Cancer Outcomes in the UK

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on securing this excellent debate. I thank him for bringing his considerable expertise and careful consideration—as he always does, as other noble Lords have said—to these matters. He has assembled a pretty daunting selection of noble Lords, for which I am also grateful.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which have been incredibly well informed, personally felt and thoughtful. There is much that I will share and examine further with my ministerial colleagues. Sharon Hodgson, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, is driving forward the implementation of the cancer plan. To pick up the specific point about GPs, I note that Stephen Kinnock, the Minister for Care, is the responsible Minister for that area; I will raise the searching comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, with him.

I appreciate how personal and affecting the debate is for so many—if not everybody—whether they have said it or not, either directly or indirectly. That has inspired us much. By using the word “inspired”, I am quoting the noble Earl, Lord Howe; I was delighted to hear him talk about the cancer plan as an “inspiring read”—he really should review books—and “excellent”. The noble Earl’s assessment of it being a jigsaw is absolutely spot on, and that has been acknowledged throughout.

I will do my best to respond to a number of points. I suspect that I will not manage to do so entirely, but I hope noble Lords will be assured that their comments and questions will be taken up.

For me and noble Lords here today, strategy is one thing but implementation is the main thing. Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Bloomfield, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others challenged the point about implementation, so I will speak briefly about that. There will be a reformed national cancer board. It will be accountable for delivery and include cancer experts. It will track progress, update Ministers and monitor the impact, including—following the points raised by my noble friend Lady Nargund—by dealing with inequalities; that will be key in its monitoring. Updates will be published annually on the national cancer plan’s progress. I look forward to more challenge and engagement from noble Lords in relation to that.

On outcomes, as we have heard, the best way is to diagnose and to treat early to improve outcomes, which is why the cancer plan sets an ambitious goal to meet all cancer waiting times standards by 2029. We are already making strides towards this goal—not least by reducing the NHS waiting list overall by 405,000 since July 2024—but we have a very long way to go in this area of cancer.

The point about inequalities—whether we are talking about race, deprived communities or any other significant factor—came up so much, and rightly so. The noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern, Lady Bottomley and Lady Nargund, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, among others, referred to this. As was said, the improvement of care for deprived, disadvantaged or less equal communities will be monitored through the NHS cancer waiting time standards. Data is published at integrated care board and provider level, and the NHSE acute provider table of all 134 providers supports this transparency. It is about getting attention to where it is needed most.

The cancer plan’s central ambition is to transform survival rates, committing to 75% of patients diagnosed from 2035 being cancer-free or living well within five years. What an ambition that will be to achieve. It will be the fastest rate of improvement in cancer outcomes this century and lead to an additional 320,000 lives saved over the course of this plan—and of course, for every life saved, many more are affected.

On diagnostics, one way in which we can achieve our ambitions is by improving cancer diagnosis in the community—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke to this point. As noble Lords have acknowledged, last week we announced plans to open four new community diagnostic centres in England over the next year, while also announcing that a further 32 of the 170 CDCs that are currently providing valuable diagnostic capacity will be expanded and enhanced. They are a major move towards a neighbourhood health service.

By extending new capacity—which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—we are also optimising our cancer screening programmes to catch it earlier. I make particular reference to HPV, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. From this year, young people who missed out on the vaccination at school can have it administered from a pharmacy. That is to help us move to the elimination of cervical cancer by 2040. I really welcome that. It is about recognising that some people have missed out and providing the service easily and locally in the trusted pharmacy.

My noble friend Lady Ramsey and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, referred to the national lung cancer screening programme. This will be fully rolled out by 2030, inviting more than 6 million people and identifying at least 23,000 cancers at an earlier stage. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made the point that those who are more disadvantaged are benefiting from this to a greater degree. Disadvantage is being matched with greater and disproportionate—as in the right amount of—care and attention, and I hope we will see more of that.

On the matter of treatment, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, that we will be taking a new approach: more patients will be able to access specialist training centres; by 2028 the NHS app will be the front door for managing our healthcare, and it will have a particular resonance for cancer care; and by 2035 we will bring together genomic and lifestyle data with the all-important single patient record, which will provide the kind of joining up that noble Lords have referred to.

I turn to the important matter of workforce, which was referred to by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I share the frustration of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the effect of industrial action on the service to patients and the kind of progress that we seek to make.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, almost asked me, “When is spring?”, and my noble friend Lady Blake whispered, “It’s still quite cold outside”. But there is indeed to be the publication of the 10-year workforce plan, which will set out a multi-disciplinary approach and will pay greater attention to the role of the workforce. I very much look forward to it supporting this cancer plan, as well as others.

My noble friend Lady Rafferty asked about the training of clinical staff. We will establish new national training standards for surgeons, in particular surgeons in robotic surgery. Over the first three years of the cancer plan, we seek to create some 5,000 learning and training opportunities for people per year in cancer-critical roles. That shows its importance in our approach.

As noble Lords have said, we have to take steps to seize and embrace research breakthrough. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, will take this back, but Cancer Research UK has rightly pointed out that, if we shift the dial on outcomes, that requires us to target rarer cancers, which noble Lords have referred to, where progress has often been slow. As your Lordships will know, we are fully implementing the Rare Cancers Act and are glad to do so. That will make it easier for patients to take part in cutting-edge clinical trials, the importance of which my noble friend Lady Paul spoke to. I can tell my noble friend Lady Warwick that we will appoint a national specialty lead who will advocate for rare cancer patients and oversee the delivery of research in England.

A new cancer trials accelerator will increase the speed and reach of trials. Up to 10,000 personalised cancer vaccine doses will be delivered through clinical trials by 2030. To respond to my noble friend Lady Paul, the Government have committed to reducing the set-up time for clinical trials to under 150 days, to earn the UK the real honour and practicality of being a world leader. We will streamline the implementation of proven technology, as well as boosting access via our new national healthtech access programme.

Just as we are targeting rarer cancers, we will also target specific groups—to which I have already referred—to ensure greater progress. That requires the use of data and data collection, which the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, spoke about. The national cancer plan includes, for example, real-time pathway analytics, streamlined cancer metrics to expose unwanted variation, which is absolutely crucial, and providing trusts and cancer alliances with more granular and actionable data. Without data we cannot target where we need to go.

As noble Lords know, April is not just part of spring; it also marks the publication, last week, of our renewed women’s health strategy, in which we set out actions to expand genomic testing for those with a lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancers. We will also look to improve the detection of endometrial cancer. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Nargund, who spoke to the important matter of gynae cancers.

On linking women’s health to AI, I hope noble Lords will recall that we now have the EDITH—Early Detection using Information Technology in Health—trial, which will see nearly 700,000 women take part in a world-leading trial to test whether AI can increase the number of cancers detected in the national breast screening programme. To the point on workforce, this will also mean that the radiographers will be key, but we will need not two but one for each case—that is how we can harness AI. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Evans, about the great improvements that AI can make, including in back-office functions. My noble friend Lord Drayson also spoke to the importance of harnessing the benefits of AI, and I assure noble Lords that we will continue to do that.

I will make a couple of final comments on innovation, productivity and funding, but, before I do, I will comment on prevention. Noble Lords have referred to this. We will stop as many cancers as we can by—these are just examples—cracking down on illegal underage sunbed use, eliminating cervical cancer through HPV vaccination, tackling obesity and creating the world’s first smoke-free generation. I am grateful to noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Ramsey and Lady Walmsley, for welcoming the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. It is a step change in our work and will save thousands of lives.

On productivity, and on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, we estimate that we will see up to a 21% gain in productivity as we invest in digital and robotic automation-enabled histopathology—pronouncing that is where I need the noble Lord, although it is also my writing—pathways, with further capability enhancement by AI. So we are not standing still on productivity and workforce, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the importance of bringing together strategies and approaches. We will achieve in the cancer plan only by doing that. The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of palliative care.

On funding and resources—the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, raised this—there are significant commitments, and I will mention just some of them: £10 million a year for children and young people to be able to access their treatment without financial penalty; £200 million for cancer alliances to improve performance; and £2.3 billion in diagnostics, which should deliver 9.5 million additional tests by 2029. I think that gives a sense of our commitment.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about resourcing for innovation. I assure my noble friend that we are working with education colleagues in the way that she asked, and there will also be a plan in place, which we are developing, for how we resource innovation. I am grateful for her comments.

