt.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I cannot give a specific answer, but I will be pleased to write to my noble friend and other noble Lords about the timetable rather than land Minister Nesbitt in it in any way, which I would never wish to do. But I can give the assurance to noble Lords that officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in Northern Ireland, and the measures we are talking about have been developed in collaboration with the devolved Governments and the four chief pharmaceutical officers across the UK. I hope that will be helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about a focus on improved training before the regulations. Pharmacy technicians undertake two years of focused training in clinical settings, and they can provide clinical and dispensing services that are appropriate to their level of training at the point of registration. However, additional post-registration training is widely available to support technicians to prepare for these new roles. Assurance is also provided by the annual revalidation for all pharmacy technicians across the country. If we combine this with robust standard operating procedures and professional guidance, it will provide a clear frame- work to ensure that pharmacists can be confident to authorise pharmacy technicians to carry out, or to supervise others carrying out, activities while ensuring patient safety, which is at the heart of this, as well as service.

HIV: Testing and Medical Care

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Although I cannot answer specifically, I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord about what information is in pharmacies. I know the noble Lord will appreciate, as your Lordships’ House has welcomed, the greater use of pharmacies, not least because they are more accessible for those who otherwise would be disadvantaged.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, HIV testing rates are vital. When the Minister meets the devolved Ministers for the nations and regions, particularly the Minister for Health in Northern Ireland, I ask that she talks to them about this important area, with particular reference to Positive Life Northern Ireland, which is a voluntary body doing enormously good work with those with HIV. It received a shortage of funding, or did not receive funding, from the department this year.

Alzheimer’s Disease

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure all people with Alzheimer’s disease have access to a timely and accurate diagnosis to improve access to care and quality of life.

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

My Lords, in the 10-year plan we announced that we would deliver the first ever modern service framework for frailty and dementia to reduce unwanted variation and narrow inequality in diagnosis and care for those living with dementia. It will set national standards and redirect NHS priorities to provide the best care and support, which will be central, along with access to a timely and accurate diagnosis.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but I will press her a little further. According to Alzheimer’s Research UK, one in three people in the UK living with dementia currently do not have a diagnosis. Unlike other major conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, dementia does not have national waiting time targets. Therefore, what plans do the Government have to introduce an 18-week referral to treatment target to give those people with dementia, and their carers and families, parity with other conditions?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

In our development of the modern service framework for frailty and dementia we are engaging with a wide group of partners, because we need to understand what should be included to ensure the best outcomes. I hope my noble friend will welcome that we are going to be considering what interventions should be supported to improve diagnosis waiting times—which are, I certainly agree, too long in many areas. In addition, we are considering all the options to help reduce variation, including reviewing metrics and targets, as my noble friend refers to.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus: Vaccination Programme

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of the respiratory syncytial virus vaccination programme in ensuring all infants receive an equitable offer of protection from the virus.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for being present to respond to this debate; the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on the Opposition Benches, who used to be the Minister responding to my questions and debates on these issues; and the Government Whip, who also used to respond to some of my questions.

RSV is a major public health threat, and vaccination is a key tool to combat the risk to infants. Each year, thousands of infants and older adults are hospitalised, causing pain and distress to families and significant costs to the NHS and productivity. Vaccination against respiratory syncytial virus is proven to significantly reduce the risk of RSV-related lower respiratory illness and to minimise potential disease progression and complications.

The UK was one of the first countries in the world to recommend and implement a maternal and adult national immunisation programme when it was rolled out across the nations and regions in September last year. The two programmes have been widely hailed as significant successes, both achieving higher than expected uptake. The RSV vaccine has been offered to pregnant women in England since September 2024 to address the significant burden of RSV-related illness, hospitalisations and deaths, particularly among infants under six months of age and older adults who are at increased risk.

The latest government data for RSV vaccine coverage of pregnant women in England is encouraging. Of the 37,328 women reported as having given birth in the survey month of April 2025, 54% had received the vaccine. The highest coverage was reported in the south-east, with 63.4%, and the lowest in London, with 44.8%. Coverage also varied by ethnic group: the highest coverage was reported among the “other ethnic groups— Chinese”, with 70.6%, and the lowest was among the “Black of Black British-Caribbean” category, with 25.6%.

