Breast Cancer Screening: Women Over 70
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the NHS policy of ending automatic mammogram invitations for women over 70.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, an important research study, AgeX, is investigating the effects of routine breast screening in women over 70. It is the biggest trial of its kind ever undertaken and results are expected in 2027. The UK National Screening Committee has been closely involved throughout and will use the findings as they are available. It is vital that all screening policy is based on robust scientific evidence, as screening can also cause harm.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but I am not sure that I want to wait until 2027. The facts are compelling. Early detection of breast cancer significantly boosts survival rates, especially of older people, some of whom might not last until 2027. I disagree with the policy of not sending out invitations for mammogram screenings to the over-70s. We should not leave it to self-referral every three years. Will the Minister say what outreach programmes are being implemented in the meantime to inform women of their right to self-refer? Such programmes should include informational mailings, community health talks, and leveraging technology and social media platforms, with healthcare providers having proactive discussions with seniors about continuous screenings. In the intervening period to the magic date of 2027, can the Minister assure me that all these things are happening?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right to say that women over the age of 71 can go to their GP and request a further screening every three years above that age. The noble Lord touched on a good point that it is imperative that that information is more widely available. I have talked to women of that age group and found that there is no general awareness that that is the case. I believe that all these policies should be managed and rolled out locally. It is for local healthcare systems to make sure that information is available to those most vulnerable in their communities. That is the work we are doing through the 10-year health plan, particularly reaching out to areas of disadvantage and inequality.
Trade Marks (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Debate between Baroness Blake of Leeds and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill(3 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this SI. It is framed to substitute a connection country with the United Kingdom, and it appears to make no attempt to improve or explain the Trade Marks Act 1994. This seems a missed opportunity. What constitutes a known trademark? Is being well known a moving target? You can be well known today but disappear from sight tomorrow. Where is the dividing line? Who decides? It really worries me who decides who is well-known.
The Minister used Rolex as an example. I do not know how many people in this Chamber are interested in that top end of the market, but a lot of other trademarks are in much more use by the general populace. I was trying to think which trademarks would be referred to. I did not think of Rolex, but would it include Woolmark, BS984, which I think would concern large numbers of the population. How does it affect things such as champagne: is that protected in any way?
Furthermore, is the trademark national or international? The Minister talked about how the provision gives protection in overseas markets, but the SI seems to concentrate on Section 56 of the 1994 Act and does not really go beyond it. What happens if a trademark has a reputation elsewhere in the UK: does the SI protect it in the UK and elsewhere?
The Minister spoke about services. The SI talks about trademarks, but there are also service marks, which the SI does not mention at all. There is nothing wrong with the SI, but it seems to have missed an opportunity. Things have moved on since 1994, but we are concentrating only on Section 56 of the 1994 Act and nothing else. Can the Minister address some of those concerns?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I shall be interested to hear the response of the Minister to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I thank the Minister for her fulsome explanation of where we are and why the instrument is necessary, of course noting that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure.
I notice that the Intellectual Property Office considered alternative options to addressing the commitment undertaken by the UK under the TCA, but there were no viable alternatives—which suggests that some alternatives were considered. I just wonder whether there will be an opportunity to review the impact of the SI and ensure that we keep up to date, ensuring for everyone involved that it is fit for purpose as time goes on.