Fracture Liaison Services

Lord Winston Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is absolutely key, as the noble Baroness says. We have to look at the way that we are working. I emphasise again that we are looking at how we can roll out the modern service framework, which will really push this forward. That will involve full consultation with the groups that the noble Baroness rightly mentioned. She spoke about funding. I cannot give specifics without knowing them, but we will be further delivering this already improved service, as well as taking other supportive actions. These include asking local authorities to include menopause in the NHS health check later this year, which will help greatly with earlier identification.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very important Question. Can the National Health Service make sure that there is a checklist for all fractures, just as an aircraft pilot does when he is taking off? There are numerous examples in the NHS—I speak from personal experience—of patients not being screened for bacteria before they go down to theatre. That should be a routine check. Further, it is very common for patients to be discharged from hospital when there is a lack of liaison between the hospital and local services. Sometimes, a wound may not be dressed for several days until somebody visits, where there is a risk of bone infection. This is a very serious and common problem.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I understand my noble friend’s point. He referred to checklists. Requirements are in place; I believe he is suggesting that they are not always followed, so I will certainly pick that up. As we move towards a neighbourhood health service, I feel ever more confident that we will attain the right standard of care, along with cutting waiting times. For example, we will make sure that, by 2028-29, for the first time, 80% of community health service activity should take place within 18 weeks. That has not been the case thus far.

National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Lord Winston Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It is a challenge to take on a deep-rooted culture, but we are doing that and it will require action at every level, without doubt. The main thing, as the noble Baroness said, is putting women, babies and their families at the heart of care. This has not been the case. NHS England’s chief executive brought all trust chief executives to London on the day the report was published to discuss the urgent actions trusts can take on this and to focus on the next 100 days. All perinatal leadership teams have also completed a culture and leadership programme, which I believe will strengthen collaboration across maternity and neonatal services. Those are just two of the actions we will take, but this is absolutely fundamental to all the system changes.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened to this short debate with a bit of amazement. We are looking at the end results, but we need to look a little further up the channel. My noble friend Lady Blackstone touched on a very important point, as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, which is much more crucial than we may perhaps understand. First, as has been said, these people come to hospital not to access maternity services but to have a baby. They are not ill. That is different from the rest of the NHS, even though they are in the NHS. What we are partly seeing here is a cultural situation that is a problem throughout the NHS, not just in maternity services. It is bad in maternity services for the obvious reason that, in the main, these people are healthy, although some are not terribly fit. We are losing the plot a bit.

For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said that there is a need for much better psychological support, and I agree. We tend to forget that a woman who is having a baby, even a normal baby who is fully alive, is losing a life within her uterus. She feels a loss when that happens. It may not be expressed as a loss—it is expressed as happiness—but it is an extraordinary change of feeling, which psychiatrists know is very common in maternity. We forget that this affects not just women but men as well.

We also sometimes assume, as we have done in this report—certain things are obvious—that it is much better not to have a caesarean section. That has been suggested, but it turns out that a caesarean section is safer than a vaginal delivery, if you want to be absolutely safe. This has been shown through various studies. I am not advocating caesarean section, of course, but I am pointing out that we sometimes deplore it when it may actually be a useful thing to do.

We have to understand that we are looking at not a broken service but a service under great stress, and we have to deal with that. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out that its manning is very inadequate. It needs to be a consultant-led service and people have to stay in overnight, but there is not always enough conversation between midwives and obstetricians. There needs to be much closer understanding between the two. Above all, the culture should be one of kindness. Kindness is what we must ensure.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with what my noble friend said about kindness; when we had the Statement last week, we discussed compassion as well. It is disappointing to have to talk about it, because it should be a given, but we have found that it is not. I totally agree that pregnancy is not an illness—I was once quoted as very sharply telling an interviewer that. I am not aware that it is, and it is not, but it is worth restating, in my view. On the role of men, I am very careful to speak about women and families; that is the right thing. I also clarify that, in this Statement, I do not believe anybody is suggesting that one form of birth is preferable to another. I think we would probably all agree that it is about the form that is safest and the right one for the circumstance.