The UK’s maternal RSV vaccination programme is already delivering positive results for patients and the health system, supported by emerging real-world data from other countries. Recent UK data published on the immediate impact of RSV vaccination is very encouraging, both for the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing sickness and in alleviating hospital pressures—a key priority for the Government and the health system.

A preprint study from Public Health Scotland reported vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated hospitalisation of 82.91%, averting an estimated 228 cases of RSV-related LRTI hospitalisation in infants aged greater than 90 days. Estimates from the BronchStop clinical research group highlight vaccine effectiveness of 72% against RSV-associated hospitalisation for infants whose mothers were vaccinated more than 14 days before delivery.

It is interesting to note the positive data from Argentina. Alongside the UK, it was one of the first countries to roll out the programme. This data adds further weight to the benefit of maternal vaccination against RSV, with similarly positive effectiveness against severe disease, hospitalisation and deaths.

The analysis estimates that just over £14 million of the £80 million annual cost is due to productivity losses and about £1.5 million to out-of-pocket costs incurred by parents or carers. The remaining £65 million is healthcare costs, including 467,230 GP visits and 33,937 hospitalisations per year in the UK for children aged under five with RSV.

The data on the impact of the older adult programme is also positive, highlighting the benefit to individuals, the NHS and the economy. The burden of RSV in older adults is equally significant. Each year in the UK there are approximately 3.6 million cases of RSV in adults, leading to an estimated 600,000 GP visits, 460,000 NHS 111 calls and 24,000 hospitalisations. The annual cost to the NHS of looking after adult patients with RSV is considerable.

The early data from the RSV programme is positive but now is a critical time to focus on uptake across all vaccine programmes to help reverse the trend in declining uptake. Although these very early successes must be celebrated, they also must be set against the background of a concerning dip in uptake across many other childhood and adult vaccination programmes, an issue already identified by the Royal College of Paediatrics.

Therefore, we should be reinforcing our shared public health goal of continuing to ensure vaccinations are widely available and doubling down on efforts to ensure they reach everyone. I was deeply concerned at the weekend to learn that there was a doctor from the United States speaking at the Reform conference, denying and decrying vaccinations and vaccines, which I thought was totally irresponsible.

The gap in uptake between the highest and lowest geographical areas in the UK for maternal RSV, and the significant differences in coverage by ethnic group, highlight the urgent need to improve uptake where it falls well below expectations. Extra care and attention must also be given to those who may have valid questions about vaccination, particularly newer vaccines. According to the latest UKHSA figures, none of the main maternal and childhood vaccines in England reached the WHO target of 95% in 2024-25.

This follows hard on the heels of findings published recently that showed one in five children will start primary school without protection against diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. In response to questions about the worrying fall in uptake across vaccine programmes, Minister Dalton cited a lack of access as a key challenge preventing eligible people taking up vaccines; that was considered to be one of the impediments. The ambition of the 10-year plan to enable healthcare to be delivered closer to where people live can only be a good thing for vaccine uptake, particularly if this means vaccination can be delivered across a range of settings, from GP practices to pharmacies, and via midwives for maternal vaccination programmes such as RSV, which is fast becoming an exemplar case.

As we approach a year since the launch of the RSV programme, we must continue to ensure uptake improves to support public health, help minimise the burden on our health system and to minimise the financial impact on parents, carers and employers. In this regard, I am very concerned that there is an equitable distribution and an equitable accessibility to those vaccines for all parents, particularly with infants.

Therefore, I have certain questions for the Minister. First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that all infants are able to access protection going into their first winter respiratory season, including those who were born too early for maternal antibodies to transfer and infants whose mothers choose to not participate in the maternal vaccination programme?

Secondly, what steps are the Government and the NHS taking to avoid exacerbating inequalities by reducing the current variation in uptake of the maternal vaccination programme across regions and ethnic groups? Finally, will my noble friend the Minister commit to ensuring that comprehensive real world data is systematically collected and analysed from the maternal RSV programme, and will she outline the steps that the department will take to use this evidence when shaping future health policy and immunisation strategies?

I would like to thank the Minister for being here this evening to respond. I look forward to her answers and an update on accessibility and—shall we say—equal accessibility to those RSV vaccines for children and infants throughout the UK.

