Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to see the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, back in her place. She has been very much missed, and I hope this is the first stage on the road to full recovery. She, like me, may have a feeling of Groundhog Day because we have made lamentably slow progress on the Bill since she was last with us. We are on day 12 in Committee and we are still on Clause 5 of 59.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned, she began our Committee proceedings on 14 November when she moved the first of her 111 amendments in relation to Wales, and here we are again. I say simply to the Committee that of course the Bill should apply to Wales. The Bill seeks to create an exception to the prohibition on assisted suicide and that is an aspect of the criminal law of England and Wales. We all agree that criminal justice is a matter reserved to Westminster. It would be bizarre were this House or Parliament to approve the Bill but not approve it in relation to Wales. There is simply no sensible reason why people living in Wales should be denied the same options as people living across the border in England.

I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, and she suggested that there has been some parliamentary mischief, and that the people of Wales have not been listened to. But it is the case that the people of Wales have a number of representatives in the House of Commons. My understanding is that they all voted for the Bill.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Most of the amendments in this group relate to Wales, but some of them also relate to Scotland. Notwithstanding the noble Lord’s sensation of Groundhog Day, there has been an important development since we met last Friday, which is that the Scottish Parliament, by a decisive majority of 69 to 57, has chosen against assisted dying. In that context, therefore, a number of the provisions in the Bill need a significant rethink; in particular, references to Scotland in Clause 57(2) and (3), which would extend the provisions to Scotland, surely should no longer apply.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. There is a substantial difference between the Bill that was not accepted in Scotland and the Bill that we are debating now. The Bill that was debated in Scotland had fewer safeguards; it is not the same Bill and therefore the noble Lord’s premise is not quite as he said.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

The noble Baroness brings me neatly on to the second point I was going to make, which is that the lack of safeguards in Scotland precisely demonstrates the constitutional and practical difficulty of trying to legislate in Scotland while a number of those key safeguards are reserved matters to Westminster. Part of the reason the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the pharmacists came out decisively this week against the Scottish Bill was because it was not able to include enforceable conscience protections for health professionals that would, for example, have enabled them to refuse an instruction from their employer to participate in assisted dying. Instead, the mechanism that was forced, as it were, on the Scottish legislation was a Section 104 order, which would be subject to a future Westminster Government changing their mind.

The Scottish Parliament was being asked to legislate for assisted dying, absent any Scottish safeguards for conscience and dependent on the future decisions of a Westminster Parliament. The noble Baroness neatly illustrates the point that there is a fundamental problem when one part of the United Kingdom seeks to go its own way. It is incapable of getting the necessary protections and that is one of the reasons why the measure was defeated. Amendment 887 in this group, which would withdraw the reference to Scotland from some of the measures, clearly makes sense given that the Scottish Parliament has just decided that it will not go down this path.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The three reasons why it extends to Scotland are so that people cannot advertise in Scotland to England and Wales, so that people in England and Wales get proper protections if they want to use the conscience clause, and so that substances are dealt with by the United Kingdom. That is why Scotland is included. Is the noble Lord saying that he wants those removed if the Bill goes through?

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Can the noble and learned Lord elaborate on his second reason?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The second reason is that if, for example, you want the protection of employment law, that employment law which extends to the whole of the United Kingdom should protect you in Scotland as much as in England. You should never be prejudiced. That is why it is included.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that Scottish health professionals will be travelling south to undertake assisted dying? Is it a sort of Berwick-upon-Tweed provision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

It is not so much a matter of prejudice because, as I understand it, this provision was inserted in the House of Commons in the anticipation that the Scottish Parliament was going to have before it a Bill on assisted suicide, which it would at that point have passed. This was trying to do a belt and braces on a Section 104 order which everybody could see was likely to be deficient.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

No, that is not right. The reference to Scotland was included to provide protection for people in England and Wales who, under employment law, wanted to exercise the conscience clause. If I am right about that, I am sure the noble Lord would not wish it removed.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I would be interested to come back to that on Report when we have had a chance to investigate that point further.

Fundamentally, this shows that there is a great problem, a structural problem, in trying to do these types of big social changes through Private Members’ Bills, be they in Scotland or England. The reason for that is that it requires concurrent action by the Governments of both nations. We have seen time and again that when these sorts of questions have arisen and we have posed these questions, we have been told by the Front Bench, for reasons we all understand, that amendments to try to deal with these problems pose workability concerns. Then we ask, “How would you address those workability concerns?” and answer comes there none, because the Government are officially neutral on the question. Dealing with these sorts of questions cannot be left to Private Members’ Bills when you cannot get to the bottom of the workability concerns or deal with the fact that, in order for the narrowly drawn legislation to work, there are a whole set of other things that have to be in place that only the Government can provide.

I conclude on that point by noting that this past week we have seen a report from the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, once again on hospice and palliative care. It says:

“There is an urgent need for reform to address the financial challenges that the independent adult hospice sector faces … The Department’s solution—the Modern Service Framework—is in the early stages of development, details are sketchy, and it is at least a year from being introduced. This is not good enough when so many hospices are announcing service cuts”.


The idea that we should legislate when that is the context right now seems to me utterly ridiculous.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, as a Welsh-speaking Welshman, who has, in this House, consistently supported Plaid’s perfectly right demand that there should be fairer funding for Wales—I am not a Plaid supporter, but I support that aspect—I hope that the House will have listened carefully to the fundamental comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. If the Bill is passed, the Welsh Government will have to make arrangements for its implementation in Wales. In Wales, the provision of palliative care is not as good as it ought to be—this is widely understood. Yet we would be imposing on the Welsh Government the necessity to make particular decisions about health in Wales, when they have no powers to make those decisions for themselves.

That is a very simple issue, and I recognise the problems stated by the noble and learned Lord. But the truth is that we have an underfunded Welsh Government who spend half their money on health and know that there are real gaps in the provision. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, told us that assisted suicide was part of palliative care. That, of course, has solved the case—we now know that it is just part of palliative care. But those of us who do not think that it is part of palliative care recognise that, in Wales, the issue is sharper than anywhere else because of the lack of funding, which is about the misuse of the way that funding from the centre is put out.

I beg this House to take very seriously what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said. If we were to ignore the amendments we are talking about here, we would be saying to the Welsh, “You just stuff it because we are going to decide”. We have had that issue before on abortion in Northern Ireland: they decided what they thought and we chose a moment when we had the power to decide they could stuff it. I believe in devolution, and I do not believe that this House should tell the Welsh people to stuff it; we should let them make their own decisions.

Finally, I will turn to what the noble Lord said. I know perfectly well—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

The health service could determine who it is going to make it available to free, but it could not prevent other people—for example, private providers—having different provisions in relation to it.

The next category of amendments was in relation to removing Scotland. I gave an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in relation to that in the course of the debate.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will clarify the answer he gave on Scotland. I think he is saying that even though the Scottish Parliament has decided that assisted dying should not be lawful in Scotland, a Scottish hospice could nevertheless not prevent its employees doing something that would be unlawful in Scotland if they travelled across the border to perform that act in England. Is that the consequence of what he is suggesting?

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

This was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. She focused, rightly, on what would happen in the case of a doctor who lived in Scotland but worked in England. The question was: could they be prejudiced? The answer is no—employment law would apply, and employment law is right across the country. On what is not being done in relation to the Bill, it does not refer to Scotland, because in Scotland they are awaiting the Scottish Bill. It is entirely focused on the protection of people working in England. That is why it is there. It is also focused on advertising coming from Scotland into England. So it is not in any way dependent upon what might happen in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, as usual, I came to listen and not to speak, but there are a couple of things that have been said to which I want to react. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Hayter, to be honest.

I will not go into the details, but I lost my first wife before the internet. There were no internet searches at all, because it was so long ago. We could work it out. It kept coming back in half the time—three years, 18 months. She was still at work—no problem there—managing a college in south London. It was coming back in half the time, so it was fairly obvious that you could measure it. We did not do it like that, and it was only later that we worked out that it came back in half the time.

When I went through it, I had no warning at all. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that there was a consultant who had looked after me since the beginning, when I had no warning. About four years after I finished chemo—she was going off somewhere else to do research, so I was not going to see her again—she said to me, “You have to remember that the drugs deal with only half the problem”. That made me very satisfied. On the other hand, I have gone through cases involving people who were as positive or more positive than I was, but it got them in the end. That is what I remember. The drugs deal with only half the problem.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

On the thrust of the argument, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that approaching this probabilistically, rather than with a single number, clearly makes sense. It is wonderful to hear the impact that these new immunotherapies have had in his own personal case as well as for oesophageal cancer.