NHS: Dementia Treatment Trials

Lord Winston Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I believe that we have upped the pace. It is very important, as I know the noble Earl is aware, to go with evidence-based solutions. Indeed, when I speak to the point about an evidence base, that is why we have several research initiatives, including, as I mentioned, the dementia trials network and the trials accelerator. Both of those are speeding up the set-up of early and late-phase clinical trials. We have already gone well under our ambition of 150 days to set up, at 122. We are positioning ourselves well to be a global leader in a way that I am sure the noble Earl would want us to be.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, while the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is quite keen on screening tests, we can both agree that screening tests have all sorts of major disadvantages, such as false diagnosis or unclear diagnosis? If we are not careful and do not have a test that is really reliable, we could end up with much more unnecessary worry for people who, for all sorts of reasons, believe that they have dementia when actually they are simply being a bit forgetful. That is important for health.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very fair observation that probably applies to many situations. When we talk about diagnosis, we are talking about getting the right people diagnosed, and quickly. That is why the modern service framework, as I mentioned earlier, will be developed and is being developed with partners and those with a particular interest. That will make sure that any interventions not only improve dementia care but improve diagnosis and the waiting times for diagnosis.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 24th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My point is that the change to the Bill was introduced after 62 hours. No evidence was taken on the new process. On Report, of the 77 amendments tabled by Members other than the sponsor, only seven were selected for a separate decision.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

The noble Baroness and I are relatively unique in that we were two of the 12 members of the Lords Select Committee panel that looked at the Bill. One issue that we found on our side was that the people against the Bill refused to take the evidence that we were trying to propose from other countries that had been successful with this type of Bill, including Australia, New Zealand and many other countries—some 30 sovereignties. We had great difficulty getting any chance of a proper hearing until the very end, by which time it was too late.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

Forgive me; I am unclear exactly what the noble Lord is referring to. I can tell the House, for clarity and for the record, that only one vote was taken at the Select Committee of this place: a vote not to accept written evidence. We all would have benefited from accepting the greatest number of representations. I voted in support of written evidence, and it is a shame that we did not have it. It meant that, because of the time limitations, we did not get to hear from more people. That was in large part determined by the clerks who supported us on the Bill.

It was therefore not surprising that the Bill cleared the Commons by just 23 votes—less than half of its already moderate majority at Second Reading. The assertion repeated today is that the Commons carried out thorough scrutiny and addressed the most important issues, but I attest that that does not mirror the facts. This is not a criticism of the efforts made by our colleagues in the other place; it is an acknowledgement that the process for Private Members’ Bills is completely inadequate for the task of scrutinising a Bill of this length, magnitude and complexity that has not been preceded by any consultation or other pre-legislative scrutiny.

It was therefore no surprise that, when the Bill arrived in this House, not one but two Select Committees in this place, the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, were scathing about the state in which we received it—specifically about the 42 Henry VIII powers that the Bill now conferred. It was exactly for that reason that an agreement was reached with my noble and learned friend to hold a time-limited Select Committee, which did not delay the timetable for the Bill. It ensured that we maintained the four protected Friday Committee sessions before the Christmas break at the end of last year but allowed us to take evidence on the Bill as we received it in this place and to hear from the professional bodies whose members will be responsible for delivering on the Bill.

We heard evidence from organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing, and from GPs and medical examiners—organisations and groups that are neutral on the principle of assisted dying but have legitimate and significant concerns about the efficacy, workability and safety of the Bill. I was seeking to make an intervention earlier on my noble friend Lady Andrews. Not a single royal college in this country will attest to the safety of the Bill. Why is it that noble Lords in this place believe that they know better than the people, organisations and professions that will have to deliver on the Bill? The Equality and Human Rights Commission, disability organisations, mental health organisations and domestic abuse experts talked about the Bill’s practical issues: its gaps and lack of safeguards or guardrails.

I have to express my significant disappointment that virtually none of that evidence presented to us has been taken on by my noble and learned friend the sponsor. What should have been an opportunity to strengthen and improve the Bill seems to have been treated instead as a mere hurdle to be jumped over to get this legislation over the finish line. That rich body of authoritative evidence, imparted over 13 panel sessions, has been largely ignored in the sponsor’s own amendments—the only amendments that have so far been accepted, save for one amendment to an amendment from my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland.

As for the comments that have been made about Committee, I attended every sitting and I do not believe that the depth and seriousness of this scrutiny can be captured in mere numbers and statistics. However, since supporters of the Bill have repeatedly referred to the number of amendments tabled, I will point out only that it is not clear what a normal number of amendments is for a Private Member’s Bill of this length and complexity that has not benefited from any pre-legislative scrutiny, because there has never been any attempt to pass a Bill like this before. It is a wholly spurious criticism.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

We should realise that this legislation, as the Senedd has quite rightly pointed out, is not simply about criminal law, which is understandably, and I believe rightly, reserved to this place. It is about the future of the NHS. It is about resourcing, as my noble friend Lord Deben has pointed out, and it is about the constitution of the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, pointed out. Those issues were raised by me and others briefly at the beginning of consideration of this legislation. They have not subsequently been addressed, and I fear that they cannot be addressed unless and until this is a government Bill.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I will just ask this question. I am genuinely a very simple doctor, and I do not really understand this problem. It is clearly a problem in ways that I think are humanitarian. At the moment in the House of Lords, we are discussing complex issues regarding precision medicine, which involves the use and manipulation of genetics, some of which will certainly require ethical considerations by this House. The issue is that clearly these advances in medicine cannot be denied to the people of all the United Kingdom because, although they might change healthcare in amazing ways, they will be far more expensive than assisted dying. How does that work? Perhaps the noble Lord could briefly explain to me why it seems wrong that we might be depriving the Welsh of something that is much wanted, simply because we cannot find the way through this on a legal basis.

Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned that 7% of undergraduates who take medical degrees in the UK are from overseas. I briefly mentioned last week my conversations with the head of admissions at a Russell group medical school. An important point that I did not have time to raise then, but is appropriate to raise now, is the significant amount of money that that 7% contribute not only to that medical school but in additional payments to the local trust.

I wanted to make your Lordships’ House aware of that, but I also want the Minister to talk about the consequences if we accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and just had British citizens as opposed to the British graduates the noble Lord Patel talked about. What impact would there be? We have held our tuition fees static for a while in this country, while those overseas students have been paying a phenomenal amount. I am just worried that we might throw the baby out with the bath water. The unintended consequence of making some of those courses unviable is a serious concern, and I think it appropriate to raise it at this point.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I too am a little bit concerned about unintended consequences. It is a real pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Darzi in his place, because I hope he will have comments on this issue.

I trained as a clinical academic. Indeed, we know that clinical academics have had a unique value to the health service. They work part-time in the health service with a reduced salary and do research at the same time. I am very concerned that many of the clinical academics we have had at Imperial College, for example, have been from overseas. They were medically qualified elsewhere but had not yet been in Britain and were still junior doctors, in a sense. I am really concerned that there are many such people who come to Britain, do a postdoctoral degree such as a PhD and, in the meantime, keep their medical skills flowing, as I did myself. I was seven years in this situation with the Wellcome Trust. I remember it very well. I was overseas but at least knew that I could come back to Britain. But I was a British subject—that was easy.

There are so many of these people. To give just one example, Professor Jan Brosens at Warwick University is undoubtedly one of the key people who have contributed massively to female health, particularly on implantation of the ovum and in his magnificent work on endometriosis. He came as a junior doctor from Belgium, from Leuven University, to what was then Hammersmith Hospital, which is now, of course, Imperial College. Now, he is a very distinguished professor at Warwick University with a very large team. His recruitment made a very big difference to the whole field. His is not an isolated example; there are many such people I can think of. I hope the noble Baroness can suggest some way of dealing with this problem of unusually good graduates from elsewhere, who may not be British citizens, perhaps, in the current priorities, but who would really be deserving of serious consideration for certain specialty jobs. Not to do that would be a great loss to the health service.

[Lord Darzi of Denham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, many of you will know that I did my medical training in Ireland. In fact, I exercised some of my skills in this Chamber back in 2007. Irish medical education is excellent, and many of its graduates have gone on to distinguished careers in the NHS. I speak today to ensure we strike the right balance in this Bill, specifically by securing fair treatment for doctors who hold degrees approved by the Irish Medical Council.

As drafted, the Bill would exclude graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland at its medical campus in Bahrain, for example—a campus that was established more than 20 years ago. Let me be clear about what that institution delivers: it has the same curriculum, the same examinations and the same quality assurance as Dublin, leading to a single national University of Ireland degree. Its programme and clinical training sites are also accredited under Irish regulatory oversight by the Irish Medical Council. I urge that, on Report, wording be introduced to bring graduates of this institution within the priority group. Such a clarification would sit squarely alongside the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mendelsohn. These seek to ensure that medical graduates of a UK university holding a GMC-approved degree and following the same curriculum and assessment, but studying outside the British Isles, are included in the priority group. It would also be consistent with the similar amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Forbes and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Hollins.

I draw a further anomaly to your Lordships’ attention. The unamended Bill would place graduates of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland’s campus in Penang, Malaysia—a joint programme with University College Dublin—within this priority group. These students study an Irish Medical Council-accredited, GMC-recognised degree, completing half their education in Ireland and half in Malaysia. Yet the well-intentioned clarifying amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, requiring at least 60% of the time to be spent in Ireland, would inadvertently exclude them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 15, 16 and 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, which I have signed, and which she spoke to so convincingly. These Benches also support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and signed by my noble friend Lord Shipley, and Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

As I said at Second Reading, I am the former chair of the council of Queen Mary University of London and now, for my sins, an honorary professor. Amendments 15, 16 and 19 seek to correct a category error in the Bill: namely, the classification of students holding a UK primary medical qualification from a UK public university as “international”, solely because their classroom is in Malta. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will say the same in respect of Malaysia. The Minister has argued that these students lack “clinical familiarity” with the NHS, but that does not withstand scrutiny. These students follow the exact same curriculum as their peers in London, as the noble Baroness said.

