NHS: Winter Preparedness

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Emergency Adrenaline

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[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.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the announcement of further industrial action by resident doctors is obviously deeply concerning. These strikes, which we now know will go ahead after all, will have a serious impact on the capacity of our health service to function at precisely the time of year when demand is at its highest. Resident doctors make up almost half the medical workforce, and NHS leaders have already warned that action will cause significant disruption.

We on these Benches agree with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care when he says that the BMA has clearly chosen to strike when it will cause maximum disruption, causing untold anxiety at the busiest point of the year. We agree with Rory Deighton, the acute and community care director of the NHS Confederation, who warned that, with the winter now upon us and rising levels of flu and staff sickness, pressure on services will be intense, with the likely consequence of

“thousands of cancelled appointments and operations”.

The impact of these strikes is compounded by the fact that NHS England has warned that it is bracing for an unprecedented flu wave this winter. In London alone, there are three times as many people hospitalised with flu compared to last year, with an average 259 hospital beds occupied each day, compared to just 89 a year ago. It is in this context that the CEO of the NHS described the BMA’s decision to strike in the run-up to Christmas as

“cruel and calculated to cause mayhem”.

There is a wider concern, shared by patients and families across the country. When the Government caved in to the BMA last year with an unconditional 29% pay settlement, noble Lords on all Benches warned that this would only incentivise the BMA to come back year after year with more demands. At the time, the Secretary of State brushed off these concerns and criticised those who raised this obvious observation, claiming that there would be no further strikes, no more cancellations and no more disruption. While we agree with the Health Secretary that this action by the BMA is cynical, strong words alone will not keep operating theatres open or ensure that patients receive their care in a timely manner. Appointments will still be postponed or cancelled, operations will be postponed and patients will suffer.

Now that the BMA membership has rejected the latest offer and is pressing ahead with further strikes, will the Minister lay out the Government’s plan? What additional resources have been made available to mitigate the serious disruption that these strikes will inflict? Given the combined pressures of flu and RSV, what steps are being taken to ensure that those who are eligible for vaccination actually receive it?

It appears that we are stuck in a downward spiral. Strikes are threatened, offers are rejected, strikes happen, misery is inflicted and then it is threatened all over again. If the Government do find a way of ending the threatened action, will they please do a couple of things? Will they make sure that it is conditional on updating work practices, to ensure that we have a more efficient health system? Many people who work in the health system know that some practices are out of date and have not moved on since the 1940s. Will they make sure that it does not incentivise the BMA to pocket any settlement and return next year threatening more strike action? The very uncertainty surrounding future militancy by the BMA is deeply damaging. It should be a matter of grave concern to the Government that the public seem not to have any confidence in the Government’s ability to keep doctors at work and keep the health service functioning.

As part of this, does the Minister recognise that the Government’s Employment Rights Bill risks making matters significantly worse next year? Will they think again about their rejection of minimum service levels to protect patients in the future? Finally, we know that the OBR has said that the cost of industrial action is a major risk to health spending. What estimate have the Government made of the cost of strike action in December, and will costs be paid using existing NHS budgets? As we know, the Chancellor often says there is no more money.

We are clear that these strikes must end and that the behaviour of the BMA is indefensible, but we must remember that it is not Ministers, unions or negotiators who will bear the cost of this action; it is patients and their families and loved ones. They deserve better. I am sorry to say that we are not yet convinced that the Government are on top of this and working to end the threat of these damaging strikes now and avoid incentivising future strikes in future years. I really hope that the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the Government have a plan.

[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.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

It is not an assumption. It is in the Bill that if the co-ordinating doctor is not the GP of the person seeking the assisted death, under Clause 10(3)(b)(ii) the co-ordinating doctor has to write to the GP practice to make it aware of the request.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I agree with that, but the point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rook, is to tie together a period of someone being in the National Health Service. I agreed with the comments made by the lawyers about “normally resident”, rather than other words. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill might consider that this amendment will give some confidence to those who had a concern because it means that “normally resident” has been underlined by the fact that someone has in fact been in a general practice of the National Health Service. I cannot see that it does any harm, given that there is a year in any case. It underlines what the noble Lord reminded us of: the idea that this should be a part of the normal way in which people are dealt with.