Just for the record, I want to associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, because the evidence is pretty clear that there is not an association between positive thinking and cancer survival. There may be a link with quality of life, but frankly, it is perfectly normal, having had a cancer diagnosis, for people to feel depressed or anxious.

The only reason for raising this very briefly at this point is that we need to be very sensitive. When somebody’s cancer progresses and ultimately kills them, we should not be leaving the impression that we think that is because they lacked the positive attitude that would in some way have enabled them to survive. I know that is not what the noble Lord was suggesting, but just for the record, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was right to draw that to our attention, and we should be clear about that.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)]

To add to what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, I very much dislike the death notices, for example, which refer to people having put up a great fight or having failed to deal with the battle, or whatever expression is used, which suggests precisely what the noble Lord said—that they have somehow failed in a mortal combat.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and he persuaded me that, at the end of the day, we are dealing with a question of health, not choice. I will give an example. Colin Bennetts, Bishop of Coventry from 1998 to 2008, died in July 2013 after a period of illness due to cancer. His lungs were filled with deposits of smoke. He said to everybody, “I have never smoked in my life”, but as a youngster he had worked in an office where cigarettes were lit at every moment. Colin, who had not smoked, died of lung cancer. You do not have to smoke to die from it —others sitting near may get it.

I respect the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, but you cannot compare gambling on horses with smoking. Gambling on horses affects only those gambling, but secondary smoking is detrimental to anybody in a place where people are smoking. I do not think these amendments would be helpful. We should stick with the Bill as drafted, because we are trying to protect people’s lives and make them healthier.

I suffered what is called in medical terms a lung infarction, where bits of your lungs do not quite operate. I still have that illness, so every time I go into a place where there is a lot of smoking, I can barely breathe—I have to get out into the fresh air and get it in my lungs. Friends, this is about health. If we do not do this now, then when?

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK. Given that smoking continues to be the single biggest cause of cancer, it will not be a surprise that I oppose the amendments in this group, which would substantially weaken this landmark legislation. In explaining why, I will respond to each of the six points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.

First, the noble Lord argued that we do not need more tobacco control legislation anyway because smoking rates are already coming down. That is not correct; Javed Khan has pointed out that, among the most deprived parts of the country, on current trends we will not be smoke-free until 2044. In any event, some in the tobacco industry have come to the same conclusion. I quote from an advert that Philip Morris took out in the New Statesman, no doubt designed to influence people such as us: “Here in the UK, smoking rates are not declining fast enough. None of the home nations are on course to hit their smoke-free dates, and the most deprived communities are lagging significantly behind”. The suggestion that we can just assume that the status quo will produce a benign outcome is incorrect.

The noble Lord’s second argument was that, rather than having a generational tobacco sales restriction, we should instead just move towards delaying the age at which smoking can be initiated to 21. The tobacco industry would doubtless switch its efforts to targeting twenty-somethings instead of teenagers. On the surprising claims we have heard in respect of the behaviour down the decades of Gallaher or British American Tobacco, I simply say to noble Lords: google their internal documents. They have all been disclosed as a result of international treaties and court cases, and noble Lords will see the systematic duplicity, bribery and corruption that has continued across the world in advancing big tobacco’s agenda. Those documents, the internal files, are there: noble Lords can check them out for themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, referred to the Republic of Ireland as an example we should perhaps be following, when it proposed to adopt the age of 21. However, the director of the tobacco industry-funded front organisation FOREST said of the effect of adopting the age of 21 as a tobacco sales restriction:

“If you’re not careful, you’re actually going to make smoking … fashionable again. You’re going to actually encourage young people to smoke”,


on the back of this proposed sales restriction to over 21 year-olds.

The third argument we heard was about the black market. For reasons that are a non sequitur, we have several times heard cited the example of Australia. The amendments in this group relate to changes to the age of sale. There has been no change in the age of sale in Australia. As far as I am aware, it is still 18 and has been for 30 years. So, whatever else is going on in Australia, it has got nothing to do with the amendments in this group in respect of age of sale. In fact, the Australian example tells us that you need rigorous enforcement. Until very recently, there was no retail licensing available for New South Wales, Victoria or Queensland, covering about 70% of the Australian population, and it has only been patchily introduced subsequently.

There is agreement that we need strong enforcement to deal with the illicit trade, but the argument that we should essentially do whatever it takes to maximise revenue for the Exchequer is a flawed one. If that were the case, as we have heard from other noble Lords, we would be legalising and licensing handguns, assault weapons, fentanyl or crack cocaine. The fact is that, when it comes to tobacco control policy, it is not the Laffer curve that we should focus on, it is the life expectancy curve.

The fourth argument has been around the impact on retailers. I accept that there are legitimate concerns, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has rightly drawn attention to the epidemic of violence and also noted the provisions that will be in the Crime and Policing Bill as one step to attempt to tackle this. But the fact is that the progressive age of sale restrictions in the Bill are an evolutionary measure that will be phased over many years, giving retailers much opportunity to adjust. There are substitutes that they can sell, including vapes, as alternatives to smoked tobacco. Surely, nobody is suggesting that the trump argument should be that we need to sustain the margins of retailers at the expense of 80,000 people who die prematurely from smoking every year.

The fifth argument we heard was around the Windsor Framework. It is fair to say that alternative legal opinions are available. Member states are free to determine the age limit that they see as appropriate on their territory. This does not constitute a trade restriction within the meaning of the EU treaties. In any event, even if a court found that it did, it could be justified on public health grounds. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Bill has the support of Northern Irish Health Ministers and that legislative consent has been received from the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Lastly, we come back to the liberty argument: the freedom of unborn smokers to become addicted in decades to come. Well, those of us who take the opposite view judge that this is a proportionate response to a great harm. It is a novel piece of legislation; we will need to see how it plays out in practice. One of the government amendments that will be before us on Report will be precisely a report on its real-world effects in the coming years. In the meantime, to weaken what has the potential to be one of the most fundamental health-improving pieces of legislation this Parliament has ever enacted would in my judgment be a grave error.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who gave a pretty good summary of many of the arguments against this group of amendments. I join him in all that he said. My fundamental motive is twofold. First, I would like to see the eradication of smoking in this country. That is a vision that we should embrace and be proud of. Just kicking the can and putting up the age limit, as this group of amendments seeks to do, would simply extend a very large and unfair addiction that kills two-thirds of its users and that we could all do without.

Secondly, I am very proud that my party was leading on this issue and brought about the generational ban. I remind noble Lords to have a moment of self-awareness. This is a measure that is massively supported by voters, taxpayers, smokers, Conservatives, retailers and even by the tobacco companies which, at least in this country, have a notional commitment to the eradication of smoking. You can judge whether to take that at face value, but that is at least their rhetorical position. So it seems out of date for my noble friends Lord Murray and Lord Naseby to be stalwarts for the permanent establishment of smoking in the face of such opposition.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a UK graduate and as a pro-chancellor of Cardiff University, which has a very large medical school.

The ethics issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, are really important when we look at the Bill. What is our ethical role in attracting people—literally—and pulling them from places that have a terrible shortage of any medical provision whatever?

Another aspect that my noble friend Lord Patel brought out so clearly is the problem of career progression. I hope that, in summing up, the Minister will reassure us that the Bill is step one in sorting out the medical career progression for people in this country. Only this weekend, I heard of a large teaching hospital that has two consultant posts coming up, for which there were 28 appointable applicants, many of whom are already consultants. There is a real bottleneck for trainees who have gone right through their training programme and done all their exams. Broadly, there are two ways of progressing: run-through training, which provides some security, and training at a postgraduate level, where they have to reapply before they move on. The problems of geography for young people, or for parents with children who are settled, are absolutely massive.

I have been worried that the pay story hides huge problems and unhappiness, particularly in relation to the lack of teams in the way that training has been organised. I am referring not to Teams on the internet but to clinical teams where people know that they belong, where they know the person they can contact and where there is longer continuity. There has been a fault by the medical royal colleges—I hold my hand up, having been involved in some curricula in palliative medicine—in that we have overstepped different bits of experience and undervalued the importance of people coming through.

While I support these amendments from my noble friend Lord Patel, it is important to remember that some on international medical training programmes have no, or almost no, communications skills training or training in medical ethics. In fact, there are some where they have no clinical experience of any note until they pass their almost totally theoretical exams and then they have to gain all the clinical experience later. I am not passing any judgment on the quality of their medicine later on, and they may have a better scientific foundation, but we are not comparing like with like in the process.