This was such a rich debate. I feel I have picked out themes, and I will reflect, as will my ministerial colleagues, on the very real and informed points that noble Lords have made. The thing I did sense is that we all want this national cancer plan to work. I look forward to continued scrutiny, contribution and expertise from noble Lords. Lastly, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 April.

Motion agreed.

Midwives: Graduate Guarantee

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards achieving the graduate guarantee for newly qualified midwives.

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

My Lords, the graduate guarantee creates additional temporary registered midwife roles and enables newly qualified midwives to apply to join the NHS workforce. This supports the transition from education to employment. Since September, over 850 of these roles have been created, backed by £8 million. This includes part-time and full-time jobs. NHS England is working closely with universities and employers to align graduate numbers with vacancies through improved workforce planning, enhanced support for students and co-ordinated local recruitment.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. The graduate guarantee is very welcome but, already, 31% of newly qualified midwives do not have a job or are on fixed-term contracts. First, how will the Government ensure that workforce planning is aligned to the number of posts available so that the skills of newly qualified cohorts are not wasted? Secondly, given the concerns about unsafe workloads in midwifery and maternity services, how will midwives have the time to discuss with their clients health issues such as diet and vaccination?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

On the second point, the noble Baroness is quite right: it is important that midwives have that time. That is what we anticipate will be the case—I refer her to the forthcoming workforce plan, which will improve the situation. With regard to the position that the noble Baroness describes, I agree that this needs sorting out, and I recognise the figures that she has shared. That is why we have brought in the graduate guarantee scheme—so that we can get people from their training and education into the NHS and can ensure that midwives are recruited on the basis of looking to the future rather than of the existing headcount. So we are future-proofing this.

[Baroness Rafferty (Lab)]

My Lords, the graduate guarantee applies also to nurses but, sadly, the provision is quite patchy. What steps are the Government taking to support employers to recruit newly qualified nurses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Through NHS England’s student movement tool, forecasting on the workforce and national analysis are being undertaken to assess the areas of risk—my noble friend is right to raise those concerns. That is shared with NHS England’s regional teams so that they can manage and monitor workforce positions directly with providers.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the comments made by the Minister. However, she will be aware that, as well as having a shortage of midwives in place—and we have seen the terrible effects of poor service delivery in antenatal and postnatal care—we have a significant shortage of health visitors, who give advice regarding immunisations, development, feeding and so forth. Some of those health visitors have caseloads of up to 1,000 families. That is not sustainable and, frankly, is quite dangerous. What are the Government going to do to address this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Again, I refer to the forthcoming 10-year health and care workforce plan, which will take a multidisciplinary approach. I certainly share the noble Baroness’s views about the value of health visitors. As we move services into the community and develop the neighbourhood health service, that will require the greater use of roles such as health visitors. Ultimately, this is a local matter about local employment of staff to meet local need.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, given the concerns about unsafe workloads in maternity services, how do the Government justify a situation where qualified midwives are available but not being brought into permanent roles?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That is the very reason why we have brought in this guarantee, because it provides an immediate route into employment for those who are newly qualified. A number of things about that are important, including reducing the risk of graduates leaving the profession because they cannot find jobs. The reason why there are an additional 850 time-limited or temporary roles is to get people in under existing budgets but also to get staff to enter the workforce where there are not immediately permanent vacancies. It is a strong way to address the point that the noble Baroness raises.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard from other noble Lords, we have two situations. One is that 31% of newly qualified midwives have been unable to secure posts; the other is that we have well-documented shortages. The Minister talked about the graduate guarantee, but are there any other initiatives available to midwives and nurses who may wish to take up these jobs? Other noble Lords have talked about the number of hours that midwives have to work. How do we make sure that we retain existing midwives so that some are not leaving by one door as others are coming in by another?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I was about to answer the noble Lord’s first question by talking about retention and then he helpfully raised retention. Retention rates for existing midwives are improving, as is the number of midwives. That includes a mentoring scheme, strengthening advice and support on pensions, flexible retirement options, and publication of menopause policies and guidance to support midwives to stay in work. We also have unit-based retention leads to focus on this and provide support to midwives. I think that is a really important initiative.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the National Health Service is always short of nurses and midwives, do the Government have any plans to bring in any overseas nurses and midwives to fill the jobs?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The issue is more a misalignment of numbers than a straightforward shortage, as the number of midwives has increased. There was a 2.6% increase in January 2026 compared to the year before, so the trajectory is good. The misalignment, as I have explained, is that we are dealing with a situation where midwives are being trained but they cannot get jobs. That is what we have to bring together and what we are doing through the graduate guarantee scheme.

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness share my concern that there is an increasing trend towards encouraging women to give birth in large hospital centres further from their homes and does she agree that an increase in midwives—as well as in obs and gynae professionals of all sorts—would enable us to behave more like France and Germany do, for example, and aim for units of between 2,000 and 4,000 births a year?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Obviously, what matter most are patient safety and patient satisfaction, and I am very much looking forward to the independent report from my noble friend Lady Amos in this regard, because she is focusing on that. I am sure that she will consider the best place. I cannot comment on whether the noble and learned Baroness’s assertion will be the best option here, but there was a separate call for evidence under the workforce plan so that we could hear directly from maternity and neonatal staff.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that while patient safety is, of course, the primary thing, there is also a very strong obligation to ensure that promises made to young people going in for training are fulfilled? We are aware of these challenges in Wales. Surely there needs to be a more integrated approach to workforce planning to ensure that in future we do not get this embarrassing situation.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord. I know he will understand that I can refer only to England in this context, but I take his point about Wales. I mentioned earlier that this situation very much needs sorting out and that is what we are doing. We are working closely with employers and universities. We are improving workforce planning, enhancing support for students and co-ordinating more local recruitment activity. As I have outlined, plenty of work has been undertaken and I am sure we will continue to monitor and do more.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 28A, 28B, 28C, 29A, 29B and 29C.

28A: Clause 43, page 22, line 9, leave out “Section 37 has” and insert “Sections 37 and (Fixed penalty notices: Wales) have”

--- Later in debate ---

29C: Clause 44, page 22, line 36, leave out “section 38 has effect as if it” and insert “sections 38 and (Fixed penalties in Wales: use of proceeds) have effect as if they each”

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

My Lords, Amendments 28A, 28B, 28C, 29B and 29C were tabled by the Government in the other place to correct an error arising from amendments made in your Lordships’ House on Report. Without these amendments, trading standards officers in Wales would lose the ability to issue certain fixed penalty notices for the existing offence of proxy purchasing for a short period of time. The error would also have prevented trading standards in Wales from being able to issue fixed penalty notices for the sale of tobacco to those under the age of 18 before the smoke-free generation policy takes effect on 1 January 2027. This is in contrast to England where trading standards will be able to issue fixed penalty notices for these offences. This was obviously an unintended error and, if left unresolved, would have created a difference between the enforcement regimes in England and Wales. I am pleased therefore that we have been able to resolve the issue with these six narrow amendments, and I hope noble Lords will be supportive in their considerations. I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the background, having been involved in the early stages of the Bill. Nevertheless, it upsets a great many people in that industry that the Government have not listened to the strong representations of the retailers and those who have knowledge of the industry. We have a situation now where we have a £200 penalty, which is huge by any yardstick, for the revised incidences. We are expecting a new Welsh Government fairly soon, and they may not be too happy with what has now been amended. However, I will say no more than that I think the time will come when the present Government and—I am sorry to say—those on my own side who believe in this idea as a whole will accept that it is totally out of date in relation to what is happening in the world. What we really need is a proper understanding of how we educate people not to take up smoking.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I should be clear that, given this Motion brings forward an amendment that corrects a technical error and the Government have explained their rationale, we will not oppose it.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank your Lordships’ House for its attentive scrutiny throughout the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to the Front Benches and to noble Lords on all sides of the House.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that, as I have explained and his own Front Bench has confirmed, these are purely technical amendments to make this area of the Bill workable. It is a matter that had much debate. I assure the noble Lord, as I have done on a number of occasions, that we have worked closely with retailers and will continue to do so. I appreciate that he is not a supporter of the Bill, and it is on that point that I differ with him.