Suicide Reduction

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the rate of suicide.

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

My Lords, our Plan for Change clearly commits to a renewed focus on preventing suicides. We know that one-third of all suicides are committed by people who are in contact with mental health services, and our new 10-year health plan sets out how we will strengthen and improve those services. We are committed to delivering an ambitious cross-government suicide prevention strategy to extend our reach, and recently published the new Staying Safe from Suicide guidance.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. Wednesday 10 September is World Suicide Prevention Day; can my noble friend give the House further assurances that the Government are intent on delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England and the implementation of the ambitions contained therein? Will the Government work with civil society, including charities such as the Samaritans—which is currently subject to some restructuring—to ensure that suicide prevention is an integral part of the delivery of the NHS 10-year plan, to which the Minister has already referred?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be able to provide the assurances that my noble friend seeks. I reiterate our commitment to implementing the strategy. My colleagues and I continue to work closely with our trusted partners in civil and voluntary society and elsewhere. The Secretary of State will be joining the Samaritans this week at their World Suicide Prevention Day event. I am also pleased that the e-learning module from NHS England’s Staying Safe from Suicide guidance, which I mentioned earlier, will be launched later this week.

Creon

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the shortage of Creon, a cancer medication, reported by the National Pharmacy Association, and what steps they plan to take to prevent similar shortages in future.

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

My Lords, while some supply constraints remain, predominantly with the higher-strength product, Creon stock is regularly being delivered to pharmacies. Alternative products and unlicensed imports are also available. Guidance has been issued to the NHS on prescribing available alternatives and utilising serious shortage protocols to limit quantities dispensed, with actions for integrated care boards to ensure that patients are not left without Creon or an alternative. We continue to work on the long-term supply resilience of Creon.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but there are some suggestions that pharmacies are struggling to obtain this important medication, which addresses pancreatic enzyme therapy. Given the struggles that pharmacies are facing, could my noble friend the Minister therefore outline what consideration has been given by the Government to provide a national plan to address shortages and to support patients with alternative care? What approval would be given to highly trained pharmacists to use their professional judgment to supply alternative medicines, where that is medically safe and appropriate, in the event of the prescribed version being unavailable to ensure that patients can enjoy longer, healthier lives?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can say to my noble friend that serious shortage protocols are a tool that we have and use to manage and mitigate medicine and medical devices shortages. They enable community pharmacists to supply a specified medicine or device in accordance with a protocol rather than a prescription, with the patient’s consent, without needing to seek authorisation from the prescriber. They are used in cases of serious shortage, and we develop those protocols with input from expert clinicians. In addition, we are currently examining options around pharmacists’ flexibilities, including how any risks could be managed, and further details will be set out on this. I hope this gives some reassurance to my noble friend.

Dementia and Alzheimer’s Treatments

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand the point the noble Lord is making; I was glad to have the chance of a discussion with him yesterday. I also thank him for his campaigning on such an important matter. I share his view about the need to ensure speed and efficacy. To that point, I say to him that since March this year, as part of the regulation action plan, NICE and the MHRA have been building on the systems we already have in place to make sure that there is rapid access. To prepare for a new generation of dementia treatments, NHS England is working closely with regulators to ensure that arrangements are in place to support the adoption of any new licensed and NICE-recommended treatments as soon as possible. As the noble Lord will understand, it is important that we have the right treatments that do the job and are available. On some of the more recent ones, I understand the disappointment, but the fact is that no disease-modifying treatments are currently available. However, science is developing, and I am sure we will discuss this further.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, more than 150 treatments are in the Alzheimer’s medicine pipeline. Can I encourage the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, to take all steps to ensure that the UK remains globally competitive as a centre for dementia clinical trials?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very important point. In terms of trials, I will certainly be signing up—and I encourage noble Lords and their friends and families to do likewise—to Join Dementia Research, which is a collaboration between NIHR and a number of excellent charities, including the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Scotland, to take part in trials. There is no need to be a particular age or to have a diagnosis of dementia. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting this endeavour.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this legislation and am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for outlining the rationale for the Bill. I support the principles, which I believe we should all embrace. We have had a very interesting debate this evening, ebbing and flowing between those who totally embrace those principles and the libertarians who have certain reservations. I think people are generally united on the viewpoint that there should be some way to deal with smoking and the side-effects of smoking and vaping.