I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that Oriel, as an appointments and selection process, will have a much more subtle way of looking at the experience that people have and not just crude categories, because it will be important that we do not select away excellence in the name of the medical school that somebody graduated from. There is a spectrum of quality in every medical school output cohort. There are some who are superb, and there are some who, frankly, might have done better not getting into medicine in the first place—it may be a small number—but among graduates from other medical schools there will be people with superb experience and who turn out to be excellent. We see some of those in very senior positions in medicine across the UK.

The prioritisation message needs to be subtle, and it needs to look at the full employment history from graduation, including applicants’ NHS experience and the quality of their work during that. Apparently, the system can automatically calculate a lot of this, drawing on GMC data as well. There is a lot of work to be done by this system in relation to the data held by the GMC, and there is a lot of work to be done by the royal colleges.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of King’s College London. I think that there is a welcome consensus that the UK should aim for self-sufficiency in the production of new doctors through medical school, specialty training and into the NHS. In fairness, the last Government deserve credit for having taken the decision to expand medical school undergraduate intake to put us on that path. It was also not unreasonable, as a temporary measure, to make use of selective international recruitment while those new doctors came through the system, not least as the independent Migration Advisory Committee reported at the time that, in respect of doctors,

“there is sufficient and overwhelming evidence of a UK-wide shortage”.

Given that it takes perhaps 15 years for new medical students to come into independent clinical practice, telling patients to hang on for 15 years while that intake fed through the system would not have been good, certainly for patients.

However, the issue now is that, clearly, there needs to be better prioritisation during the transitional system. We spent a lot of time in Committee discussing the pros and cons of what that transitional prioritisation might look like, but one question that has not yet been completely resolved, which would aid the House in assessing the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has put before us, is whether we could have a clear answer from the Minister as to what the increase in the pipeline and in the availability of specialty training places is going to be for the current year and over the next three years. As she pointed out to us in correspondence during recess last week, the NHS 10-year plan that the Government published last July talked about an additional 1,000 specialty training places over three years. However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care put on the table the proposition of not 1,000 but 4,000 additional specialty training places over three years, of which an additional 1,000 would become available in this coming year. That is what was put on the table in the discussion with the BMA on 10 December. Given that it is only a few months until these posts are filled, presumably the Minister must know the answer to the question: exactly how many additional specialty training places will we get for the year ahead so as to reduce the prioritisation problems with whichever criteria the Bill puts forth?

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to the amendments in this group in my name—Amendments 5 and 10—and to Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, which I have also signed.

I follow up the point that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about in terms of the fairness for those people who went into the application process last summer. They started this process with the expectation of getting a confirmation any time now and being able to prepare. That is why my Amendment 5 proposes to postpone the implementation of this speciality training prioritisation for this year’s intake, so that those people who are applying for 2027 know that we are changing the rules, rather than telling those people who applied last summer that we have changed the rules. Let me be clear from the outset: this amendment does not seek to undermine the principle of the objectives of this Bill on medical training; rather, it seeks to ensure that these objectives are implemented fairly, coherently and without unintended harm to the very trainees upon whom our healthcare system depends.

The central issue for us here has always been timing. As the Bill currently stands, these changes would be introduced during an active application cycle. This raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and legitimate expectations. Applicants have made life-altering decisions—academic, financial and personal—based on a set of rules that existed last summer when they applied. To change these rules mid-cycle, in my opinion, is not merely inconvenient but fundamentally unjust. Like many others, I have been contacted by affected medical students who have articulated their concerns around the criteria. They noted that they had complied fully with all the requirements enforced at the time of application, only to find themselves potentially excluded by the change that has now been imposed. Without transitional protections, the Bill would disadvantage applicants who acted in good faith, followed the guidance provided and had every reasonable expectation that the rules would not be rewritten half way through the process. This is not about isolated grievance; it reflects a systematic risk inherent in rushed implementation.

Medicine is a profession that demands long-term planning, with years of study, examination, placement and significant personal sacrifice. When Parliament alters the conditions of progression without adequate notice or transition, it destabilises that planning and erodes trust in the system. My amendment therefore offers a modest but proportionate and sensible solution: a one-year delay that would allow for clarity in communications and proper preparation. It would give institutions time to adjust their process, regulators time to issue clear guidance and applicants time to make informed decisions so that people who will be applying this summer know what the criteria are. Crucially it would also align with the principles of this House, which has long upheld fairness, legal certainty and an avoidance of disadvantage. We should be especially mindful of these principles when legislating in areas that directly affect access to professional training and career progression.

There is also the practical consideration. Disruption of the current application cycle risks creating gaps, appeals and bottlenecks that could ultimately harm workforce planning in the NHS. At a time when staffing pressures are already acute, we should really be wary of reforms that may have unintended consequences and might deter capable candidates. My amendment would not delay the reforms indefinitely, but simply ensure that reforms are done properly. By supporting this amendment, we would send a clear message that, while we are committed to improving medical training pathways, we are equally committed to treating applicants fairly and honouring the rules under which they apply.

We have heard about the immigration status mentioned earlier and the criteria on which that is based. With my Amendment 10, I would like to raise with the Minister the alternative option, given that the Government are also seeking to change the rules around indefinite leave to remain. My understanding is that there is a better option. The NHS has its own recruitment platform, the Oriel system, which is able to demonstrate professional commitment to the NHS. In doing so, it shifts the focus from legal residence status to actual service, contributions and engagement with our health system.

The NHS does not run, as we heard earlier, on immigration categories. It runs on people who turn up to shifts, who trained within its system, who understand its pressures and who have committed themselves to caring for patients day in, day out. The Oriel registration is not just a symbolic tactic; it is a gateway through which NHS recruitment, training and workforce planning operates. It is a clear, objective indicator that an individual is already participating in or seeking to participate in the NHS.

Similarly, the concept of professional commitment to the NHS allows for a broader and fairer assessment of contributions. It recognises work undertaken in the NHS trust, clinical placements, foundation training, research, teaching and other forms of service that directly benefit patients and institutions. This approach reflects reality far more accurately than a single immigration milestone, which may have little bearing on an individual’s clinical engagement or future commitments or intentions.

There is also a serious risk of equality issues at stake. Many doctors who have trained in the UK, worked in NHS hospitals, paid taxes and served our communities for years do not yet hold indefinite leave to remain, due to the structures and lengths of immigration pathways. To divert these such individuals despite their proven service risks sending a deeply damaging message that contribution is secondary to paperwork. At a time when the NHS remains heavily reliant on international medical students, we should be careful not to erect barriers that discourage retention or undermine morale. These clinicians are not temporary stopgaps; they are integral members of our workforce. Many intend to build long-term careers here and many already have.

From a practical standpoint, this amendment also improves administrative clarity. Assessing our registration and documenting NHS experience is straightforward, verifiable and directly relevant to workforce needs. By contrast, tying prioritisation to immigration status risks complexity, inconsistencies and unintended exclusion. If the aim of the Bill is to strengthen medical training and to support the NHS workforce, our criteria must align with that goal. This amendment ensures that prioritisation is based on what truly matters: demonstrated commitment to the NHS and the work that it exists to do. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to support both my amendments.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat my declarations of interest from Second Reading as chair of King’s College London and chair of Cancer Research UK, and as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners. I am going to speak to my Amendments 9, 11, 24 and 25. I am most grateful to my co-signatories: the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord Patel.

The Government, in my opinion rightly, want to prioritise for specialty training doctors who, among other things, have significant prior experience working in the NHS. They propose in the Bill that that would be an explicit criterion to be taken into account from 2027. So the principle is clear. The practice for 2026, however, is said in the impact assessment to be such that they cannot use that criterion for the current cycle. So, instead, a series of proxies are proposed which, in the words of the impact assessment, would

“capture applicants who we believe are most likely to have NHS experience”.

This set of amendments, which should be an easy pill for the Government to swallow, would simply give them the ability to apply in 2026 the same criterion relative to work experience in the NHS that they propose from 2027 onwards. I recognise that there may still be some discussions, as we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about the executability of that criterion, using the Oriel system or other mechanisms. These amendments would not require the Government to bring forward their 2027 approach but simply permit them to do so if, in the weeks between now and 5 March, for example, if that is the deadline for when Royal Assent is required, it becomes clear to them that the modest enabling work on the computer software, estimated at £100,000, can be put in place if that were needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I cannot give an exact proportion, as the noble Lord is aware, but I have noticed that the proportion has changed as the Bill has progressed. As we have approached Committee, I have certainly seen more email traffic urging a non-amended Bill rather than an amended Bill. I would imagine that that is reflected in other emails. The noble Lord is indicating that it is not. I can see differing responses, but that has certainly been my impression.