I urge all noble Lords to accept these amendments and note that this afternoon marks the end of the Bill’s journey through Parliament. This is a landmark Bill that will create a smoke-free generation, and it will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation. I assure all noble Lords that it will save lives. I commend it to the House.

Motion A agreed.

Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Merron]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the 2014 regulations so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury, known as TDDI, is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. This change will be for the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided in sports grounds or gymnasiums, or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events, where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities.

Let me start by clarifying what this is and what it is not. This regulated activity relates not to the task being carried out but to who is doing it. It is the assessment and treatment of physical or mental state when provided by a specifically defined list of healthcare professionals, as per the CQC’s website. The scope of this activity requires those carrying it out to be listed healthcare professionals registered with the appropriate professional body, such as the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the Health and Care Professions Council. When a healthcare professional uses their professional title, qualification and skills to assess and treat a person for a disease, disorder or injury, they must be registered with or employed by a company registered with the CQC.

Providers carrying out the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at events may include independent ambulance services that employ paramedics, doctors and nurses, and which are commissioned to attend an event such as a music festival, marathon or football match and be on hand in case anyone there experiences a medical emergency.

Perhaps I can give some context. Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others. The subsequent inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that these shortcomings may have been present at other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of appropriate regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was absolutely clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has itself outlined additional concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations of unregulated provision resulting in severe patient harm.

The Government, as noble Lords would expect, are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important that they be carefully considered in order to understand the impacts. I am pleased that they have now been laid before us.

To turn to what the amendment will do, the 2014 regulations exempted the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided at sports venues or gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements from regulation. This SI removes this exemption. It will bring the provision of this treatment at events into line with provision in hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes where it is already registered. This means that any provider delivering the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at an event must register with the CQC and must comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in the health system. Of course, some of the providers will already be registered to provide this treatment in other settings, which will make the process quicker for them.

I should say to noble Lords that there has been some misunderstanding about what is covered by

“the treatment of disease, disorder or injury”.

It includes a wide range of treatments, from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation.

By making these changes to the 2014 regulations, the Government will make true our commitment to fulfilling the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and the drive to improve patient safety. I beg to move.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I shall speak briefly to this statutory instrument and ask a number of questions, if I may, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I think that I understand the structure of what is proposed and the exclusion of first aid so that it is not covered, but when I look at the providers that are likely to be affected, I am trying to work out carefully which are the providers concerned. I am assisted by a friend who is part of the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and who said that it had undertaken a survey.

It seems to me that many of the people who responded to that as healthcare professionals may well be working in registered providers already, so they may be concerned about the need to register in relation to the services that they provide at events but in fact they do not need to register. However, the event organisers themselves may need to register if they bring healthcare professionals on site in order to provide services that go beyond first aid at their event. I am trying to understand how, when the department went out and identified 89, or whatever the number was, potential providers that were not already registered, it ended up with a figure of 36, which seems very low. It certainly bears no comparison to what those who are working in the sector believe would be the number of presently unregistered providers. We need to understand who these 36 are, the character of those providers that the department has identified and why there is such a discrepancy between that and what others have been saying. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us much more about that.

As a practical example, are all football clubs, or the major football clubs in the Premier League, the Championship and so on, already registered with the CQC? Clearly, they, as organisations, provide continuing healthcare to their players. Do we not need to worry about any of that? Is an event like one of the big festivals that take place already registered, because it has put a team together in order to provide more than simply first aid? Perhaps we are worrying about a need for registration when actually we do not need to worry so much.

I have only one other question. An essential part of the follow-up to the Manchester Arena inquiry was the preparation of an event healthcare standard. Would the Minister be kind enough to update us on that process? Where does it stand and when might we see its publication for consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

A number of noble Lords have raised concerns, and I am going just to outline or repeat a few of them. The first is that the department’s own assessment acknowledges that the costs associated with registration and ongoing compliance are estimated, for newly regulated providers, as being between £99,400 and £994,000 per annum. They are quite accurate figures, but let me rephrase that: it could be nearly £100,000 or nearly £1 million. We know that most forecasts are wrong, but a factor of 10 is rather a wide range. I have to admit that that raises concerns about the understanding of these regulations.

But more concerning is the evidence from the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine suggesting that many clinicians working in event medicine may reconsider their involvement if these regulations are implemented as proposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised. As other noble Lords have said, events medical providers support the principle of these regulations but warn that they could lead to a reduction in workforce capacity, with the potential unintended consequence of reducing safety. My noble friend Lord Herbert referred to that unintended consequence.

There are also concerns that, where providers withdraw from delivering this regulated medical care, events may instead have to rely on first aid provision, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. That falls outside the scope of CQC regulation. Well-run events such as Wimbledon, Royal Ascot, the Silverstone Grand Prix and the Glastonbury Festival currently manage most medical incidents on-site. But we could see a shift away from properly staffed medical provision, which risks increasing demand on already stretched NHS services off-site.

Stakeholders, including the Sport and Recreation Alliance, have highlighted a lack of comprehensive engagement with the sector to date. Given the unique characteristics of event medicine, it is essential that any regulatory framework be developed in close consultation with those who deliver care on the ground. However, I have been told by some medical professionals that the CQC is being selective in who it wants. I was told a similar story to that told to my noble friend Lord Markham: when three or four CMOs asked for a joint meeting, the CQC person refused and insisted that they wanted to meet only one of the CMOs. When I hear this, frankly, it gives me no confidence in the CQC or its consultation process. Let me be clear: I do not use those words lightly, but the CQC should be doing proper consultation and not refusing meetings.

I recognise the efforts by the previous and the current Government and the CQC to fix its previously poor reputation. Last year, in the mental health debates, these Benches supported the Government in resisting the appointment of a separate mental health commissioner, because we agreed that the mental health part of the CQC was getting its house in order. Indeed, I met today with some people from the CQC on transitional care, and I was very impressed with them.

However, when I am told that for this regulation the CQC suggested that an additional 36 organisations would require registration, compared to an estimated 25,000 in the survey by the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine, this, as my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, said, demonstrates a massive gap in understanding that needs to be addressed. Once again, I am sorry when I say this, but it gives the impression of the CQC being out of its depth.

I am sorry if that is not exactly the ringing endorsement that the Minister was hoping for, but I also know that she has been willing in the past to meet to discuss legislation, and we have worked constructively together in the time we have both been on our respective Front Benches. So, in that constructive spirit, I will make three suggestions, which in fact touch upon those that that were made by other noble Lords.

First, we need to see meaningful CQC engagement with sector representatives, our national governing boards, the chief medical officers in sports groups, the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care to ensure that any inspection framework is sector-specific and not simply lifted from the hospital sector. Imposing a CQC regulatory framework suitable for hospitals is inappropriate for pop-up clinics at park runs, cycle races or pitch-side at rugby. Let us be frank: the CQC does not have any existing knowledge of working in these sectors at that level, and it should be listening rather than seeking to impose.

Secondly, we should consider expanding the current employer/employee CQC exemption to athletes, performers and officials whose healthcare providers meet strict occupational health standards regardless of the patient’s contractual arrangement, as other noble Lords suggested.

Thirdly, although I understand that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns about the time taken to bring forward these regulations, given that the CQC is not exactly inspiring confidence from those who organise sports and other events, could the Government possibly ask the CQC to wait until the event healthcare standard being led by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care has been published? In addition, if and when it becomes apparent that the CQC has indeed underestimated the size of this and the cost to the sector, would they be prepared to perhaps extend that December 27 deadline, if appropriate?

However, really to emphasise the point that the Government are listening, I know we have asked for individual meetings, but a much better suggestion would be a round table with interested noble Lords, with the relevant Minister from the department—obviously we would love to have the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, there as we always enjoy her consultations— and the CQC, so it can stop being selective about who it speaks with and can actually listen to CMOs and other medical experts from across the sector. They are not doing this to score points; none of us is doing this for that reason. We agree with the principle, and we want this to work, whichever party and whichever Bench we work on, but we are concerned that the CQC’s approach will lead to the unintended consequence of the withdrawal of appropriate medical provision at these services.