The Bill prioritises EEA nations, because it seems that our trade deal requires us to recognise “comparable” qualifications. It is legally incoherent to accept a “comparable” qualification from Liechtenstein while rejecting an “identical” and “affiliated” qualification from Malta. We are treating a formal UK affiliate worse than a trade partner. These students sit the UK medical licensing assessment and they are taught by UK-trained consultants. As I said at Second Reading, it is a manifest absurdity that, under this Bill, a graduate from Liechtenstein with no UK degree and no UK training is prioritised over a Queen Mary student who holds a UK degree and is specifically prepared for our health service.

I strongly endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, regarding our free trade agreements. We are in an absurd position whereby a treaty obligation forces us to prioritise these “comparable” qualifications. This is not workforce planning; it is a diplomatic and regulatory own goal. As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment 19 offers a simple solution by adding Malta to the priority list. This honours the mutual recognition agreement held between the UK and Malta since 2009—an agreement the Department of Health explicitly renewed in 2024.

Amendments 15, 16 and 17 offer a broader solution based on the qualification. If a student holds a UK degree from a UK-registered institution and passes identical UK assessments, they should be treated as a UK graduate. The Minister fears displacement of domestic talent, yet the majority of these Maltese trainees are contractually obliged to return to Malta after their training. They are what can be described as a circulatory workforce: one that supports the NHS during their training years, without permanently blocking the consultant pipeline. They are the ideal workforce partner. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, Maltese surgeons have been licensed by our royal colleges since the 1830s. This is not a new or risky pipeline; it is a two-century year-old bond that the Bill carelessly severs.

Furthermore, we support Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, regarding people who qualify in the British Islands but who have trained abroad. We are all on the same page in advocating for these well-qualified students, who should be eligible to have the same priority in obtaining training jobs as those currently set out in the Bill. We have received heartbreaking correspondence from British nationals studying in eastern Europe, often because of the cap on places here, who intend to return to the NHS. One correspondent highlighted that we allow British dentists to return without these barriers. Why do we treat our future doctors differently?

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada. The best surgical training I had was with a Maltese surgeon, who was absolutely fantastic and taught me lessons I have never forgotten. One has to see that that cross-fertilisation happens across the NHS very often.

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 15, 16 and 19, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is my first opportunity to speak in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, in this Chamber. She is one of the more extraordinary and fantastic additions to this House in recent years. She has made a massive contribution to our country in medical expertise. The case that she made for these amendments was utterly compelling. I hope the Minister has felt the same inspiration as I did from her words. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who I realise I have now known for 29 years, for another great speech, which again I think added to the strength of these points.

The amendments address an important omission, which has a couple of concerning issues underlying it. The case for why we should continue with this relationship is compelling. We seek to add Malta to the list of jurisdictions whose primary medical qualifications are recognised for prioritisation. As stated, Malta’s medical education system is not merely comparable to that of the United Kingdom; it is formally and historically integrated, through decades of regulatory alignment, shared training structures and sustained institutional partnerships, including the Queen Mary University of London’s Malta campus.

A substantial proportion of the graduates from this campus are United Kingdom nationals and many others hold UK domicile or indefinite leave to remain status. This is a cohort that can be planned for with confidence and absorbed without difficulty within the normal operation of the system, while making a real and practical contribution to the NHS. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, they provide a valuable workforce capability that does not undermine the consultant pipeline, which is something we have to manage very well. Excluding this cohort of medical students disrupts an established pipeline, separates training from deployment and leaves capacity unused within a system that is under constant pressure. That is not disciplined workforce policy; it is a misalignment between regulation and operational need.

Medical education is one of the United Kingdom’s most significant strategic assets and a central pillar of our global impact in healthcare. It is very important that we maintain alignments and partnerships where they exist. Undermining them does nothing to enhance our reputation as a stable partner for any form of business, let alone the important thing of building relationships in medical research. I hope the Government reflect very carefully on this. A category error has led to a position where, even as recently as 2024, we undertook another solemn commitment—as you do in contracting—which we have now backed away from. That is a terrible place to be in.

The historic connections we have with countries—where we align these things over years and people invest with confidence—must not be undermined, especially when we, essentially, use a free trade agreement as a mechanism to undermine it. This is the wrong way around. This is not strategic planning; it is dodging and weaving between different and vacillating policies. We cannot be subject to this.