I do not like the Bill very much, but it is our job to make it work. To do that, it is more valuable to fix it within the National Health Service as we have it, rather than trying to invent a service that we might well like to have—and I am old enough to remember when we did have it. Let us not pretend, when things are not as they ought to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am trying to make some comments on the amendments. Let me do that and then, if I have time—I am very careful to keep my remarks to less than 10 minutes, which is the guidance in the Companion—I will address the noble Baroness’s points. She is right that, when I was Government Chief Whip, she was my opposition and we had a very good working relationship, which I want to continue in this House.

What has come out of the debate is a general view from everybody, whatever their view on the Bill, about the importance of the relationship that people have with their general practitioner, whether it is an individual or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, said, a multidisciplinary practice. That is a very important point. The amendments that have been tabled to Clause 1 are about the eligibility criteria for whether someone is able to make a request for an assisted death.

The flaw in the amendments—I support the idea behind them, but I do not support them—is that they do not make an appreciable difference to the safeguards in the Bill. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, made some remarks in this debate, he put his finger on it: there is no requirement in the Bill for the GP or the team at the GP practice to be the doctor who makes the assessment about whether the person has the capability to make this decision or not. That, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is the role of the co-ordinating doctor, who does not need to have any relationship with the patient at all.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, looked at this issue before, there was a report from the Demos assisted dying commission, which the noble and learned Lord chaired. Its recommendations recognised the need for

“a doctor who … knows the person well and supports the person and their family”.

The report also said that that doctor who knows the person can better assess whether the request to die is a cry for help, a sign of poor care or a result of coercion, and that

“if an assisted death was to go ahead, the first doctor should be responsible for arranging support for the patient and their family during and after the assisted death”.

It envisaged that

“the first doctor would have a greater level of involvement”

and

“an established relationship with the person requesting this assistance, and be familiar with their personal history and family context”.

That seemed to be the general view of all of the noble Lords who have spoken.

The problem is that there is no requirement in the Bill before us for the GP or multidisciplinary practice to be the co-ordinating doctor or even to be consulted before the co-ordinating doctor makes the first assessment. It is absolutely true, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, that, when the co-ordinating doctor has made the assessment, he or she has to send that to the GP practice. However, as the Bill is drafted at the moment, the role of the GP practice is to act as a postbox, log the report—I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, nodding—and pop it on somebody’s medical records. There is no requirement or duty on that GP practice to read the report, to make an assessment of the decision of the person with whom they have a relationship to die or to do anything about it at all. That is the flaw in this.

The problem with the amendments on the eligibility criteria that we are considering is that, if they were all adopted—this is an administrative point—they would not ensure that that knowledgeable individual or practice with whom the patient has a relationship has any role whatever in making this important decision, involving the family or consulting anybody at all. That is the flaw.

This has been a valuable debate because I think it has demonstrated—and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, recognised in his earlier comments —that there was value in that relationship, and I am not surprised by that, given the conclusions that the commission he chaired came to, but the problem is that that is not reflected in the Bill at all.

If I may, I will conclude on this point before I address the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. Why we have these debates, and the reason for hearing from noble Lords with opinions, is because it highlights the flaws that exist in the Bill. The point of this process is that that then enables the sponsor of the Bill and all noble Lords to listen carefully to the debate and to bring forward improvements on Report.

I hope that, in his response, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will draw on the concerns that have been highlighted and can indicate his approach. If he is minded to bring forward amendments that deal with some of these things, that clearly means that other people do not need to. If he indicates he is not minded to do that, then other noble Lords can bring forward amendments to deal with it, which can then be debated and voted on at Report stage. That is the point of our process and why we debate these things in the Chamber: so that everybody can hear the debate and the points. It is a better way of improving the legislation than having lots of private discussions to which most of us are not party.