It is quite clear that all noble Lords support the goal of improving public safety at events. All noble Lords have heard the concerns from public events medical experts, and all noble Lords hope that the Minister has listened to their concerns and will agree to the modest requests they have made in today’s debate.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today. I will make a few general points.

I very much welcome the points and the concerns that noble Lords have been willing to outline. I also want to acknowledge that I have heard the understanding of why we are doing this. I know that we all understand the intent, and I understand the numerous questions— I make that as a comment, not as any criticism—trying to understand the workability. I very much welcome them. What I take from this debate and what I will share with Minister Ahmed as the Minister for Patient Safety is that clearly there is considerable concern. To refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about fault lines, I think this is about fear of fault lines, but even fear of fault lines is fear enough, so I absolutely take that point.

Let me say at the outset that, if noble Lords had not asked for it, I would have suggested having a round table for interested Peers. It will indeed include officials from the department and the CQC. Ministerially, because it is Peers, I would want to be there in any case. I am sure that Minister Ahmed would want to be there too, but my anxiety is to get on with the meeting, so I will happily have a discussion with him, but I certainly want to be there. If noble Lords remain concerned about a lot of the points, we can tease them out there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Markham (Con)]

If I may, I hope this may be helpful: the confusion that I have heard is over whether a doctor, for a CQC registration at their GP surgery, can use that to volunteer on a point-to-point racecourse, as an example, or whether they have to separately register with the CQC to be a volunteer on the racecourse and pay the £1,000. Again, if that comes in the letter, that is fine, but that is one of the main points of confusion.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

On all these areas, as I said, I am happy to meet with noble Lords in person. To be honest, I think that that would be more helpful, not least because we are talking about scenarios and we have a note of the questions that noble Lords are raising. I would be delighted to go through them. Again, in the responses today, I am probably going to be repeating some of what I said earlier and I am not sure that that will take us forward, so I would rather that we held those points for a meeting, if noble Lords are agreeable.

With that, I thank noble Lords. This has been a very valuable debate. It shows the work that needs to be done and we will be pleased to do that. I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions and support of the principle of why we are here.

Motion agreed.

NHS Adult Gender Identity Clinics

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, 5,624 patients under 25 were referred to adult gender dysphoria clinics in 2023-24, 6,355 were referred in 2024-25 and initial figures show that 6,167 were referred in 2025-26. There are strong safeguards within the existing service provision and specification that was agreed following public consultation, including with the medical royal colleges. These include specialist assessment, accounting for complex co-morbidities and care delivered by a multidisciplinary team with a wide range of expertise, including in neurodiversity and endocrinology.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I wonder if she has had a chance to review the landmark study from Finland recently, which suggests very strongly that gender medicine actually has a very negative impact on vulnerable young people with complex needs and, far from actually helping them, in fact is harming them. Can I urge her to expedite one of the most important recommendations from the Cass Review, which is to bring in a separate set of services for 17 to 25 year-old young people who are experiencing gender dysphoria? She will know that, currently, the adult clinics operate an affirmative model; that can be very worrying because young people can access life-altering and irreversible hormones after only two appointments. For young people with a whole set of complex needs, I do not think that is right.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, we are indeed committed to developing services for 17 to 25 year-olds, and I certainly recognise that this is a potentially very vulnerable time in a young person’s journey, as was clearly outlined in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. I can say to the noble Baroness that we recognise changing patient demographics, and therefore a holistic biopsychosocial assessment framework is being developed for use across all services, including a complexity measure to support understanding of the impact of any co-occurring conditions, as the noble Baroness refers to.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, we know that the 18 to 25 year-olds have many of the same complex problems as the under-18s and, as the Minister has said, they need similar holistic wraparound care, although that is not necessarily yet in place. However, Dr Levy’s review had a narrower remit than mine, focused on quality improvement rather than the model of care, so as a next step would the Minister agree to ask departmental and NHSE colleagues to convene a group, which should include independent experts, representatives of professional groups and representatives of the new children’s and young people’s services as well as service users, to consider how we best understand and, importantly, improve clinical outcomes for this group of young adults?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I remain grateful to the noble Baroness for her work and her expertise in this area, which I know has been acknowledged both by the previous Government and this Government. I will certainly take on board what she has said and ask my officials to discuss this further with NHS England.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to seek some clarification from my noble friend the Minister about this matter, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes adult capacity and the Care Act 2014 defines safeguarding thresholds, which my noble friend has outlined in some detail already. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that adults aged 18 to 25 referred to gender identity clinics are treated as autonomous patients without additional safeguarding measures beyond those which she has already outlined and apply to any competent adult?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, I can assure my noble friend that patients are treated as individuals and their care is personalised. It is important, as my noble friend says, to recognise that the law presumes that patients aged 16 and over have capacity to consent to medical treatment. I can also give the reassurance, acknowledging as I have already that patients may have co-existing conditions that warrant additional safeguarding measures, that this will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, if the Government are concerned with safeguarding those aged 18 to 25, can the Minister set out what assessment has been made of the documented harms caused by multi-year waiting lists, including serious impacts on mental health, physical well-being and life outcomes? Given the evidence that regret or detransition among those accessing gender-affirming care is rare, can the Minister clarify what specific risk this proposed safeguarding framework is intended to address?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It might be helpful if I speak in general terms. The Levy review highlighted multi-year waits for adult gender clinics. We recognise that waiting times are too long, and that is why we have increased the number of adult gender services from seven to 12 and we will be establishing a national waiting list. Dr Levy’s report did not make specific reference to concerns about safeguarding, and it is important to see it in that context. I emphasise once again that, where there are additional safeguarding matters, they will be dealt with on an individual basis as is right and proper.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this is a highly sensitive topic, and I think we have to be very careful about how we talk about it. Evidence published in the BMJ shows a fiftyfold increase in recorded cases of gender dysphoria among children and young people between 2011 and 2021. While we should show compassion and not generalise about individuals presenting with gender dysphoria, what assessment has the Minister’s department made of the drivers for this rise in presentations? It is a sensitive issue, as I said, but are the Government assured that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the most vulnerable young adults are not irreversibly medicalised, only for some, even if just a small number, to regret it later?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a number of points. Let me be quite clear that surgical interventions are only for adults—that is for those aged 18 and over. As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, I also refer to the fact that the strong safeguards in place include, among a whole range of others, specialist assessment, access to a multidisciplinary team and assessment of capacity. These are strong safeguards, and it is right that this is the case in order to support patients to get the care that is appropriate to them and which they need.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, NHS England’s Levy review catalogued failings in relation to a lack of data and tracking outcomes from gender dysphoria clinics. Can the Minister explain how the NHS can offer any treatment without such evidence relating to efficacy, benefits, harms, regret and detransition? Can the Minister also comment on the criticism that clinicians are reluctant to correct patients’ unrealistic expectations, often those of young women, about medical transition. They believe that hormones and surgery can change biological sex; they cannot. That is a scientific fact and surely NHS doctors should explain that.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am not quite clear about the questions I am being asked. However, I return to the point about safeguards and say to your Lordships’ House that I have already outlined the strong safeguards, the professionalism and the medically informed evidence. Contrary to what is being suggested, there is no casualisation at all about decision-making.

Learning Disabilities: Health and Social Care Access

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on securing what, as we have heard, is a very important debate. I also congratulate him on his commitment to improving outcomes for those who have a learning disability. Personally and publicly, I also want to acknowledge—I will use the noble Lord’s words—how raw this is for him. As well as giving my condolences on the death of his nephew Myles, I can only say that I genuinely believe that, as Myles’s uncle, he pays the greatest tribute to the memory of his nephew as he strives to improve services. It is a mission with which I fully associate myself and the Government.

I also want to acknowledge the other losses of the bereaved—not just those of noble Lords sitting here in the Room but those outside too. I have listened to the debate closely and if I am honest, what I am about to say can only in part meet some of the very real questions, and a number of the proposals too. I will do my best and I commit to raising the points made with my honourable friend Minister Zubir Ahmed, in whose portfolio this sits. I know he will welcome, as I have done, the contributions today.