I hope the Minister will encourage the Government to reflect very carefully on this. I hope that there will be some positive news about how we can make sure that the countries we have aligned with most closely and have a formal UK affiliation can be brought into this arrangement and that some form of these amendments can be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I always do, I will seek to engage in sufficient time before Report. I will not promise the beginning of next week, but we all know the deadlines that noble Lords are working to and I am very respectful of that.

Amendment 17 could create the loophole I have referred to and risks existing international overseas campuses expanding their intakes further. I am grateful that noble Lords acknowledge the concern and are considering how to deal with it. That would be outside any UK workforce planning.

Amendment 21 would provide a regulation-making power to limit the number of applicants who could be prioritised from these overseas campuses. Going back to my earlier comments, it is not clear how such a requirement would be implemented effectively and fairly in practice but, in any event, it would not provide an appropriate safeguard for UK workforce planning.

The Bill rightly prioritises those whose education and placements the UK taxpayer has supported, who are most likely to work in the NHS in the long term—I emphasise this point—and are better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population because they understand the UK’s epidemiology. However, I hope my noble friend Lord Forbes and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, will take back to the university that graduates from international overseas campuses are not excluded and will continue to be able to apply to the foundation programme and specialty training.

Amendment 18 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, relates to the prioritisation of medical graduates from institutions in Ireland. The Government cannot accept this amendment, and I thought her own assessment of it was most honest and helpful. Throughout the development of this Bill, we have been clear that graduates from the Republic of Ireland are prioritised on the same basis as UK medical graduates. This reflects the long-standing and unique relationship between our countries, including the arrangements under the common travel area, which supports reciprocal rights of movement and employment. It also ensures coherence in workforce planning across both jurisdictions, where medical education and training pathways have been closely aligned for many years.

Introducing different criteria for graduates from the Republic of Ireland, as this amendment proposes, would risk disrupting those shared arrangements. It could also create an uncertainty in the provision of postgraduate training in Ireland.

Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, seeks to add Malta to the list of prioritised countries set out in Clause 4. This would require that those who hold a primary medical qualification from any institution in Malta, irrespective of their nationality, are prioritised for foundation and specialty training. I address this particularly to my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, to whom I listened closely, as I did to the noble Baroness, but we cannot accept this amendment.

I refer particularly to the European Free Trade Association countries, as they have been mentioned a number of times, including by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others. Those countries listed in Clause 4 are those with which the UK has signed agreements that include offering parity of access to the workforce. I have looked back at when those agreements were made: for the EFTA countries of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, the agreement was made in July 2021, and Switzerland was in 2019. I make these points because they certainly precede this Government. In practice, as I have said before, not all these countries will have eligible applicants in any case.

The 1975 UK-Malta reciprocal healthcare convention will continue and is not affected by the Bill. I emphasise that that agreement is wholly related to reciprocal access to healthcare, not access to training or employment related to medical training. I hope it is helpful to say that the Bill includes a power to amend the list of countries in Clause 4 to reflect any future international agreements that the UK may enter into. As I have also stated previously, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. I emphasise that there is no disrespect intended here and we very much value the long-standing partnership with Malta on healthcare, and that will continue to be valued. However, prioritising international graduates would undermine our ability to keep foundation training numbers aligned with the NHS workforce that we are planning for and manage those bottlenecks in specialty training, about which there is concern across the Committee. This is about focusing on patient care and ensuring that those whose education and experience best prepares them to practice safely and effectively in the NHS are the ones who are prioritised.

For specialty training, prioritising these individuals would not support our aim to prioritise doctors with significant NHS experience who understand how the health service works and how to meet the needs of the UK population. I reassure the Committee that this Bill will not affect existing fellowship arrangements with Malta, and the affiliation of the UK foundation programme and Malta foundation programme, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, referred, will still stand. Senior officials in my department have met with the high commissioner of Malta to the United Kingdom to assure him of this and last week I received a positive letter of acknowledgement from the Health Minister in Malta.

To be absolutely clear, individuals with a primary medical qualification from Malta will still be able to apply for foundation and specialty training places, and they will be considered for any places that are left after prioritisation. But it would still be the case that it would be at odds with the aim of the Bill for them to be prioritised for these places. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

The NHS is a complex organisation which is going to be rapidly changing, with increasing issues regarding its employees and all sorts of new technologies that will develop in a way we have never seen before. In view of that, does the Minister think there might be some reason for the Government to consider looking at this situation in, say, five years’ time to see the effect of the Bill on the health service?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 6th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

Thank you. I apologise to the Front Bench about that.

The problem was, in the later part of his life, his lungs began to give way. I remember him saying to me, in the last two or three months of his life, “I just wish somebody could help me so that I could end my life”. Watching a member of your close family die from a horrendous disease is something I hope the House will take into account. I am very concerned about Amendment 105 because I think is very tough indeed, and I sincerely hope that the House will reject it.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord agree that the word is “suffocated”, rather than “die”?