What I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I think there is a misconception by the noble Lord on how modern general practice works through the electronic patient record. If the report goes to a GP, like any report does, it is clinically coded, and there would be a flag on the patient’s electronic patient record that would indicate to the GP and anyone in that practice that an assisted death had been requested through the co-ordinating doctor. It would not, to use the noble Lord’s words, just be postboxed; it would be automatically registered on the electronic patient record, and a flag would come up for anyone in the GP practice to see what was happening.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

That is a very helpful intervention, and I absolutely accept that. I understand that that is the way it works. Certainly, with the way the NHS works now, you can go on to the NHS app, which many noble Lords may use, access your own patient record and see all those various notifications registered. He is absolutely right that a flag would be raised; the problem is that there is no requirement in the way the Bill is drafted at the moment for that GP practice to do anything as a result of that flag being raised—none at all. I think there should be. We can come on to that, as we progress through the Bill, when we get to Clause 10. That is the point I was trying to raise.

I do not want to go over my time, but I will deal briefly with the points by the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton. I agree with her. It is right that the House scrutinises the Bill properly. If you look at the number of days of debate in the House of Commons, I think there were 11 days in Committee. If you look at the normal way this House conducts itself—because we tend to do a more detailed level of scrutiny than the House of Commons—you would expect, as a rule of thumb, about 16 days of debate in Committee; then we normally have 50% of that on Report and at Third Reading. I do not disagree with her. It may be that this Bill requires more time, and that is clearly a discussion for the sponsor to have with the Government Chief Whip about making that time available. But I think the wrong response is for us to not do our jobs properly, not scrutinise the Bill and not make sure that it is a properly fit piece of legislation to get on to the statute book. That would be the wrong response. If we were to do that, we would be failing in our duty to legislate properly for the people of this country.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The noble Baroness will know that, at present, an 18 to 25 year-old with a terminal diagnosis has the legal capacity to withdraw consent to treatment. Do they go through a different capacity assessment from somebody who is over 25?

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am delighted that the noble Lord has asked me that question, because it reminds me of a patient I had. He was a young man with an advanced testicular tumour and had refused treatment. He was referred to me, and I looked after him for a couple of years, during the time that he became more and more ill with his metastatic disease. He consistently refused treatment. However, when he was moribund, and his parents had come in and were sitting at the bedside, he suddenly asked me, “Is it too late to change my mind and have treatment?” At that point, I was indebted to my local oncologist, who I phoned, and we arranged transfer that day to the Royal Marsden Hospital, which then treated him because that was his wish. My assessment every time I saw him was not to persuade him to have treatment but to allow him to talk about his fears and difficulties. That is the role of specialist palliative care when you are looking after these young people who are very vulnerable. I am simply suggesting that, due to the way the Bill is written, the assessments may not be adequate.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I listened to the noble Baroness’s individual case. My question was very specific. Is somebody who is 25 or over given a different mental capacity assessment based on their wish to withdraw treatment from somebody who is 18 to 25? That is the specific question based on what the noble Baroness is now suggesting happens in the Bill.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

The issue with the Mental Capacity Act is that each assessment must be done individually. It relates to the decision that is to be made, the size of the decision, the time and the personal characteristics. There is no absolute. If we are talking about safety in relation to the Bill and avoiding abuse, I am simply trying to suggest that one way forward may be to ensure that the assessment of young people’s eligibility is particularly thorough. That may mean having different criteria and looking at whether they have pain or suffering.

Supply of Blood and Blood Products

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to put on record my thanks for the collaborative spirit of the Minister and her officials when discussing the issue of community treatment orders.

This issue came about during the passage of the Bill, in the context of the balance between mandatory community treatment and deprivation of people’s freedom in the community; people who seemed always to be in the revolving door and could not get off a community treatment order; and in particular racial disparity.

The Minister has moved forward, and it really is about that balance between the power of the individual patient and the clinician. Where the Government have got to in discussions is a “stop and check” for the clinician—having to think about why the extension of the community treatment order is required. If the tribunal says that certain conditions of a treatment order should not be established or be part of a patient’s treatment, the clinician has to stop and think and will be mandated through the code of practice to explain why that happens.

I very much welcome the offer to consult both myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and involve us in redrawing the code of practice. It is important that within that code of practice, words such as “must” are used, rather than “may”, which would give the clinician the discretion to not write things down as much as is required when people’s freedom is being taken away.