I will pick up as many points as I can in the time that I have. All noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made the point that the health inequalities faced by people with a learning disability are totally unacceptable. I certainly align myself with that. We are committed to driving change. The 10-year health plan gives me hope in this regard because it outlines our ambitions to tackle health inequalities and speaks to the point the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—not exclusively but particularly—made about the need to see the whole person. That is what is missing generally, and it is what the 10-year health plan seeks to tackle, including driving that critical shift from treatment to prevention. The two issues that are presented by this debate are inseparable. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has presented that.

I therefore say at the absolute outset to the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Addington, that a near 20-year life expectancy gap is not acceptable under any point. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for saying that the shortcomings and concerns we are debating have been going on for many years, and what is important is that commitment to change. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who spoke of the experience of his brother-in-law Gareth, also spoke of good practice in Derbyshire. We should commend all those who do this and learn from it.

To the point about reasonable adjustments, there are clear legal requirements on health and care organisations and their staff. I hear what noble Lords say clearly: yes, that is all very well but it is not happening. But it is worth reminding ourselves that, under the Equality Act 2010, public sector organisations are required to adapt their approaches in a very practical sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, called for, so that their services are accessible to disabled people as well as to everybody else.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ramsey for bringing Patsy into the Room again. NHS England is rolling out a reasonable adjustment digital flag, as we have spoken about here. That will continue and it is to ensure that, in the way that she rightly demands, key information about a person and the reasonable adjustments needed for their care and treatment are to be recorded in care records. I say to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a new information standard was published in December 2025, such that all publicly funded health and social care service providers must be able to share, read and write reasonable adjustment data by 30 September. Training on this digital flag is freely available.

Turning to the safety of people with a learning disability while accessing health and social care, the NHS learning disability improvement standards provide a framework to support NHS trusts and organisations in assessing the quality of their services, because we have to see consistency and improvement across the NHS. There is guidance available on the use of health and care passports to support personalised care for people with a learning disability, and for autistic people.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that I am deeply saddened by the tragic circumstances of the death of David Lodge. I send my condolences to David’s friends and family. In response to the noble Baroness, who called for a way forward, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, who raised whether this can all be a tool for change, because it is not currently—I heard him say that—I know that the noble Lord recently met the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, Zubir Ahmed MP, as I mentioned. I understand that my colleague the Minister has agreed to work with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to continue to hear insights from those with lived experience and wider stakeholders. The Minister is currently working with officials to explore options to improve the process, because we know there is a lot further to go to get ICBs to meet the expectations they have upon them. All these points have rightly been raised on ensuring accountability, reducing inequalities and preventing avoidable deaths. That work will absolutely continue, and I look forward to noble Lords taking part in it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked whether there are any plans to establish a specific inquiry or committee. Currently, there are no plans to do this; however, as I have said, the Minister is very much on the case. On wider action to improve health outcomes, I absolutely hear the points made by the noble Baroness not only in your Lordships’ House but to me personally before this debate, for which I am grateful. If we are talking about those with learning disabilities, we are talking about not just episodes of care but building relationships to enable the correct care for that person; I use the word “person” very definitely in this regard.

Reference was made to the Health and Care Act 2022 and the requirements that it contains. The Government have published a code of practice setting out their expectations on training delivery, and we continue to roll out the recommended Oliver McGowan mandatory training package. I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that more than 3 million people have completed the first part of the training, and funding has been provided to support greater uptake this year.

On the point about health checks, the Secretary of State recently wrote to all GPs to emphasise the importance of identification, recording and the quality of the checks themselves.

A number of very pertinent points have been made. I assure noble Lords that they will all fed into the move towards improving the situation for those who have learning disabilities. We owe them nothing less.

Migraine Care: 10-year Health Plan

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a migraine sufferer.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to improving migraine care through the 10-year health plan. We are strengthening neurological services by expanding community-based care and community diagnostics for earlier identification, widening the availability of effective treatments, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors, and enhancing the NHS app. NHS England’s neurology programmes are also expanding specialist capacity, reducing avoidable A&E attendances and helping people with migraine to remain in work and maintain their well-being.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

I thank the Minister for engaging on a subject that has been raised just once in this House since 1961—which is extraordinary, as we have 10 million migraine sufferers in the UK, more than half of whom have no diagnosis or access to preventive medication. Migraines cost the wider economy more than £10 billion per annum in lost productivity and tax revenues, with hundreds of thousands of capable people unable to work due to lack of treatment, so does the Minister agree that there is a compelling economic as well as compassionate argument for better GP training, more neurologists and including migraine in the NHS Pharmacy First scheme?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. I appreciate the conversations we have had prior to this Question and acknowledge that he is one of the millions of people suffering from this condition. There is certainly a substantial economic and NHS impact from migraine. I am glad my department is working with the Department for Work and Pensions on a number of initiatives, including the WorkWell programme and the individual placement and support in primary care initiative, which are all focused on supporting those with migraine to stay in work and get back to work.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, the approach that my noble friend the Minister has outlined regarding migraine care is very welcome. The 10-year plan also talks about cholesterol management due to its links to cardiovascular disease, but the plan can quite often be confusing for the patient in terms of the care that is provided. A simple example would be suggesting that cheese is bad for cholesterol but good for osteoporosis. HEART UK has therefore raised the fact that there should be a holistic approach to the patient. Can my noble friend make sure this happens in the 10-year plan and the delivery of it?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can indeed say to my noble friend that a holistic approach is exactly at the core of the 10-year plan, as is the enhancement of care through expanded community diagnostics, better prevention and the use of personalised digital tools, including the NHS app. All these will be helpful in the way my noble friend seeks. The workforce plan, which we will see shortly to support the 10-year health plan, will also acknowledge the need to see people holistically and to staff up accordingly.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, there has been a more than 20% increase in the number of emergency hospital admissions since 2021 due to this condition. Will the Government include and fund migraine in the Pharmacy First scheme and empower pharmacists to prescribe for this high-volume condition?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We constantly review and discuss with pharmacists the range of conditions they cover. It has been one of the highly successful ways of making community-based care available, and we certainly want to continue to work with pharmacists. It is also important to note that more modern treatments are available now on prescription, which will all also support people to manage their condition and will reduce unnecessary A&E admissions.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, as has already been mentioned, over 10 million people in the UK suffer from migraine, and it is highly prevalent in women. It is also linked to anxiety and depression. I welcome what the Government are doing in extending women’s health hubs and emphasising mental health in the 10-year plan but, unfortunately, there are no systematic gateways for migraine care in the 10-year plan. How can the Government address this in the light of the significant problem that there is? I am also sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, suffers from migraine.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It is important that we acknowledge that this is a debilitating condition. The noble Baroness is right that it is one of the most common neurological conditions, affecting one in five women and one in 15 men. Indeed, it is a major cause of disability. The 10-year plan sets out the main pillars. For example, there will be an updated adult neurology service specification, which will come into being just next month. It was published in August, and I believe it will take account of the points the noble Baroness rightly raises.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister, very welcomely talked in her first response about widening access to treatment. My understanding is that NICE guidelines can be very tight for some of those treatments. As part of the work she has put forward, can my noble friend ask NICE to review its guidelines to make sure they are absolutely up to speed?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I know my noble friend is well aware, the eligibility criteria are set independently by NICE. They are based on clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness, rather than being set by Ministers. However, it is worth saying that the introduction of oral CGRPs, which do not require specialist initiation, will significantly widen access through primary care and reduce the bottlenecks in the system. We are very keen that people can access effective drugs, and I take on board the point my noble friend made.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Question, because although many people think that migraines are just bad headaches, they are in fact a distinct, complex neurological condition. They are responsible for 43 million lost working days each year and are estimated to cost the UK economy up to £4.4 billion. The Minister rightly talked about calcitonin gene-related peptide therapies, but apparently only about 29% of trusts allow access to CGRPs. I welcome what the Minister said about increased access via primary care, but I note that these drugs prevent migraines by targeting a molecule involved in pain transmission. What specific steps is the Minister’s department taking to increase access to these treatments in addition to the primary care initiatives?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We very much recognise the concerns that people may face unnecessary hurdles when trying to access CGRP treatments. NHS England is working with integrated care boards to ensure that the pathways being followed are consistent and timely. It would perhaps be helpful for me to mention some of the national tools, such as NHS RightCare’s headache and migraine toolkit and the Getting It Right First Time recommendations; they also speak to the clearer referral rates that the noble Lord called for and reduce variation. We want people to receive appropriate treatments; we do not want them to be delayed.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, migraine as a symptom is a manifestation of a whole spectrum of different diseases, both neurological and vascular, and some are based on allergies. The important aspect of treating migraines is correct diagnosis, and advances in diagnostic techniques, including some of the treatments that the Minister mentioned, are now making that easier. Does she agree that, in addition to having a community-based service, it is important to train the right people to make the right diagnoses, so that patients can get the right treatment at the right time, no matter who dispenses or prescribes it?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree. NICE’s headache guidelines and the Royal College of GPs’ training modules support that better recognition and management.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, speaking as a person who was identified as possibly prediabetic and having a significant heart and cholesterol problem, I can tell the House that, when I looked at the charts of what I might be able to eat from both of those sources, it seemed I was left with kale and cucumber. A holistic approach for this is very important, and I am pleased to say that I am very healthy and do not eat only kale and cucumber.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure your Lordships’ House is, like me, delighted to hear that about my noble friend.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 20th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Causation is denied. My noble and learned friend can read it in Hansard, and I spoke to her outside. It is a testament to her dedication that she has been following this on TV. I do not know whether that shows how poor daytime TV normally is, though those of us who were here on Wednesday will remember that your Lordships’ House is very late night TV as well.