The application of prioritisation to the 2026 intake is necessary and justified. If, as I referred to earlier, we waited until 2027, competition ratios are projected to rise even further, meaning that more UK graduates would be unable to progress their careers on time, with a greater risk to the long-term sustainability of the workforce. For these reasons, another year’s delay is not an option, and we cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 10, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, also seeks to change categories of people who would be prioritised for specialty training places, starting in 2026, by virtue of having significant NHS experience or by reference to their immigration status. We cannot accept this amendment on the basis that the effect would be to prioritise every individual who applied for specialty training places in 2026 because all applicants are, by necessity, already registered on Oriel. This amendment would in practice nullify prioritisation for 2026 and render the legislation ineffective. It would not address the severe and growing bottlenecks in specialty training that the Bill aims and is designed to tackle.

The proposal to prioritise those who have demonstrated a professional commitment to the NHS also presents workability problems as there is no clear or objective definition of what such a commitment looks like, nor any reliable way to assess it for tens of thousands of applicants at this stage. Attempting to do so would be unmanageable in a practical sense and would introduce inconsistency, delay and uncertainty for applicants.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

One objective proposition that has been suggested is two years of NHS experience, which, it is said, would be readily trackable on Oriel. Can the Minister confirm whether that would indeed be possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the thrust of the amendments in this group. I start by acknowledging the concern that I think is animating the Government on this point, which is that they do not want to see a thin end of a wedge that opens up substantially with a lot of newly created international programmes that then end up further displacing UK-trained graduates and undermining the ability to effectively plan the medical workforce of the future.

Fortunately, however, none of these amendments actually constitutes the thin end of the wedge—there is no wedge. As we have just heard, these amendments grandfather the current, very modest arrangements at QMUL Malta and Newcastle University, which are so numerically small, with a couple of hundred students relative to 12,800 for the other training programmes. So those are not the programmes that have caused the problem that the Bill is seeking to address, nor should they therefore be collateral damage as the Bill progresses.

As discussed at Second Reading, particularly in respect of Malta we have a long-standing relationship, and we have a series of diplomatic and other ties of bilateral agreement that the British Government and the Maltese within the last 12 months have renewed, which are of continuing and considerable significance to us, including on defence, security and other aspects. So the Government would be well advised not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to take seriously the concerns that these amendments represent.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I shall speak to the Amendments 15, 16 and 19 to add my support to the amendments on the issue of Malta from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, as well as Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and Amendment 20 from the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

Given that we have had a substantial discussion on Malta, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I shall speak more towards Newcastle, forging the northern alliance that we may have—and more importantly because my mentor, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who cannot be here, made a particular point of visiting my office to say, “You are going to be speaking on Newcastle on Thursday, aren’t you?” So here we go.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, would ensure that graduates from overseas campuses, and United Kingdom medical schools in particular, are treated fairly and consistently. I think that the amendment is precise and proportionate. It applies three conditions: first, that the primary medical qualification is awarded by a United Kingdom medical school—in this case Newcastle, but there will be others; and, secondly, that the qualification is obtained through study at an overseas campus that existed at the point of this Act being passed. The noble Baroness talked about potential creep when we discussed this last week in terms of other institutions being able to take advantage and open that back door. With this very timely amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, it is very clear that—

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Is it the noble Lord’s understanding that there would be the opportunity for creep as is currently set out in the Bill? For example, if Queen Mary University of London wished to establish a medical school in Liechtenstein, which currently lacks one, it would be able to do so with an unlimited number of places. All those new students would then be passported into the NHS.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has given people ideas. Possibly, this could happen, yes.

Thirdly, both courses and study for the convocation are approved by the GMC as being equivalent to the UK medical qualification. This is not about lowering standards or creating a new route through the back door. On the contrary, this is about recognising the standards that already exist and are regulated by the GMC. The GMC is determined that these courses are equivalent in content assessment and outcome. It is difficult to justify why we should exclude them, given the numbers that we heard about earlier.

Universities such as Newcastle—and there may be others as well—rely heavily on this partnership. These programmes have not just happened overnight. They have existed for some time. They are run by UK institutions, aligned with UK curricula and assessed identically to UK standards and subjects. Graduates receive UK-awarded degrees, not foreign substitutes. Such programmes contribute to the NHS. Only yesterday, we heard from Newcastle University that they have had up to 150 students on their Malaysian campus. As we heard earlier, some of those students have come back to the United Kingdom and, in particular, have served for many years as GPs when we have had an acute shortage. We need to take heed of that contribution and also the long-standing relationships that exist both with Newcastle and Queen Mary.

We are only asking for a very small change. We are not asking for tens of thousands of students to come here. We are asking for a small number through long-established partnerships that have existed and stood the test of time. We are asking the Minister for some flexibility. This is being heard from all sides of your Lordships’ House. We are about to go on a holiday. I hope that the Minister will take this time to reflect on our debate and come back on Report with government amendments that we can all support. I look forward to the debate that we are going to have in less than a fortnight’s time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I want to come in on the point about whether or not the UK Government would lack the ability to control the expansion of international places in the grandfathered campuses. Is it not the case that, in fact, the UK Government do have such a tool at their disposal, through the Office for Students? The OfS has to agree the number of undergraduate medical places that a university can operate here in the UK and can cap those, and could therefore introduce an off-setting mechanism so that any additional place created outside the UK would see a reduction in the UK authorisation. That would be incentive enough, I suspect, to ensure that universities did not behave in the way that the Minister is concerned about.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord kindly raised this with me before, and I did test it out. I am grateful that he has given thought to this, because it is an important point. However, I am advised that, unfortunately, the solution that he has come up with would not deal with all the concerns we have and would still give us difficulty. The noble Lord talked about the thin end of the wedge, and I fear that we are still in the same place. I am happy to write to the noble Lord, and to make that letter available, to explain further detail. I am grateful that he has given consideration to a solution for what is undoubtedly an issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking for the first time in Committee, I refer to my interests as a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, where I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy, and where I also co-operate with the school of medicine, which will start accepting students later this year. I also work as an honorary fellow at the Vinson Centre for the Public Understanding of Economics and Entrepreneurship at the University of Buckingham, which also has a medical school but with which I have no direct connection.

I tabled Amendment 22 to facilitate a wider debate on the level of provision of medical training places and its impact on the outcomes for doctors and, by extension, patients, as well as the need for regular review. We all agree that the NHS and other health providers need highly qualified staff if they are to deliver the quality care that people expect of them, but that means that policymakers should seek to establish an education system that encourages young people to see the benefits of medicine as a career path, supports those going through medical training every step of the way and removes barriers to those who want to be doctors. As my noble friend Lord Howe said earlier, currently, too many young doctors reach the point at which they need to secure a medical specialty training place but find themselves disappointed, either because they are unable to access a training place or because the training place they are able to secure does not meet their needs.

A 2023 study by Tomas Ferreira on the career intentions of medical students found that many medical students finishing their foundation programme do not intend to take up medical specialty training places. The report says

“we report an increase in intention to not take up specialty posts immediately after the Foundation Programme, with an increase from 6.75% … of first-year students to 35.98% … of final year students. A contributing factor to this scenario could be a significant increase in competition ratios for specialty training posts, partly due to increasing medical student places and no corresponding increase in the number of training posts available”.

The lack of specialty training places to retain those medical students within the NHS is a challenge that the Government and we all face—something, I concede, we realised perhaps too late when we were in government. If the issue is not tackled, we will continue to see talented young doctors who might otherwise prefer to stay in the UK and work within the NHS, and maybe other health providers, leaving the UK to complete their training elsewhere.

The Government have announced their offer to the BMA to expand specialty training posts by 4,000, with 1,000 of them brought forward this year. That expansion in training places is welcome and necessary. I ask the Minister to confirm whether there will be any delay in their delivery and whether they will be delivered this year.

In May last year, I tabled a series of Written Questions on resident doctor medical training places, and the responses showed that very small numbers of training places are available in some regions. For example, in 2024, just one medical oncology specialist training stage 3 post was offered in the whole of the north-east region. The figure for the Wessex region was two places. For the earlier specialist training stage 1 posts in gynaecology, the Wessex region had just 11 places in 2024, while the whole of the south-west region had just 16 of those places. Can the Minister say whether those numbers are meeting the needs of those regions and whether there is a gap? What are the key factors that restrict the number of training places that can be offered in those regions?