Again, I thank the noble Baroness and her officials and look forward to getting that balance absolutely correct to stop the revolving door.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, officials and Members of the other House for Amendment 12, which will ensure the human rights of patients who are placed in the private sector under NHS contracts. Many of us were concerned about that, but the situation is completely resolved through Amendment 12.

Brain Tumours: Causes and Treatment

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I take the point the noble Lord makes, and I am sorry to hear of his son’s—and of course his family’s—experience. One of the things we are working on is increasing public awareness of brain cancer research opportunities. That is not quite the same as the point the noble Lord made, but extending that through the NIHR’s “Be Part of Research” initiative is important. The national cancer plan will give us the opportunity to review what communications and campaigns we run with the public. That will be a good opportunity to consider the point he makes.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, Georgie’s brother is Charlie Maynard MP, who has been campaigning on this. One of the issues raised is that in the UK it takes significantly longer to open a clinical trial for these patients than in most comparable nations, due to the excessive administrative burden. Will the Government therefore commit to looking at a fast-track designation for trials involving cancers with unmet needs, such as glioblastoma?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We certainly do need to cut more red tape on cancer treatments. For example, we recently accelerated patient access to ultrasound cancer treatment through our innovative devices access pathway pilot. That is just one way in which we will have the potential to help companies, which is crucial to bring game-changing cancer treatments to fruition and to NHS patients even faster.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I note that my former tutorial partner from Oxford was intervened on, or interrupted, for speaking for too long beyond 10 minutes. I shall endeavour still to be within 10 minutes despite having been doubly intervened on.

The report noted that the committee had not taken evidence from terminally ill people. I will leave it at that in terms of responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. However, we took evidence, as we were requested to do, on safeguarding and procedures, and, within the confines of a very brief committee, we took a wide range of evidence. Should we and could we have taken more? Absolutely, but within the confines of what we were able to do I think we did a job. I certainly did not at any point speak or vote against, or indeed take any view on, the idea that we should not take evidence from terminally ill people, so it is unfortunate that that has become a topic of debate.

The reason I rose to speak is that the question of capacity versus ability is hugely important. There are references throughout the Bill to the Mental Capacity Act, but to suggest that this one amendment is not appropriate is an unfortunate legal point. The amendment says that people should have the ability to make the decision, but “ability” reaches far beyond the narrow confines of the Mental Capacity Act. At various points in Committee, we will talk about capacity. The committee took evidence on capacity, and a key thing to bear in mind about the Mental Capacity Act is that it was never designed for a life or death decision. We need to be very clear as a Committee of the whole House and as parliamentarians—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Mental Capacity Act is used in life and death issues in healthcare. If someone decides not to have care, the doctor has to ensure that that person has capacity to make that decision, so it is already used in that way.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that the Mental Capacity Act is used for life and death issues, but it certainly was not designed for assisted dying and I suggest that it is not a robust test for these particular purposes. If we are going to pass this legislation, we need to be sure that we have tests that are as robust as possible.

A particular point that we need to bear in mind is that the legislation was not drafted in the way that it is normally drafted; it was done in a way that was described as “on a shoestring”. It is surely up to your Lordships’ House and the other place to ensure that the provisions we have in place do not look as though they have been made on a shoestring. They need to be robust. Decisions about capacity can be taken at a moment in time. We need to ensure that the decision where someone says, “Yes, I think I want an assisted death”, is when they are at a later stage in their illness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, earlier on in the debate, there was a discussion concerning members of the committee, on who was or was not called, or who was denied the right to be called to it. I suggest that the straitjacket of the time this House allocated probably did not allow the relevant committee the appropriate time to call everyone that it thought was appropriate. It ought to have been given more time, but it seems that it had to be rushed.

Concerning the Mental Capacity Act, Margaret Flynn, chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, said it was designed to protect us

“when others start to make decisions about our lives … Assisted dying was not on the table during the Law Commission’s consultation which resulted in the MCA”.

Therefore, the suitability of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as a test for a decision to end one’s life is a major source of debate. I believe the many experts and professionals arguing that it is insufficient for this specific irreversible decision.