I spoke on the amendments when we first touched on this topic in Committee, right at the beginning. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, those amendments interrelate with what has been discussed today. The Front Bench is focused on the question of making sure that we do not end up with a situation where different citizens and residents in the United Kingdom have substantially different rights in areas as important as this. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, said about what actually happened in the Senedd. The phrase “voting in the dark” was a stark one, which I think we ought to remember.

On the question of what the Bill actually does, I am reminded of when I studied private international law, where you have something called the characterisation question—something that lawyers often like. It basically goes like this: in order to get the answer you want, you rephrase the question to focus on the bit of the problem which you want to focus on. In this case, you ask the question, “What does this Bill do?” The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile of Berriew, rightly say, as a matter of form, that the Bill amends the criminal law and therefore is a competence of Westminster. In reality, assisted dying will not be provided by the criminal justice system. In practice, it will be provided by the health service. That is why I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said: in practice, this is a Bill which touches on health, which is a devolved competence.

That brings me to the wider and more important point. Earlier this week, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, raised Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—the Crown dependencies—in the debate on the Crime and Policing Bill. We also learned this week that the Scottish Parliament has chosen not to proceed with the version—and it was a different version —of this Bill proposed there. If this Bill were to receive Royal Assent, we would therefore end up in a position where substantially different rights would exist for different residents and citizens in the United Kingdom.

That raises an important point of principle, on which I would be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord’s view. Does he see it as a success of devolution that, on an issue as significant as this, people living in different parts of the United Kingdom—and for the purposes of this group of amendments, Wales—might have different rights in law, or does he have a potential solution to create a situation where, as close as possible, people have the same or substantially the same rights?

I respectfully ask the Minister to respond on this point as well. Frequently, we have heard from the Front Bench the phrase, “We are neutral”—that the Government are interested only in workability and will look at these issues as and when they arise. However, this is a deep constitutional issue. The Government cannot be neutral on the point of whether they are content in principle that people in England might have different rights on assisted dying from people in Wales. The Government ought to have a stance on that fundamental constitutional position. The Government also ought to have a position on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Deben as to whether, if this Bill were to go through, with palliative care being such an important part of the overall process, they would equalise funding to make sure that residents of Wales have the same access in practice to palliative care as those of us who live in England do.

For those reasons, I look forward to the responses of both the noble and learned Lord and the Minister.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the views that have been expressed today. As usual, I will keep my remarks to those amendments that raise significant legal, technical or operational workability concerns. I very much associate myself from these Benches with the welcome to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis. We were delighted to see her return to your Lordships’ House and look forward to hearing from her.

I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Taken together, they would restrict eligibility for assisted dying to England only and exclude people resident in Wales, registered with a Welsh GP or who have recently moved across the border. They would remove the powers of Welsh Ministers to issue regulations and guidance and limit the commissioner’s monitoring functions to England. Individually and as a group, the amendments could have complex effects, risk significant unintended consequences and lead to a lack of clarity about eligibility and the effect of the law across the England-Wales border.

Restricting the Bill to England, as we have heard, would also create a divergence in the criminal law of England and Wales. The protections in Clause 32 would not apply in Wales and the Suicide Act 1961 would continue to apply there as it does at present. It would therefore be an offence to take steps in Wales to assist access to an assisted death in England even where lawful under the Bill in England. That would represent a significant divergence in homicide- and suicide-related offences and run counter to the current devolution settlement.

Amendment 887 would remove Clause 57(2) and (3), preventing certain provisions from extending to Scotland and Northern Ireland, including those on approved substances, advertising, and employment protections. This would risk parallel and potentially conflicting regulatory regimes; may allow advertising of services in Scotland and Northern Ireland, contrary to restrictions in England and Wales; and could leave health professionals who, for example, live in Scotland but work in England and Wales without the same employment protections as someone in England.

There are a number of further amendments in this group concerning powers in the Bill relating to the provision of an assisted dying service in Wales; namely, Amendment 765, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, Amendment 764, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and Amendments 742, 743, 844, 903, 905 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I bring to the attention of noble Lords that these amendments may alter or impinge on the devolution settlement. Any such changes would usually be made following consultation across the UK Government and with the Welsh Government to explore the wider implications. Further, the Senedd would be expected to consider material changes that affect devolved competence.

Amendment 762, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would require the Secretary of State to specify which organisations will provide assisted dying services in Wales, within one month of the Act passing. This raises workability concerns as it requires clarity on who provides services before key implementation decisions have been made. This could be an interference with the ability of the Welsh Ministers in the devolution settlement to exercise their powers in a devolved area. As regulations under Clause 42 are made using the affirmative procedure, this amendment would also require parliamentary debates in both Houses within one month of the Bill being enacted.

Amendment 767A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, appears to seek to limit the power of Welsh Ministers to make regulations related to private services only and would make Welsh Ministers unable to establish a publicly commissioned service. As currently drafted, the Bill leaves this as a decision for Welsh Ministers. This amendment would therefore have devolution impacts and, if passed, the Welsh Government would need to be reconsulted and the consent of the Senedd would need to be sought for this provision.

I make no comments on the other amendments in this group. As noble Lords are aware, those amendments have not had technical drafting support from officials. Therefore, any further revision and corresponding amendments may be provided to provide consistent and coherent terminology throughout the Bill.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, may I question the Minister? The 49th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee drew attention to the very unusual nature of the clause in the Bill that allows the delegated powers to be used to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do and drew attention to the fact that this is extremely rare. Is the Minister saying that that is acceptable in this Private Member’s Bill and therefore potentially sets a major precedent in relation to other legislation? Can she clarify whether the Government, simply in relation to that, not to any other part, dispute the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s conclusion?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sure that all noble Lords welcome that report and its comments but, as the noble Baroness is aware, it is a matter for the sponsor to decide the response to that rather than the Government.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

What is His Majesty’s Government’s approach to the legislative consent Motion process and making sure that the Sewel convention is kept to? What intergovernmental discussions have this Government had with the Welsh Government on the constitutional implications of this Bill in particular?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As noble Lords will be aware, engaging with the devolved Governments is a matter for the sponsor, not the Government.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, we have heard talk in this debate about respecting the devolution settlement. No, we do not. It is not that long ago, for instance, that the Northern Ireland Assembly voted against abortion but got abortion, and everybody on both Front Benches voted for it. So let us not fool ourselves that we have this great commitment to devolution and respect the views of the relevant assemblies. No, we do not.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I note the comments that the noble Lord has made.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I express my personal pleasure at seeing the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, back in the House. She was an extremely successful Attorney-General because she was wise and knew the law. I am very glad that she is back here to keep us in order.

On issues in relation to Wales, we have understood throughout the importance of complying scrupulously with the devolution settlement. The people of Wales have to be respected and the devolution settlement has to be respected. On two propositions here, there is no doubt.