The overall number of training places is probably the most important challenge young doctors face, but there are other considerations that affect talent retention. The geographical distribution of training places is also something that we all know needs attention. Last month, the Government announced that they will introduce new training places targeted at trusts with the biggest workforce gaps, prioritising rural and coastal areas, where patients currently struggle the most. We welcome that. That is good news. But, in designing this policy, I ask the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the number of medical students who actually want to train in these rural areas and whether that is a factor in some UK medical graduates choosing to go abroad or is irrelevant.

In response to concerns from the BMA about the challenge of doctors having to cover the upfront cost of their training, the Government have offered cost-related measures in their offer to the BMA, including reimbursement of exam fees. I ask the Minister for a little transparency and to give the Committee more detail on how reimbursement would work if the BMA were to accept that offer.

I hope that the Minister is able to answer these questions, either today or later in writing. I assure her that we look forward to working constructively with the Government as they face up to these workforce challenges. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, to help the Committee to assess the need for this further report that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just set out, it would be helpful if we could hear from the Minister when the Government will produce their replacement long-term workforce plan for the 2023 edition, which itself was deemed to be long term but ended up having a half-life of less than two years. How imminent is that and will it deal with the sorts of points that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, rightly brings to our attention? When will we see the follow-on to the excellent Medical Training Review: Phase 1 Diagnostic Report, authored by the Chief Medical Officer and the previous National Medical Director of NHS England, published in October, which sets out these issues extremely well? The clue is in the title: it is the diagnosis. But when do we get the prescription? When does the treatment begin?

In a sense, the problem that we are dealing with through the Bill—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, just set out for us—owes its antecedents to the disconnect between the provision of NHS services and the ability to make smart, long-term workforce decisions. Unfortunately, for the period 2012 to 2022, those decisions on medical training were outwith the NHS and in effect were being controlled by the Treasury, which was constantly saying no to Health Ministers who were at the time trying to bring forward constructive solutions. Indeed, it was only when a former Secretary of State for Health became Chancellor that the situation was unblocked and we got the medical school expansion. Perhaps that is an inspiring example for the current Health Secretary—I do not know; perhaps he aspires higher. The fact is that we need that whole-government engagement on these kinds of questions to bring coherence and deal with these problems at root. Therefore, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, any light that the Minister can shed on when precisely we will have line of sight to these sorts of questions would be, I think, of great benefit to the Committee.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 22, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. He absolutely made the case but, having heard what the Minister had to say on the previous group, I have a terrible certainty about what her response will be.

I assure the Minister that many of us want to find solutions, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentions. The principles of the Bill are supported across the Committee; it is some of the detail that is in contention. We must be honest that the Bill deals with the symptom—competition ratios—not the cure, which is the bottleneck of insufficient specialty training places. I go back to the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, used at Second Reading. We are simply reshuffling the queue.

This amendment places a necessary duty on the Secretary of State to review the adequacy of training places. We have received warnings from doctors in shortage specialties such as psychiatry and general practice, who fear that the Bill will drive away the international talent that we rely on. We need to know whether this legislation will succeed in retaining UK graduates or whether it will inadvertently exacerbate shortages by signalling to the global medical community that the NHS is closed for business. We cannot manage what we do not measure.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners, and as chair of the council of King’s College London, which is Europe’s largest educator of health professionals. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roe, on his excellent maiden speech. Given the deteriorating physical fabric of the Palace of Westminster, it is reassuring to know that we have a firefighter in our midst.

I start by endorsing the thrust of the policy set out in the Bill. It clearly makes sense for the NHS and for British taxpayers to properly connect undergraduate medical education with access to specialist training, and then the flow-through of doctors able to contribute over the balance of their careers to the work of the NHS. All that makes total sense. Nevertheless, I echo three of the concerns we have heard already in the brilliant contributions to this debate.

The first is about the difficulties and concerns around the transition year, 2026, that the Bill proposes. For 2027 and beyond, rightly, there is the suggestion in the Bill that applications will be prioritised from doctors with NHS experience, who have made a contribution to the NHS. But because of not being able to get the computer system right, that is excluded for the 2026 transitional period.

As we heard from, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, there is a range of views that suggest that that is not a correct assessment. I think the impact assessment says it is £100,000 to sort out the Oriel computer system—against a £4.3 billion taxpayer expenditure in this area. This is an area where the Minister and the Minister in the Commons, Karin Smyth, might want to give officialdom a little tap and just double-check that what they are being told is right, not least because there is a degree of oddity about this in that the Government declared their intention to introduce this new prioritisation for UK graduates seven months ago. It was in the 10-year NHS plan published on 3 July. It is not completely clear why there has been a seven-month lapse before we get this emergency Bill that has to be passed within four weeks.

There is the transitional 2026 concern and then, relatedly, there is the question of whether, by just changing the prioritisation, the Government actually have a game plan to deal with the more fundamental, underlying problem of the bottlenecks. This piece of legislation by itself does not widen the bottlenecks, it just changes who will occupy them. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I think, asked, it would be very useful to know, of the 1,000 additional specialty training places over three years promised in the 10-year plan, or the 4,000 put on the table in December as part of the Government’s negotiation with the BMA—of which 1,000 extra were to be in place for the coming year—what is their current assumption about the expansion in specialty training that will go alongside this reprioritisation for 2026 and 2027?

Today, we have seen the publication of the cancer plan, which, quite rightly, says that the Government

“will work with the Royal Colleges to encourage resident doctors and internal medicine trainees to specialise in clinical and medical oncology”—

where there are significant shortages—and will prioritise

“training places in trusts … where vacancy rates are higher and performance is lower”.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will give effect to that commitment in the cancer plan with the 2026 and 2027 increases in specialty training places, which are clearly required?

To circle back to a point that the Minister made—and, indeed, the Health and Social Care Secretary made at Second Reading in the Commons on 27 January—the Government’s estimate appears to be that even with this tighter, or reshaped, prioritisation, there will still be a ratio of two applicants to every place for specialty training. Just stand back a moment—that means we will be turning away half the doctors who would be able to fill those places. Are the Government sure that they are going pedal to the metal on the expansion in specialty training to reduce that oversubscription rate?

How does that connect with the upcoming rebadged, or refreshed, long-term workforce plan, given that the undergraduate doctors who start their training this year will be, in practice, coming out to deliver clinical care as consultants from 2040 and training their successors up to 2070? We really do need a long-term plan here, rather than the constant chopping and changing that, sadly, we have seen.

Finally, I completely endorse the comments about Malta. Three collective institutions have been awarded the George Cross—Malta and the NHS are two of them. We should sustain those relationships. The idea that we have less in common with the Maltese than with the good people of Liechtenstein—I have just had a quick look and Liechtenstein has one 35-bed hospital and a per capita GDP more than three times that of the UK—misses the point. We have to see the wood for the trees; the Department of Health and Social Care needs to raise its gaze and value these historic relationships that are so important for us.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 30th January 2026 Lords Chamber

I hope the sponsors of this amendment might consider a redrafting that takes account of these fundamental differences, retaining access to helpful diagnostic tools while excluding a general-purpose superintelligent AI, still to be developed, from a decision-making process that properly resides in human agency.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

Essentially, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I could almost leave it there, but I will briefly say, in the spirit of the amendments, that the tablers are right to raise general concerns about the possibility of abuse through bias—as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—and hallucination. After all, we have had the first high-profile resignation of a public sector leader in the form of the chief constable of the West Midlands praying in aid the fabrication of a non-existent football match as the reason why Parliament was misled.

In addition to bias and hallucination, there is the risk of what is called scheming. The results from some of the LLMs—published, for example, in the journal Nature in October—show some pretty disturbing examples. In the article, headed “AI Models that Lie, Cheat, and Plot Murder”, there are examples where models have attempted to write self-propagating worms, fabricate legal documentation and leave hidden notes to future instances of themselves. The punchline, essentially, is that, in regard to some of these technologies,

“the world is in a lucky period in which models are smart enough to scheme but not smart enough to escape monitoring”.

That is scary because, in five years’ time, that may no longer be true. So there are good reasons for generalised concerns about AI and wanting to circumscribe the role it might play in this legislation.

However, for the reasons that others have mentioned— I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, herself would accept this—this probing amendment is written too broadly. It says:

“Artificial intelligence must not be used to carry out any functions in any section or schedule of this Act”.