The MCA was not designed for assisted dying. It was created to safeguard people who lack capacity in decisions about their care, treatment or finances. Assisted dying was not on the table during the Law Commission’s consultation. The Royal College of Physicians, as the noble Lord said a moment ago, said that applying the MCA to the decision to end one’s life is an entirely novel test in uncharted territory with no experience or precedent. It is a very low threshold. The Royal College of Physicians argues that assessing a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their life is an entirely different and more complex determination, requiring a higher level of understanding than assessing capacity for treatment decisions.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord and a number of others. I am still struggling to understand what the higher test of ability would be, over and above the Mental Capacity Act. Will the noble Lord let the House know what that higher test is that people would have to go through on ability rather than capacity?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

The noble Lord knows that I am not a proposer of the change of words. I am dealing with capacity. Therefore, I am also dealing with the fact that professionals within the field have stated that to use the Mental Capacity Act for a decision to end one’s life is an entirely novel test and uncharted territory for which there is no experience or precedent. That is not my statement; that is the statement of professionals within the field. They say also that to decide to use it for the decision to end one’s life is an entirely different and more complex determination requiring a higher level of understanding than assessing capacity for treating decisions.

Capacity can fluctuate in terminally ill patients due to physical fatigue, illness, medication or delirium, making the irreversibility of the decision risky under this framework. Therefore, I ask this Committee to think carefully in trying to base its whole argument on this being good legislation because mental capacity is the deciding factor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

There is never enough training—let us assess that.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

If I may help the noble Baroness, the answer is that the Oliver McGowan training—which is a statutory requirement for all doctors—is now in place. It is high-level training on both capacity and of dealing with people who are vulnerable.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, I have hesitated to intervene at this point because we are going to come later to talk about capacity and why the Mental Capacity Act and its definition does not fit well with this Bill. I am disappointed in the way in which the last few comments have turned this debate, not least because all of us belong to professional bodies which express collective views on our behalf and have to be respected. It is disappointing that we should have in this House an attack on a view which is expressed by a professional body in this way.

However, there are real reason as to why the Mental Capacity Act is seen as having deficiency in this context, which it normally does not have. It is a fine piece of legislation that we were very proud to introduce, and it has given liberty, capacity and the opportunity to be heard to many people who had limited capacity in the past. I give quarter to no one about the power of that Act.

But is the Mental Capacity Act perfect when we come to consider this particular issue? It is not. Why is it not? Because you can have and suffer from a mental illness and still have capacity. Yet we know that, when individuals are faced with the terrible diagnosis that they are to die, and their families are distraught, and they themselves have to face that reality, depression is not abnormal; it is normal. The fact is that some of those people, many of whom we know, some of whom are within our families, some of whom have suffered deeply, contemplate whether it would not be simpler, easier, less painful for everyone if they simply ended their lives. But what else do we know? We know that, when that depression bites, there is means of alleviation. We know that, with good palliative care, they can be enabled to make an informed decision. That informed decision may be that they still want to take a step, but the opportunity to get that support is essential.

Yet when we look at the capacity Act, the fact that someone is deeply depressed does not mean that they lack capacity within the meaning of the Act—

Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Reports

Lord Scriven Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Scriven]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of learning disabilities mortality review (LeDeR) reports in improving life outcomes for people with learning disabilities.

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

My Lords, we are committed to reducing the health inequalities faced by people with a learning disability and autistic people. Through our 10-year health plan, we are working to improve access to, and quality of, care, delivering holistic, place-based support. LeDeR annual reports support this aim by compiling insights from local reviews into the deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people. These insights help ICBs and providers to make improvements to care.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

As the Minister will know, the learning disabilities mortality review was commissioned a decade ago, yet people with learning disabilities still die more than 20 years younger than the general population, and 42% of those deaths are avoidable—twice the rate of the general population—so it is evident that the LeDeR process is not creating the systematic changes required. With that in mind, will the Minister commit to meeting me and a small group of people to explore what new enforceable systems are required to end these tragic and unacceptable early deaths?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

These are indeed tragic deaths, and avoidable in a number of cases, as the noble Lord rightly says. I can do better than agree to meet him and his colleagues—I have already got agreement from Minister Zubir Ahmed, who is responsible for this area and will be very pleased to meet them.