First, this is about the criminal law. If a Bill were passed in the Senedd that sought to change the Suicide Act under the existing devolution settlement, it would have no effect because it would not be within the Senedd’s power to do it. That has to be dealt with by this Parliament.

Secondly, and separately, as a matter of practicality, how assisted dying is to be introduced in the health service and the provision of health in Wales is, in practice, a matter for Welsh Ministers. The approach that we have taken is that this Parliament must deal with the criminal law and Welsh Ministers must be left to deal with the decisions about how it is introduced. It may be that that requires an Act of the Senedd. Because of that possibility, we have included in the Bill the power for Welsh Ministers to give the National Health Service in Wales the power to take steps. That power would normally be given by the Senedd, but so that there could be no doubt about that, and so that it would not wait upon the Senedd, we have included it in the Bill.

Constitutionally, we are allowed to include it in this Bill. Even if there was no legislative consent Motion agreeing to it, we could go ahead without the consent Motion. I and the sponsor in the other place have made it clear, specifically and in writing, that we respect the devolution settlement and that if there is no legislative consent Motion in Wales that consents to this Parliament legislating in an area normally dealt with by the Welsh Senedd then we would withdraw those provisions, because we would not be respecting the devolution settlement. From our point of view, we have proceeded with these provisions only once the LCM has been given. That is our position in relation to it.

I shall now deal with the amendments in that context.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, before I speak to the substance of the amendments in this group, I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicholson, Lady Berridge, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Hollins and Lady O’Loan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. They have all stood up for a particularly vulnerable group of people, and they are absolutely right to do so. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is listening most carefully to their arguments.

Individuals with speech, language and hearing difficulties are particularly vulnerable, and it is imperative that they fully understand the process, their rights and the terms of the Bill before they can access the provisions made within it. My noble friend Lord Blencathra said that we really need to know that an individual understands what they are doing, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, used the phrase “crystal clear”. They are both absolutely right.

Surely how society cares for the most vulnerable of its citizens is an unmovable benchmark. Society must protect people with communication difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, specifically questioned the Government, and His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition believe that it is fair and reasonable to ask the Minister what specific work officials and Ministers have undertaken to establish the core risks posed by the Bill to those with hearing, speech and language impediments. In the view of His Majesty’s Government, how effective are the safeguards currently in place? Can the Bill be improved from a neutral perspective of workability to ensure that no one who faces the challenges we have discussed in this group ends their life without being given the obvious support that they need to fully understand the life-changing decision on which they are embarking?

As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referenced in the previous group, during the course of the Bill, noble Lords have debated detailed provisions and addressed complex moral issues with a laser focus. However, the question at hand is not a complex one. Those who are not able to understand the situation without proper support must be provided that support if they are to take the decision to end their life. Surely that is non-negotiable.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said that we have to think differently and challenged the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to lead by example. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark took the words out of my mouth when he said that he remains hopeful that the noble and learned Lord will agree with this line of thought and commit to engaging collaboratively with all noble Lords whose amendments in this group aim to implement the right and appropriate protections for this vulnerable body of individuals.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate that we have had today. In keeping my comments limited to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns, I turn first to Amendments 171A and 174A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. The duty outlined within these amendments may prove difficult for doctors to discharge as they are ambiguously drafted and use undefined terms such as “religious, cultural or sex-based” barriers. It is also a mandatory duty that does not afford discretion to the doctor to refuse unreasonable requests.

The duty to appoint an advocate conflicts with Clause 22. It is unclear how these proposed advocates would be appointed or trained, or what their role or responsibilities would be. Furthermore, your Lordships’ Committee may note that where a person has religious, cultural or sex-based barriers, the amendment would also require such a person to be provided with an advocate who has training in and experience of relevant safeguarding issues and must be the same sex as the person seeking assistance. Introducing a more extensive mandatory duty for the provision of adjustments, including an advocate, may give rise to workability issues, as the cohort of advocates meeting these criteria could be very limited and may result in a person being delayed or unable to take part in a preliminary discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

We all know what we are talking about here, but yes, absolutely.

This all goes back to the fundamental point of the Bill. I am addressing this point because the hypothesis is that the person has less than six months to live but, notwithstanding that, we are making sure that this particular group of people have an independent advocate. My point is simply that, if we are going to go down this road, there needs to be consistency: if they are not going to have an independent advocate, they really need to confirm it rather than merely indicate it. I apologise for my slightly loose language; the noble Baroness was quite right to pick me up on that. I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider my point as to whether “indicating” is actually the right test in subsection (2)(b)(ii) of his proposed new clause.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on independent advocates. I will limit my comments to those amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns.

I turn first to Amendments 168, 300 and 553, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Without further consequential changes, Amendment 168 would result in an internal inconsistency with the framework currently set out in the Bill, which provides an independent advocate only for certain qualifying persons.

Similar concerns arise with Amendment 300, which seeks to establish a new system of advocates for disabled people. It is important to note—not just in reference to these amendments, which I heard the noble Baroness acknowledge are not quite as she might wish them to be, but in relation to the debate—that the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability is very broad. For example, it includes those with cancer. As a result, most people who are terminally ill for the purposes of the Bill would fall within that definition. That means that the amendment could apply to the majority of those seeking an assisted death.

Amendment 300 would require the independent advocate to confirm that the person has been offered

“all practicable social, medical, and palliative supports which are financially supported”.

However, there is no provision to ensure that the independent advocate would have access to the information needed to confirm this, which could make the amendment unworkable.

Amendment 553 relates to young adults aged 18 to 25. People in this cohort are legally adults, so the requirement for parental or guardian consent and to have an independent advocate may raise Article 8 ECHR issues relating to private and family life. To be lawful, these requirements would need to be objectively and reasonably justified and proportionate.

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, the sponsor, tabled Amendments 548A, 549A and 862A to address workability issues with the current drafting of the Bill by clarifying the regulation-making powers and parliamentary procedures in Clause 22. The amendments set out when a qualifying person must be informed about independent advocate support and the circumstances in which that support must be provided.

Amendment 544A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, would create a conflict with Clause 22(3), which sets out the role of the independent advocate in providing support and advocacy to a qualifying person. The amendment would remove the definition of “qualifying person”, which would result in confusion about who is a qualifying person and the role of an independent advocate appointed to assist a person who is not a qualifying person.

Amendment 553B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, would place a duty on the commissioner to offer the support of an “independent disability advocate” to a disabled person as defined under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. As mentioned previously, given the breadth of the Equality Act definition, this duty would apply to most people seeking an assisted death. The amendment is unclear about the duties, training and qualifications that would be required of them.

Amendments 191 and 195 to 199, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme of neutral advisers to whom a person must be directed in the situation where a registered medical practitioner is unwilling or unable to conduct a preliminary discussion. The amendments are broad, ambiguously drafted and could give rise to significant workability issues.

Amendment 196 in particular would require neutral adviser organisations to make a number of very broad declarations. For example, under the amendment, a neutral adviser must declare that they do not and will not employ

“any person who has taken part in the provision of assistance for assisted dying”.

This could result in a potentially unworkable duty, as it would require the adviser to make a declaration about current and future conduct. These broad declarations could therefore be practically unworkable and create resourcing challenges by excluding significant parts of the workforce, if interpreted broadly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I have noticed that the time now is 5.18 pm. We have no intention of moving on to another group. When this group is finished, I will seek to adjourn the House. I say to any colleagues waiting for another debate that it will not be happening this week.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, The Government do not have major workability concerns with Amendments 175 and 384, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whom we are very pleased to see in his place; long may he continue to be there.

I will say a few words about clinical practice, which may be helpful in addressing some of the points raised, including those just now by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. Most of the questions were really about the Bill and are therefore matters for the sponsor, but I will make a couple of points about clinical practice. It is rare for a clinician to base prognosis on a median life expectancy. In addition, explaining the data used is not common clinical practice. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.