Given that, for example, under Clauses 5(5) and 12(2), a doctor has to discuss with a person their diagnosis, their prognosis, any treatments available, the likely effects of them, and palliative, hospice and other care, it is highly likely that those will be informed by machine learning. It will interpret, for example, CT scans or MRIs, and AI tools will personalise and optimise therapies, potentially with predictive AI for better prognosis. So, were this to come back on Report, there would be a good case for ensuring greater precision in the firepower that is aimed at this particular concern.

However, all that should not in any way excuse or divert us from an equivalent worry: we must not kid ourselves that the gold standard is human expert judgment on many of the questions posed by the Bill. As we discussed, Clause 2(1)(b) requires an assessment of whether somebody with a terminal illness will live longer than six months. Unfortunately, as we have heard, that turns out to be a clinically irrelevant threshold that is very hard for expert judgment to get right.

I have just pulled the data from a large study looking at 98,000 people across London over the last decade and at prognostic accuracy, and the answer was that clinicians were able to be accurate about whether somebody was going to live for two weeks with about 74% accuracy, and they were able to be accurate about whether somebody was going to live more than a year with 83% accuracy, but, in terms of being able to predict whether somebody is going to survive for weeks or months, accuracy was only 32%. So, whatever our concerns about AI, human expert judgment, which underpins the Bill, is itself highly fallible.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

To follow on from that, as my noble friend said right at the beginning, the amendment was put down in such a blunt fashion absolutely to stimulate this sort of debate. What has been really useful in this debate is finding that there is a broad degree of consensus that AI can be valuable as an input to decision-making, but it should not be used as the output: as the final decision-maker. As mentioned, AI can detect the progression of cancers and can probably do better prognosis or improve, especially over the time that we are looking at here, so that you can get better assessments of how long someone is likely to live.

On the AI in the chat box, there are very many instances where it could be very useful in terms of detecting coercion if it is talking to someone over quite a long period of time. Therefore, in all of this we see that, with inputs to the decision-making process, AI has a valuable part to play, but I think we would also absolutely agree that the final decision-maker in terms of an output clearly has to be a human; obviously they will be armed with the inputs from AI, but the human will make the final decision. I think that is what the Bill does, if I am correct, in that it is very clear that the decision-makers, the panels, the doctors and everything are those people, but at the same time—although I guess the Bill is silent on this—obviously it enables AI as an input.

I hope this debate is useful in that it shows a degree of consensus and that in this instance we probably have the right balance, but, again, I would be interested to hear from the Bill sponsor in his response whether that is the case.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this group. I will speak in specific terms against Amendment 188 and very strongly against Amendment 200A.

Starting with Amendment 188, I declare my position as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service. I note the terrible figures from the Institute of Customer Service earlier this year—these are from people who work in all areas of public-facing customer service—which showed that 43% of those surveyed had faced some incident of customer hostility in the previous year. That figure was up nearly 20%. Some 21% of the people surveyed had also faced physical threats while they were doing customer-facing roles.

As the noble Earl said, we have a real problem with shoplifting, but we also have a problem across the board. I do not think the best way to approach this is to look specifically at retailers of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. There is a need for government action, and I have been working with the Institute for Customer Service more broadly, as I have in the past on other legislation, to tackle this. It does not make a lot of sense to regard this as a discrete problem; it needs a much broader angle of attack.

I am very strongly against Amendment 200A, which would establish a government grant scheme to subsidise the cost of age-verification technology to reduce the financial burden on smaller retailers. I absolutely agree that the burden should not fall on smaller retailers. However, I point out that—this is based on work earlier this year by the Social Market Foundation—the big four tobacco companies make £900 million in profits annually and that their average profit margin, looking at the cost of producing and distributing tobacco products versus the price they charge to whole- salers, is 50%. There is no other product that has anything like that kind of return.

Due to being involved here, I have not had a chance to look closely at what happened in the Budget today but, so far as I have been able to discover, a fairly standard increase in tobacco duty is coming in at 6 pm today. However, the Chancellor has not, it seems, followed the recommendation of the Social Market Foundation to put a levy on tobacco products on some of those windfall profits. At the time, that was suggested for health measures, but it could indeed go into such a measure as this. It is very clear that the merchants of death should be paying for the costs associated with their products much more broadly than this. But, certainly in the context of this amendment, they should meet any burden of compliance so that it does not fall on the smaller retailers.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I hesitate to interject at this late stage of Committee, but I just respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who had concerns that many of the organisations giving evidence previously on the retail question were from health-related charities, and I declare my own non-pecuniary interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK.

I just inject a note of caution about relying too heavily on some of the trade associations for the small retailers that she describes, given that they have some financial vested interests. The organisation that she cited, I noticed on their website, has received a sponsorship support from Japan Tobacco International. Another major retail association declares on its website that it has received funding from Philip Morris, Japan Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco. Therefore, notwithstanding the need to consult retailers directly, I think that some of these trade associations may have a conflict of interest.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about how important it is that retailers of all kinds feel supported as we move into the transition to a smoke-free generation. Those who operate legally and who will obtain a licence to operate under the new rules will want to see the Government doing everything that they can to attack the illicit trade that undermines the profits of law-abiding businesses.

They also need protection from the wave of shoplifting, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about, which eats into their profits and sometimes puts them in physical danger. It is quite possible that progress towards gradually raising the age below which the retailers may not sell tobacco products could exacerbate this situation unless action is taken. Age verification could be seen as a problem or a solution. However, the need for age verification is already quite common and it falls upon the consumer, not the retailer. I have to verify my own age when I buy a senior railcard to use on the train, although my grey hair means that I am not challenged when I want to buy a bottle of wine. However, the fact remains that, when I have alcohol in my basket at the checkout, a member of staff is entitled to verify that I am over 18—in fact, they take one look, and they click on the terminal. They do not ask for my birth certificate, but of course they might if I looked under 18, which I do not.

However, the situation will soon change for young people only a year apart in age. Having said that, young people are already quite used to having to verify that they are over 18 when buying a drink or a packet of cigarettes or vapes. What do they do now? They use a digital age-verification tool already, and some bars issue their own card once they have verified the age of their regular customers. It therefore would not be unreasonable, and would be helpful to the retailers, if a range of age-verification mechanisms could be available to customers who would then have to show one of them in order to protect the retailers from inadvertently committing an offence. They have to show that they are over 18 now, so why not that they are 19 a year after Royal Assent or 20 the year after that?

It may be a very good idea for the Government to carry out more research on this and publish a strategy, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has proposed in Amendment 188. But the public are not the only ones who need guidance and information about the law well before it comes into operation; how much more important is it for retailers? We have already debated my noble friend Lady Northover’s amendment about the need for a communications strategy, so I am not sure how much Amendment 191 would add to that, but it is a useful probe.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I do not support Amendment 200A from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. I do not see why taxpayers should foot the bill for creating age-verification mechanisms. I suspect that individual customers will obtain their own digital age-verification mechanism and that inventive companies will produce them and make them readily available. Of course, the vape manufacturers may also produce age-gated products, so perhaps it should be the tobacco industry that foots the bill because of its very large profit margins. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on this issue.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Cancer Research UK, and it will not be surprising to learn that CRUK and I strongly support the Bill.

Fundamentally, the tobacco industry has a structural problem, which is that it kills 80,000 of its most loyal customers every year and therefore has to restock annually to keep its coffers full—those people being now, sadly, in their coffins. The point of the Bill is fundamentally to do something about that. As the Minister said, it was very gratifying to see the wide support across all parties in the House of Commons, and I hope we will see that repeated here. However, I suspect there will be some objections during the passage of the Bill—some legitimate and well-intentioned criticisms, but potentially some that bear a strange family resemblance to the arguments that the tobacco industry and its proxies also advance.

One of those objections is that the Bill is not actually needed because smoking is on its way out anyway. I am sure that we can appreciate the irony of the argument that the industry advances that the very measures that it has previously so vigorously opposed on the grounds that they would be ineffective are now allegedly so supremely effective that further regulation is not required. Leaving aside the irony, the fact is simply that 6 million people are still smoking. The rate of progress is nowhere near sufficient to get us to the previous and current Governments’ target of being de facto smoke-free by 2030. In the poorest parts of the country, that is not going to be until 2050, and, since the general election, it is estimated that 100,000 more young people have taken up smoking.