I am also grateful to Asthma + Lung UK and the BMA for their briefings. I come with a personal testimony as well. Both my late mum and my late cousin had lung cancer. Neither of them smoked, but they were exposed to passive smoking because in all public arenas—some 40, 30, 20 and even 15 years ago—there was a lot of public smoking.

As this legislation extends to all of the UK, I want to give a Northern Ireland-specific viewpoint. This legislation was given consent by the Northern Ireland Assembly on 10 February. To ensure that the legislation is meaningful and given its best chance, I urge my noble friend the Minister to encourage the Minister for Health in Northern Ireland to introduce lung screening. It does not exist on a scheduled basis in Northern Ireland but is vital, as it can look for a cancer or other lung-related disease in a person long before they have developed all the various symptoms. There is growing evidence supporting the benefits of early detection. Although screening and research projects are under way, a fully funded and implemented programme has yet to be established. I therefore urge my noble friend to make contact with the Northern Ireland Minister, urging him to move from thinking about the issue to actually doing something about it. I have talked to consultant oncologists who deal specifically with lung cancer in Northern Ireland and they urgently want to see this lung screening implemented, because they believe that if it is implemented, they can deal with the disease in patients before it has reached such an advanced stage, when they have restricted means of dealing with it.

The statistics are there as evidence. Around 2,400 people die every year in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking-related conditions, and there are around 35,000 smoking-related hospital admissions in Northern Ireland annually. I join my friends from Northern Ireland, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Dodds, in asking to ensure that the enforcement measures in the Bill are made effective and capable of implementation, because in Clause 81 it is up to district councils. There are 11 district councils in Northern Ireland, and I would like to think that they were all on the same page and did not operate a variety of implementation enforcement schemes. It is important that the legislation is sufficiently mandatory to ensure that happens, because we want to eradicate disease and to ensure that everybody is on the same page and that the impact of smoking and of using tobacco and vapes is mitigated.

Finally, I ask that drastic funding cuts for smoking cessation services be reversed. Also like my friends from Northern Ireland, I suggest that not only enforcement but other measures to do with money laundering must be ensured. There must be work between all the law enforcement agencies, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to ensure that it does not happen. If people can purchase vapes and tobacco under the counter or by some other means, that will not help in dealing with disease eradication in the various cancers and emphysemas that are prevalent in Northern Ireland.

Pharmacy Opening Hours

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Baroness’s views. Indeed, community pharmacies in England are dispensing around 1.1 billion NHS medicines with a value of over £10 billion each year. Prescribing is of course a clinical decision. We are nevertheless keeping an eye on the situation, of course. What matters is that people seek help, and I am very glad to say that pharmacies are playing an increasing role in the availability of assistance, so people do not always have to go to GPs, particularly for some of the more common conditions.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that community pharmacies play a vital role in addressing NHS waiting lists through the administration of the vaccination programme—whether it is influenza or the Covid-19 vaccine—and thereby contribute to the reduction in the waiting lists that are faced by many hospitals throughout the UK? Will all efforts be made by government to ensure that the challenges faced by community pharmacies at present will be resolved in the near future?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with my noble friend’s point. I hope that she has noticed my enthusiasm for the role that pharmacies play. The introduction of Pharmacy First was a tremendous contribution to some common-sense approaches so that people who have common conditions can more immediately access services. Many of us will have experienced that. As I have said, we will conclude matters shortly and look forward to making the decision about future funding known ASAP.

Autism and Learning Disabilities: Hospital Detention

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Regrettably, that person’s experience is not a lone example. That is why, for example, the Mental Health Bill will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people, so that they can be detained under Section 2(3) only if they have a co-occurring mental disorder that requires hospital treatment. That is key because, in the times that we are talking about, people were detained just because of autism or a learning disability. That is not acceptable.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister and advise her that your Lordships’ House has a specialist committee that is dealing with the review of the Autism Act 2009. I encourage my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues, both in health and social care and in education, to undertake a review of that Act to ensure that it is fit for purpose, for the needs of autistic people.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the committee for its work and I am certainly looking forward to its report. The Government will respond to that report within two months. It is indeed vital work that is being undertaken.