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

I apologise. Yes, the word is “suffocated”—he was suffocating as his lungs began to fade.

Baby Milk Powder: Cereulide

Lord Winston Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am certainly convinced that more than a decent job has been done on this occasion. I know that the FSA, along with the department and the UK Health Security Agency, have, as was said to me, been working non-stop since the incident was notified, and I am genuinely reassured by that. What I would say is that alternatives are available, there is no problem with the supply of alternatives and if anybody—grandmothers, mothers, parents, friends, or whoever—has concerns, they should check the NHS website and the FSA website and, if they remain concerned, they should seek guidance from a medical professional. There are people who are potentially affected, but, as I said, this is a live incident and it is being monitored.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I have in the past given notice to the Minister about this, with regard not to milk but to other issues: for example, where small humans, such as embryos or babies, come in contact with fluids or chemicals that might be dangerous. It is not only milk that may need better observation. Does she agree that we should look rather carefully at how we regulate the fluids used for culture of human tissues, in particular embryos, where there may be some risks of not getting better results, or possibly even of danger to the embryo?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Safety is paramount, whether we are talking about embryos, adults or children. I would be pleased to hear from my noble friend if there are particular areas on which he would like to be reassured, or at least responded to. But I hope that, in respect of food safety, in this situation, your Lordships’ House will see that all actions have been taken by the relevant authorities, with speed and in line with the laws available.

Rare Cancers Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am delighted to pledge the Government’s full support for this Bill. It is very much aligned with our commitments, it strengthens the research ecosystem and, most importantly—I agree with many comments today—it gives hope to patients and families affected by rare cancers. I am glad that the Bill has the support of the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Palmer, on behalf of their Benches.

I am most grateful to noble Lords for their points and proposals today. I will be reflecting on them after this debate with the Minister in this area, Ashley Dalton MP, and also Zubir Ahmed MP. I was very touched that so many Peers shared their personal experiences, whether their own or those of their loved ones. I feel that the Bill stands in tribute to the memory of so many, including the late Baronesses, Lady McDonagh and Lady Jowell. It also stands in tribute to the memory of so many who I believe have been brought into the Chamber today by the very touching words and reflections of so many noble Lords. I realise how difficult that is.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Elliott on her tenacity and clarity in bringing forward this important Bill before the House. I associate myself with the thanks to the many campaigners and charities who have worked on this for so many years, and I know they will continue to do so. My noble friend Lady Morgan made that point particularly clearly. I say to the House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that the Government are quite clear that no patient should be left behind simply because their cancer is less common.

The national cancer plan is soon to be published— I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Polak, hopes will be in there, and he will not have to wait too long for it—and it will build on the progress of this Bill. They work very well together, because they both seek to improve outcomes for cancer patients across the country, including those with rare cancers. It is by fighting cancer on all fronts—prevention, diagnosis, treatment and research—that we will make that change.

Much has been said today, and rightly so, about a number of cancers, but I want to say a particular word on how little is currently known about the prevention, diagnosis and management of brain tumours. They remain one of the hardest cancers to treat, and we also know how crucial early diagnosis is for improving survival rates for all cancers, including brain tumours. That is why we have committed to an additional £6 billion capital investment on new diagnostic, elective and urgent care capacity. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, called for genome sequencing for brain tumours. I can say to him that the national cancer plan will include detail on how we ensure that patients have access to the latest treatments and technology, including genetic treatments.

Important points were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, among others, about how the £40 million commitment to NIHR funding for brain tumour research will be met. That commitment absolutely remains in place, but there is no upper limit to our funding of high-quality brain tumour research and we are committed to exceeding the £40 million target. I should also add that there is no limit to our funding of high-quality childhood cancer research.

Clinical research, rightly, is at the core of this Bill. It is one of the most powerful tools that we have. I believe that the Bill will complement the ambitions in our 10-year health plan and the forthcoming national cancer plan to embed that research across the NHS and give patients greater control. It will make it much easier for researchers to connect with patients with rare cancers and streamline the recruitment for clinical trials and will ensure our regulatory framework delivers for those who need it most.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Browning, raised the database. The database is live across the UK; it is a UK-wide registry. I urge everyone to sign up to be part of research in order to connect with trials. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, also asked about strengthening the orphan drug regulations. We must ensure that there is a detailed review before any decisions are made on the regulations.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that we will ensure that we do all we can to improve how we use data for research and raise public awareness of consent. I certainly fully support the digitisation of advance consent, which he referred to.