Therefore, it is not true that further action is not needed; nor is it true that we should not take action in the absence of “real-world evidence”, because, of course, that is an entirely circular argument. You will not get real-world evidence until you do it and see the effects. The subtlety of the Bill is that the annual rise by one year in the age of sale will give us that evidence as we see the successive, cumulative effect that these measures bring about.

Another argument that we have heard is, “Why not just raise the age of legal sale to 25?” If you do the maths, for the next nine years, between now and 2034, we will be on that journey anyway. That will give us ample time to see whether the measures in this Bill are working as intended.

Then there are the crocodile tears: “This will be bad for the Treasury because of all the tobacco excise duties which are forgone”. If that is your argument, have the courage of your convictions and go into bat for the Government promoting smoking as a way of boosting the coffers of the Treasury. In any event, that is to ignore the wider economic arguments which the noble Baroness set out.

Then there is the zombie argument, that the black market will develop and prosper with each incremental regulatory step we take. As a matter of fact, rather than a debating point, the number of smuggled cigarettes has fallen by over 85% since regulations of this nature to clamp down were introduced 25 years ago. The most recent data from HMRC shows that the forgone duty from smuggled or black market cigarettes as a proportion of the theoretically available total has fallen from about 17% in 2005 to about 7% now. The question of enforcement is independent from the question of regulation. We can do both.

Finally, we get to: “Can we at least leave vapes out?” Here, again as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Minister have set out, there is a balance to be struck. The current scientific consensus is that smokers switching to vaping will reduce the threats to their health, but equally that there is no health benefit from taking up nicotine addiction if you have not previously been a smoker. That is why it is right that there is flexibility in the Bill. I say to anybody who doubts what is going on out there that as I came into Parliament this afternoon, I stopped at a newsagent. I know that visual aids are not allowed, but there were Pokémon cards with cartoons next to vapes with a little cartoon character of a vampire, at kids’ eye height, being sold near this building. The idea that the industry has changed its spots is untrue. There has been no damascene conversion. It is the sword of Damocles that is producing the change. The Bill deserves our support.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

I conclude by emphasising that legislative backstops and reporting duties are necessary to ensure that the implementation of the Bill is timely and effective. That is underlined particularly by the delays in the implementation of both the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Act 2018 and the liberty protection safeguards introduced in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019, to replace the deprivation of liberty safeguard systems, neither of which have been taken forward. Both are very relevant to patients affected by the Mental Health Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill has been years in gestation, and we have heard, in Committee and on Report, that it is going to be years in implementation. The Government, not unreasonably, have pointed to two principal rate limiters for that: workforce and funding. As we have just heard in the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, her Amendment 50 is responsive to the staffing constraints and concerns, and my Amendment 59 tackles the funding question. I am grateful for her support and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.

In a nutshell, as the noble Baroness says, this amendment does not seek to tell the Government, or indeed the House of Commons under its privilege, how much to spend on the NHS. All it says is that there should be a floor on the share of that total going to mental health for a time-limited period while the Act is being implemented; in other words, the Government would continue to decide the size of the NHS pie. The Government, of whichever complexion, could decide to grow or shrink it, but the slice of that pie devoted to mental health would be protected for a time-limited period, not only at the local ICB level but nationally.

We had a debate on this in some detail in Committee, so I will not repeat the arguments in favour, but I will update the House on two developments since then. First, in consultation with the Public Bill Office, this Report amendment is more tightly drawn, focusing specifically on the mental health services that are in scope of this Bill and are required for its implementation. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has just noted, since we debated this point in Committee, new evidence has emerged, sadly, as to precisely why this amendment is needed. Previously, Ministers have argued, in good faith, that the Government are committed to protecting the mental health share anyway, whereas last Thursday, the Written Ministerial Statement disclosed that the Government now intend to shrink the share of NHS funding on mental health services in the year ahead.

The Written Ministerial Statement says:

“This is because of significant investment in other areas of healthcare”.


That is not a justification; it is a mathematical tautology. It reveals a preference entirely antithetical to what will be required over the years to get this Bill implemented.

It may be argued that it is a small percentage reduction, even though it is an important negative new precedent that has been set. However, a small percentage reduction on a large pound note number itself constitutes a large pound note number. Mental health services will be missing out on hundreds of millions of pounds more, not only in the year ahead but over the decade that it will take to implement the Bill. If that is not corrected in subsequent years, over £1 billion of funding has, in effect, been removed from mental health services and the implementation of the Bill as a consequence of that decision.

In summary, there are, sadly, real grounds for concern about whether the implementation of this Act will be properly and expeditiously resourced. If the Government want to argue that this amendment is unnecessary, because they are going to do what it says anyway, it is not clear why they would therefore object to its inclusion in the Bill. But if the Government’s argument is that they do not support the amendment because they would like the flexibility to cut mental health funding shares, then, to my mind, that really points to the necessity of the amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I rise briefly, having attached my name to Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. We saw in Committee multiple amendments all trying to address the resource issue. We have focused on this one because it is both an elegant solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, just outlined, and it is—emanating from the Cross Benches—a moderate solution that can and I think will attract wide support from around the House.

As the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said, parity of esteem has never been achieved and, on the current figures, is currently going backwards, in the wrong direction. We have to focus on the fact that the waiting lists for community mental health care for adults and young people and children are twice as long as those for physical healthcare. That is the outcome of the inequality of esteem with which mental health is being treated. I note that the Rethink Mental Illness Right Treatment, Right Time report found that most people living with a severe mental illness experienced worsening mental health while waiting for treatment, with 42% requiring urgent care and 26% being hospitalised. We are aiming to shift from hospital care—in-patient care—to community care, but we are actually forcing things in the other direction because people reach such a state of crisis. I have to preface the horror of what I am about to say with a warning. The Right Treatment, Right Time report found that 25% of people whose mental health deteriorated while waiting for treatment attempted suicide, which highlights how the lack of funding for mental health care impacts on that awful statistic.

This is a step to create a framework that heads in the right direction. As noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, how could you possibly oppose this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions and considerations this evening, to which I have listened closely.

I first turn to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. Workforce is absolutely a critical factor in enabling these reforms and we have committed to recruiting 8,500 more mental health staff over the course of this Parliament. The impact assessment sets out our expectations for the additional workforce that is required to deliver the Bill.

However, there are already various mechanisms in place to monitor and address concerns about the mental health workforce. The amendment would be duplicative and unnecessary. Providers registered with the CQC—both NHS and independent services—are required to deploy enough suitably qualified, competent and experienced staff, as outlined in Regulation 18 of the Staffing of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. If CQC finds a breach in Regulation 18, it can take action.

The Mental Health Act Code of Practice also states that local authorities should ensure that there are sufficient approved mental health professionals and independent mental health advocates. All staff in CQC-registered providers must receive the appropriate training that is necessary to enable them to carry out their duties under Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act Regulations 2014.

At a national level, CQC reports on workforce sufficiency as part of its monitoring of the Mental Health Act report. We would argue that this is a much better process than requiring integrated care boards to mark themselves on how well they are fulfilling their duties.

Furthermore, as I said on Monday and wish to reiterate, we are committed to laying an annual report on implementation, which will set out progress made and future plans for implementation. This will include information on the expansion of the workforce, including second opinion appointed doctors, Section 12 doctors and approved clinicians. It will also include details of the key statistics and outcomes under the Mental Health Act, including detention rates, community treatment order rates and other key metrics, such as racial disparities and outcomes for children and young people, all of which noble Lords rightly seek. I hope this annual commitment will be welcomed by your Lordships’ House and that this, combined with the existing workforce monitoring I have referred to, will allow the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

On Amendment 59, I also understand —as does the noble Earl, Lord Howe—the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, which is to ensure that we invest in delivering these reforms. I want to be clear: as I said in Committee, there are already mechanisms in the NHS Act to prioritise mental health spend to deliver these reforms.

To reiterate the point that I made previously, we believe that this amendment is not the right mechanism to ensure that we do that. I will return to the three main reasons for that, but I want first to refer to the point the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made when he spoke of “shrinking mental health spend”.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

It was the shrinking share of mental health spend.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that correction from a sedentary position. Perhaps I could provide some more clarity, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked for.

The proportion of spend is almost exactly the same as it was last year, with a difference of just 0.07%. We understand concerns that the share of overall NHS funding for mental health will reduce slightly. However, this does not mean that mental health funding is being cut, and I would not want noble Lords to think that to be the case. To be clear, spending on mental health support will increase relative to 2024-25 and is forecast to amount to £15.6 billion—an increase of £680 million in cash terms, and equivalent to £320 million in real terms.