The issues raised are rightly for noble Lords to consider and decide. Of course, that means that the way the amendments are currently drafted may require further consideration to be fully workable, effective or enforceable.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, can I share everybody’s genuine pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is here? Can I not congratulate him on telling us about it? I would have done, but he told me he did not want it, so I respect his wishes. I thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for being willing to share his experience of the death of his first wife. I also associate myself with my noble friend Lady Royall; from personal experience, one should not feel that one has got some obligation or is in some way defective if one dies quickly of cancer or takes a particular attitude. We should not be censorious one way or the other as to what attitude people take when confronted with a terminal illness. How would we all react when confronted with it? We probably do not know.

First, we have had a debate about the six months, and I am incredibly unkeen to revisit the six months because I do not think that that was the frame within which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, tabled his amendment. His amendment is about what is to be told to the patient rather than whether six months is right—I am gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is nodding. I will focus on the issue: how should the patient be told? His amendment is in Clause 5, which is about the preliminary discussion. It requires the doctor conducting the preliminary discussion to discuss the person’s diagnosis and prognosis. It requires the doctor to refer to any treatment available to the patient, and the likely effect of the treatment, and it requires them to go through

“all appropriate palliative, hospice or other care”—

it is not just palliative and hospice care; it is other care as well—

“including symptom management and psychological support, and offer to refer them to a registered medical practitioner who specialises in such care for the purpose of further discussion”.

It is a detailed discussion about the prognosis, diagnosis and likely effect of treatment.

I was struck by the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. The idea that you are told you have six months to live, and that is it, is extraordinarily unusual. The idea that this happens is very unlikely; that it could happen in this context seems to me to be extraordinarily unlikely. Noble Lords will be aware that, in Clause 7, there must be a record kept of this conversation. The iniquity that one is trying to deal with seems to me to be unlikely to arise.

Should we be putting into the Bill the specific statistical material that has to be given? If you are relying on a median or an average, do you have to say that you are doing that and what the variations are? No, I am not in favour of that. There is a power for the Secretary of State, by codes of practice or guidance, to give indications as to how it should be dealt with. I trust doctors more than many people in this debate. It would be unhelpful to put in words such as those in the amendment into the Bill, so I am against the amendment.

On a completely separate issue, we have debated the question of the prognosis and the reason for the six months. I strongly adopt the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that this is not the view of one person; this is the view of two doctors and a panel of three. This is not just a question of one prognosis and it is over. That is an issue that we dealt with previously. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was in a position to move the amendment. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with it.

Unpaid Carers: Patient Hospital Discharge

Baroness Merron Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent to which unpaid carers are consulted before a patient is discharged from hospital, and what plans they have to monitor this.

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

My Lords, the Health and Care Act 2022 requires NHS trusts to involve patients and unpaid carers in discharge planning, reinforced by 2024 discharge guidance. However, this is not always done consistently and carer involvement is not monitored nationally. We will support better implementation by commissioning work from the LGA’s better care fund support programme this year. Care transfer hub guidance also promotes best practice by encouraging early identification and involvement of carers in planning.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. It was important, though not easy, to win for carers the right to be consulted at the point of discharge. I am sorry that better statistics are not being kept, but I am glad to hear the plans for improvement. The survey from Carers UK shows that the number of carers being consulted is decreasing rapidly. Although I fully understand the pressure on the NHS at the point of discharge and the difficulties of securing proper social care support, does my noble friend agree that it is very short-sighted not to consult carers at this point? If they break down from lack of support, the patient is readmitted and there is further pressure on the NHS.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend that the involvement of and support to unpaid carers is crucial when a patient is discharged because, as she says, it is vital not just for patient recovery but for the whole healthcare system. I welcome the recent Carers UK report that was published last year, which focused on how government legislation and guidance is or is not being implemented and monitored in practice. That has been and will be very useful work for us to continue with.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, there are 120,000 young carers aged between seven and 18, many of whom are the principal carer for a parent or sibling, accompanying them when they go into hospital. Although many hospitals are good about identifying the young carers, not all of them are. What more can be done to make sure that these young carers are identified right at the beginning of the process and fully consulted about arrangements for discharge?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to emphasise the role that many children and young people have as young carers. The Children’s Social Care National Framework is statutory guidance for local authorities, which have duties to identify young carers who may need support and to assess their needs. I am well aware that young carers may not be aware of this, but there is a right to request assessments. Improving joint working between adult and children’s social care services, as well as health services, is key. Lastly, I hope that the electronic patient record would identify where there was a carer, including a young carer.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. The model of unplanned discharge places an immediate burden on unpaid carers. What assessment have the Government made of the financial impact on unpaid carers during this period? Specifically, will they consider a discharge support grant to provide immediate short-term funding for carers for the first four weeks following an unplanned or non-thought-through discharge?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord will be aware of the better care fund, to which there is a commitment of some £9 billion. It can be used in various ways, including in the way that he described. I look forward to the work of the LGA’s better care fund support programme that we will commission this year so that we can work with NHS and social care partners, because we need to strengthen the approach of not just involving but supporting unpaid carers. Discharge should not take place if carers are not able to fulfil the duties that it is assumed they can fulfil.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to hear that there is real awareness of the issues caused by this. It is one of the most acute problems in the whole provision of social care, and it falls hard on unpaid carers when they do not even know how or who to ask for help. It has been diagnosed many times as a big issue. There used to be co-ordinator discharge people in hospitals who would help with this process. Are there still such posts? The news about the LGA work is welcome in relation to co-ordination when it counts and support for unpaid carers, who are the experts here. They are not passive arbitrators; they need to have their own knowledge and expertise recognised in this process. Is there provision at the hospital level for this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My noble friend makes exactly the right points. We certainly recognise the vital role that unpaid carers play in supporting those who are to be discharged. Decisions about staffing and the approach—I emphasise that a multidisciplinary approach is clearly needed here—are a matter for local areas, but I can say in addition that there is a regular cross-government meeting, which is really important when it comes to joining up the approach, that looks at providing unpaid carers with the recognition and support that they need, as my noble friend said. We are also working towards publishing a cross-government action plan later this year. So in this area, including the LGA work, the kind of approach that my noble friend talks about will certainly be considered.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for being a tireless champion of unpaid carers over many years and successive Governments. She quite rightly pointed out that Carers UK found that only 14% of unpaid carers were asked about their ability and willingness to provide care before hospital discharge. I want to follow up on the previous question from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. One of the problems faced by successive Governments is that trusts and what were previously CCGs and are now ICBs are very bad at learning from other parts of the system that do things well. For example, Northumbria has been known to have a really good discharge system: it embeds co-ordinators and works out how to get that discharge going. How can the Minister’s department improve learning across the system where there is good practice, take that best practice and appropriately transplant it into other areas so that we can really tackle this problem once and for all?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The whole system needs to do better, as the noble Lord outlines. It will be helpful that we are also looking at commissioning research in this area to look at best practice, as well as barriers and solutions, regarding the involvement of unpaid carers—I think that has been somewhat overlooked, if I am to be honest with your Lordships’ House. We have regional teams that have issued very practical toolkits to help hospitals implement their legal duties; we should remember that there are legal duties in this response. In addition, that is why we are involving the LGA’s better care fund support programme, as I said, as well as seeking to publish a cross-government action plan. These will be steps in the right direction, but I very much acknowledge that we do not start in a good place.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, although the better care fund is a help, its success depends on how hospitals and the LGA work together. Would the Minister agree that the fund is still used to fund short-term gaps, particularly winter pressures, and that the yearly funding cycle does not help for longer-term planning? Could that be improved?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can see the pressure and difficulties that can bring. There is a range of reasons why discharges do not take place in a timely fashion—not just processes but the interface between health and social care, and capacity. As we look at how we involve carers and improve discharge rates, matters of funding will be key.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, we live in a world where we have constant criticism, both of government—rightly, quite often—and of many individuals for their behaviour. But here we have a situation where the health service and, indeed, society are being saved many billions of pounds as a result of the work of people who volunteer to care for their relatives and others—those in the voluntary sector, in our hospice movement and all over the health service. Without these people, we would be in real trouble. Is it not marvellous, and can we perhaps commend them and approve of what they are doing both to save us resources and to show that people are basically good?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I and the Government are certainly cognisant of the role that unpaid carers play. That is why, last year, we increased the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit. This was the largest cash increase ever and means that 60,000 additional carers will qualify. That is part of our recognition, but I share the views the noble Lord has given and the comments about my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and Carers UK—I am grateful to all.