It is key that we incentivise research and continue to support and develop cutting-edge research for rare cancers and other rare diseases through the NIHR. For example, in December, we launched a pioneering new brain tumour research consortium to accelerate research into new treatments through the NIHR, which is investing an initial £13.7 million, with significant further funding expected to be announced shortly. We are also ensuring the effective co-ordination of research from other funders and charities through the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

We published Transforming the UK clinical research system: August 2025 update outlining how we fully delivered against all the recommendations in the review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, who I thank for his work on commercial clinical trials. We will go still further to deliver on our 10-year health plan and cut clinical trial set-up times to under 150 days by March—a target driven by the Prime Minister. We are taking forward the most significant reform of clinical trials regulations in more than 20 years. We need a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, and that is what we will deliver.

Concerns were raised about timings of implementation and market authorisation of clinical trials. The timeframe in the Bill is a legal boundary, and we certainly expect to publish the report rather sooner. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, asked about the UK’s ranking for approving orphan drugs. The lessons learned from the review of the regulations will inform how we best approach the regulation of UK orphan medicines.

On the abolition of NHSE, work is under way on primary legislation. That will enable its functions, powers and responsibilities to transfer formally to the department. That will include responsibility for this Bill. I heard loud and clear from a number of noble Lords the wish to see a speciality lead for rare cancers in post and getting to work as soon as possible. I certainly agree on their importance. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, but this is the way we will go forward. We will ensure that that appointment is made as soon as possible.

As I said at the outset, many useful points have been made. They will be part of our consideration, but the main thing I want to say is how glad we are to fully support this Bill and how we will do all we can to help progress it. It reflects ambition and our support for the goal for the UK to be the global leader in clinical research, which noble Lords called for. This is about patients, particularly those facing rare cancers. They deserve and need greater choice, speed and opportunity to participate in vital studies. Every breakthrough is key because it means that we can maximise people’s access to the benefits. I thank my noble friend for bringing the Bill forward, all noble Lords who have contributed and all those who continue to champion its cause.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I apologise for keeping the House waiting a moment longer, but I want to ask the noble Baroness something very important. This has been a fantastic debate of a high standard, in the best interests of the House of Lords. There was a great focus on focused research on rare cancers, but does she agree that continued basic research on cell biology, embryology and a whole range of things about cell development, which has contributed so much to cancer research and to rare cancer research, is also important?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As my noble friend said, this has been an extremely valuable, well-informed and moving debate. At present, we are focusing on rare cancers because of the nature of the Bill, but I absolutely take his point about the importance of work outside rare cancers and the overlap with that. I thank him for it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Winston Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I could briefly come back to something that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I agree with a great deal of what he said in his speech just now, but I suggest that, when it comes to medical practitioners and the medical and caring profession, the word “concerns” does not mean that they are against the Bill. It is very important to understand that.

As a member or fellow of a number of these different organisations, what surprises me is how little of the correspondence from them is actually against the Bill. Sometimes there is some concern—of course, this needs reasonable regulation and proper agreement— but, overall, we must be very careful about how we understand their words. I have certainly not heard from my colleagues in many conversations over these past months that the Bill should be stopped. On the contrary; they are interested to see how it goes. I certainly think that many of them would say that they feel that this is a good Bill to look at.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

May I interrupt? I did not for one moment suggest that I was concerned about this because people were opposed to the Bill. What I said—indeed, I said this specifically—was that I was not thinking of those who were in principle opposed to the Bill. What I wanted to say was that specific concerns had been expressed, and that some of these amendments seek to meet the concerns of the very people who are going to carry this Bill through. I was not proposing this to stop the Bill; I was saying that even those of us who do not like the Bill want to do our job, which is to produce a Bill that will be at least, in the proper terms, workable. That is the only point I made.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for this conversation. I am glad to hear him say that but, unfortunately, the word “concerns” is often bandied about by people who just say, “Well, of course, the doctors are against this Bill”. That is not a fair assumption; it is certainly clear from the Select Committee evidence we heard that there are various opinions.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Bill’s proponents and the sponsor might be open to some reflection on this point and, specifically, to considering whether it would be better to use clearer language; language that is used elsewhere on the statute book; language that could help deal with the points I have touched on and some of the other concerns that we have had about the way the Bill will be implemented in practice.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

Forgive me for interrupting; I do not want to take up time. The noble Lord is now giving us a lesson in Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Latin and indeed Old German, as well as Middle English. We are missing the point. We need to move on, surely. He has been over 12 minutes on this speech, and it is beyond what we would accept at this stage of the day.

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

I think I am allowed 15 minutes, actually. I do not think I mentioned Celtic either, just on a point of detail.