Perhaps it would be helpful for me to return to the three main reasons for not supporting this amendment. The first is—as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, helpfully referred to—what I would call a point of principle. Primary legislation should not be used to constrain spending in this way. Multiyear budgets for government departments will be set by the established spending review process, which considers spending in the round and in the context of the Government’s policy priorities. Additionally, it is Parliament that is responsible for scrutinising government spending and approving spending set by departments for the current financial year as part of the estimates process.

Secondly, the amendment as drafted applies only to spend under the Mental Health Act. The mental health system, as noble Lords will appreciate, does not structure its accounts based on the legal framework under which a patient is held. A single ward, for example, could contain a mix of patients under the Mental Health Act and informal patients who would not usually be considered to be under the Mental Health Act. Likewise, community services will support a mix of people, some on community treatment orders and others who are not. It would be impractical to require services to split costs based on the ever-changing patient mix within their care.

The third reason for not accepting this amendment, and perhaps the most fundamental point, is that the share of spend on the Mental Health Act could reduce over time, which is not undesirable. I will explain why. The genesis of these reforms is the review initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady May, to address the rising rates of detention. We all want to see more people cared for effectively in the community so that the need for the use of the Act is reduced. This would require more investment in preventive community services, which, I put to noble Lords, is surely the preferable model for supporting severe mental illness. In creating a legal requirement for the share of spend specifically under the Mental Health Act not to decrease, this amendment would actually preclude the shift from detention to prevention that I know we all want to see.

So, while I absolutely understand the intention, and I can commit that we will invest to deliver these reforms, we cannot support this amendment, which, for the reasons I have outlined, we believe is fundamentally flawed. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord will not press his.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham]

59: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation: bus funding formula(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response to Amendment 59. I accept that there are some philosophical differences of view that she expressed. However, I do not think it was right to say that the scope of Amendment 59 does not include any community and preventive mental health care, since the Bill itself includes provisions that relate to those types of services. In any event, now is not the time for further relitigating. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 59.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Stevens of Birmingham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

This amendment sets out a road map. I am not saying exactly that we do not have the power in your Lordships’ House to say how the Government should spend money, but this amendment sets down a principle that says that we have to move in this direction.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, building on many of the important points we have just heard, I will speak to Amendments 163 and 164 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for their support for these two modest proposals, which are parsimoniously drafted but nevertheless potentially impactful if adopted.

The first amendment quite simply says that we will do away with “mañana, mañana” when it comes to implementing this Bill, which we have all spent so much time on and which the patients and advocates are so keen to see adopted, by putting a five-year backstop from the date on which the Bill becomes an Act through to commencement. Commencement of all its provisions must happen no later than five years after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The logic for that is that we all believe that, on balance, by the time the Bill has worked its way through Parliament, it ought to be an injection of improvement for mental health services, so why would we want to delay?

Of course, part of the answer is that there are some rate limiters, which are described elsewhere, including in the impact assessment. If we go through the impact assessment and say, “All right, what are the specific things that it suggests won’t be possible or won’t have got going until year 6 after Royal Assent?”, we will find it is a relatively modest number. For those who want to take a look, it is in table 1 of the impact assessment, at page 17. There are some changes to the second opinion doctor, to the CTOs, to the CTPs and so on, but both the pound note impact and the extra staffing at year 6 and beyond are incredibly modest compared with the overall size of mental health spending that we will incur. The incremental costs beyond year 5 are somewhere between £15 million and £25 million, on a budget that runs to billions. I believe that, in the real world, if we strain every sinew, it will be possible to get this thing done within five years.

There is another reason for thinking that it is useful to have a statutory backstop to implementation in the Act itself: the unfortunate tendency that we have seen in various other pieces of legislation that, when push comes to shove, the decision is made just to kick the can down the road a little further. I think it is fair to say that both principal parties have criticised the other for doing so with legislation that has passed. I think we had some measures in the health Act that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, steered through on obesity and junk food. They never quite saw the light of day, despite Parliament deciding that they would be a good thing. The then Government were criticised for that. Likewise, we put the time in to create the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. I think the Opposition criticised the Government for delays in implementing it, despite the fact that Parliament had passed it. Of course, the cause célèbre is social care reform, where we have been happily kicking down the track legislation that has seen dither and delay for over two decades. That should not be the fate of this legislation. Therefore, this simple amendment would put in a backstop to save us from ourselves. Parliament is sovereign. If we want to get the job done, there is no reason to think that we cannot make these changes in less than the time it took this country to fight and win World War II. That is the rationale for Amendment 163.

Amendment 164 simply says that, during the intervening period while this Act is being implemented, it would be unreasonable to shrink the size of the slice of the pie going on mental health services, for all the reasons that we have heard throughout Committee. To make sure that there can be no argy-bargy on how the drafting is laid out, we have lifted the wording exactly from the health Act as it currently is on the statute book around the proportion incurred by NHS England and ICBs that, taken together, relates to mental health. It says that it

“must not fall as a share of their expenditure (taken together) on all health services”,

with a little kicker: to stop the Department of Health and Social Care marking its own homework, the National Audit Office will do a review after each year and provide a report that we can all scrutinise.

Here are some reasons why the Government should not object to this. First, it does not tie their hands on the overall sum of funding allocated to the National Health Service. That is a decision for the Executive and negotiated each year; nothing here would constrain the ability of the Government to increase or cut expenditure on the National Health Service. Nor would it constrain the ability of each integrated care board to make a judgment on its own priorities. It simply says that, in the round—taking the 42 ICBs and NHS England together—it would be unreasonable to think that the share of health service spending on mental health will go down at a time when there is an incredible gap between need and treatment, and when we are trying to implement this legislation.

Fortunately, just before Christmas the Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, signalled his support for the mental health investment standard. This is the opportunity to provide legislative cover for that very welcome announcement. It is possible that the current Secretary of State will not be the Secretary of State for the totality of this Parliament—nobody has a crystal ball. Looking out five years beyond Royal Assent, it is also possible that year 5 will be the first year of a new Parliament. So it is entirely reasonable for Parliament to support the Secretary of State’s intent by legislating in the way set out in Amendment 164, not least because there are some concerning signals from around the NHS that, for the first time since the mental health investment standard was introduced, it is possible that the share of funding on mental health will go down, not up, when taken in the round. We have not yet seen the figures, but perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is correct. In any event, that simply serves to underline the acute importance of this safety net provision to ensure that the financial firepower is there to get this Act done.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for my absence from earlier debates in Committee. I will speak very briefly in support of these amendments. My noble friend said that we need to save ourselves from ourselves. Actually, we need to raise aspirations to change the culture of believing that it cannot be done and thinking that it will cost too much to take a more preventive approach, to care properly for people in the community and to achieve parity for mental health outcomes. These amendments are really important to try to achieve that, so I support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

In adding my support to these amendments, I welcome particularly the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey.

This debate has emphasised why the pathway of care, from the community through to any kind of hospital admission and discharge, must be considered as a whole. It is not okay to separate bits off. That is why the amendments are so important: unless we put provision in place to make sure that, when admission is necessary, it is timely and to a place which has the skills to provide the therapeutic care that people require, detention and admission will in fact be longer and costlier. We cannot contemplate making legislation that does not take account of the whole patient pathway.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

I have been inspired by the previous two contributions. I will briefly pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made about Amendment 134 on the availability of community services, particularly psychiatrists. I think the Minister referred to the longer training times for psychiatrists and other mental health professionals as one of the rate-limiting factors that would affect the speed with which the measures in the Bill could be implemented.

I have a request for the Minister. It is quite hard to tease out from the impact assessment what the Government think the incremental requirements for psychiatrists will be, year by year, over the implementation period. In fact, slightly perversely, they use mixed currency: the Minister responded, rightly, to Amendment 163 by saying, I think, that there was a requirement for 400 additional psychiatrists for the second opinion service; but when you look at the table in the impact assessment, it turns out that that is a headcount number driven by a number that is not a whole-time equivalent. However, for all the rest of the workforce, a whole-time equivalent number appears to be shown.

It would be good to nail down what the incremental requirement will be for psychiatrists, year by year and on a whole-time equivalent basis, so that between now and Report, colleagues can consider what the ramifications of that might be for a backstop on implementation. If that incremental requirement could be juxtaposed with what the Government think the organic increase will be in the number of psychiatrists over that period anyway, driven by the already published NHS workforce plan, that would be supremely helpful.