That aside, I was reaching—in fact, had already delivered—my peroration. I hope, as I said, the proponents might be open to some reflection on this point. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I find it strange that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, should be making the argument that the word “dying” tells us all that we need to know. If that were so, we would not need the Bill. The Bill is about a very specific thing, which is choosing to end your own life and getting help with it. The importance of clarity and frankness in language in the making of law is very great. It must be distinguished from perfectly legitimate what I shall call political language.

Take, for example, the right to life, which is one side of the argument in another matter, and the right to choice. Those are both perfectly good phrases about the subject of abortion, but they were not suitable phrases for law. When you talk about law, the word that should be used is “abortion”. That is what is actually happening. I am not saying that there is any dishonesty here, but it is inappropriate for the making of law.

I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said about possible ambiguities and misunderstandings. I give an example, which is nothing whatever to do with assisted dying, but it just illustrates the point. As we ran up to the 1983 general election, Labour had a policy of unilateral disarmament. The Tories were against unilateral nuclear disarmament and attacked it. Somebody wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph saying, “I do not think people know what the word ‘unilateral’ means, and if you call it ‘one-sided disarmament’, people will understand what this is about”. The Tories seized that, suddenly changed all their propaganda to talk about one-sided disarmament and the polls shifted very dramatically against one-sided disarmament. The importance of normal English is very significant. Again and again, we can see public confusion, which must be avoided, about what is actually proposed in the Bill.

Finally, there is a contradiction in the arguments made by supporters of the Bill—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was in this situation. Since the greatest thing that is being argued for by supporters of the Bill is autonomy, it is important to have a word or phrase that embodies that autonomy and shows who is making this decision and whose agency it is. The phrase “committing suicide” exactly establishes the agency and exactly shows the autonomy. It is contradictory to advocate for autonomy and then to take refuge in euphemism.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

Many years ago, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, introduced a similar Bill. I, very misguidedly, introduced an amendment to the title of the Bill; I suggested that the word “euthanasia” should be in the Bill. I did this without believing either that the Bill should pass or that it should fail—I was genuinely uncertain—but, earlier that week, I had talked to a 16 year-old schoolgirl in a school. In the short conversation we had, she asked, “Do you think we always feel that we have to go for and strive for perfection?” I found that very difficult to answer, so I pondered on it.

One of the issues here is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has just shown. He tried to demonstrate that there are no absolute meanings of words. In that case, I used Greek, but this is something that we need to go beyond now. These words will mean different things to different people. We waste a lot of time doing this sort of meddling with language when it is unnecessary and when there is no issue with the legal quality of the Bill, which, of course, must be paramount. It is clear that the language we have at the moment is undoubtedly intelligible and largely workable.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, let my start by picking up the point that was just made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. We should be plain and simple in saying what is going on. In effect, the Bill’s central purposes are to amend the Suicide Act and to legalise somebody’s ability to assist someone else in killing themselves. We should be frank about that; that is what we are doing. If people find us being clear and speaking plainly about what we are doing either uncomfortable or distressing, that should make us pause and ask ourselves whether what we are doing is the right thing. We should not change the language to make the thing that we are doing more palatable. We should speak plainly about it then judge accordingly.

There are some real consequences. One of them was set out by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin when he referred to people with learning disabilities. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will correct me if I have got this wrong, but I think that, when he gave evidence to the committee, he was clear that he wanted someone with a learning disability to have the same ability to access assisted suicide as anybody else, assuming that they meet the other eligibility criteria. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin put it very well when he said that people with learning disabilities need to have things explained in clear and straightforward language. That is really important.

In an earlier debate, my noble friend Lord Markham talked about relying on the experts, but we cannot do that because we know that they do not always make the right decision. We know that, during the Covid pandemic, many people with learning disabilities were given “Do not resuscitate” notices because some people had made the decision that their lives were not as worthwhile as others. People made decisions about them that they would not have made about somebody who did not have a learning disability. It is important that we make sure that the language we use about this decision, which could not be more important, is understandable and that the consequences are understandable for everybody who will be impacted by such a decision. My noble friend Lord Shinkwin made that point well.

My noble friend Lord Frost has already made the point about the use of the phrase “committing suicide”; I reflected on it before I signed his amendment. Personally, I do not like using that phrase—the “commit” piece, not the “suicide” piece—so I paused before I signed his amendment. However, I thought that having a debate and pressing on clarity was important. Obviously, we are in Committee. If my noble friend were to bring forward these amendments on Report, I would want to work with him on the language. I think that removing “commit” would be better because, as my noble friend correctly said, the Suicide Act has removed that vocabulary.

But using the word “suicide” is accurate. Just because somebody has a terminal illness, that does not mean that in taking their own life they are not committing suicide. It is important because it gets through to people the consequence of what we are doing here and the fundamental reshaping we are doing to the way in which society looks at this. That is why so many of us are concerned about it.