Healthcare Sector: Clinicians

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Those important discussions will take place. I refer the noble Lord to the Life Sciences Sector Plan, which followed on from the 10-year health plan and which addresses exactly the point he rightly makes. I also refer him to the updated NHS intellectual property guidance, which provided organisations that provide or commission NHS services with much clearer routes to identify, protect and commercialise innovation. That, along with a number of other steps we are taking, will do what he seeks, which is important.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, some three months ago I visited the Institute of Cancer Research at the Royal Marsden Hospital. I met several clinicians and research scientists, who were clear that innovation was vital in bringing forward therapies to deal with the various types of cancer. But they said that there was one gap: in the funding for university research. So, as a follow-up to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, what additional funding will the Government provide to university research to ensure that new therapies can come that will accelerate improvements in cancer care?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will of course raise the points made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about funding for universities. But, as I mentioned, it is worth saying more broadly that the life sciences sector leads the drive for investment into the UK economy. For example, the sector raised the third-highest amount of equity finance in 2023 among comparator countries, leaving us behind only the United States and China. That gives some idea of the status and the activity in the UK, and I am glad that we continue to build on it.

Resistant Hypertension

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of provision for treating patients with resistant hypertension including financial investment in renal denervation treatments.

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

My Lords, the NHS is increasing the diagnosis and detection of hypertension and is supporting the identification of resistant hypertension and its treatment. Renal denervation remains an option for some patients but is currently not widely commissioned by the NHS, in line with NICE guidance. The cardiovascular disease modern service framework will further support diagnosis and accelerate our commitment to reduce premature mortality from heart disease and stroke by 25% in the next 10 years.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. This Government, thankfully, have a direct focus on prevention. In view of that, the UK expert clinical consensus on renal denervation, published in the Heart journal, concluded that existing commissioning arrangements no longer accurately reflect current evidence and technology evaluation on renal denervation. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: will the Government reconsider and commit to reviewing national commissioning policies for renal denervation, so that funding and eligibility criteria for this technology are made clear and consistent across all eligible sectors?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I can indeed give the commitment to my noble friend that NHS England is currently reviewing the clinical evidence for the commissioning of renal denervation treatment, and recommendations are expected next year.

New Autism Strategy (Autism Act 2009 Committee Report)

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I was delighted to be a member of the autism committee, under the very clear direction of our chairperson, the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. I was very grateful for the direction and guidance from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lord Touhig, who have a particular interest and expertise in this area. I pay tribute to our clerks and special adviser in relation to the topic. I thank the Government for their response, which, I say to my noble friend the Minister, could have been stronger and have indicated a desire to produce an immediate strategy, as much analysis and evidence is already there, particularly from the report that we published last November.

I declare that my cousin’s son is autistic. He displays or exhibits certain characteristics and special interests, on which there is a fixation. But all in all, he is an exceptionally bright child and will do well in spite of his disability.

Far-reaching legislation for autism was enacted in 2009, followed by various strategies. The last strategy was published in 2021 and is due to expire in a month’s time. The Government have stated that it will continue until a new one is in place. I suggest that work on the new strategy should already be under way and publication should take place early in the second half of this year.

Our report called for the Government to develop such a strategy, tackling persistent inequalities experienced by autistic people in education, health, work, criminal justice and the community. Since our report was published, I note that the Government have commissioned an independent review into mental health conditions, autism and ADHD, launched a call for evidence to inform a mental health strategy and announced a special educational needs reform Bill. Although welcome, I believe this only accentuates the delay in bringing forward the strategy. Maybe my noble friend the Minister could suggest why the Government are proceeding down this course of action, rather than immediately publishing such a strategy. Will those various elements of the Government’s suggested course of action contain the elements of such a strategy?

I am not criticising the Government, but as a member of the committee that published the report, I would have expected the publication of a new updated strategy to be based on much of the evidence that already exists and on the work that has already taken place, because we had extensive interviews with many autistic people, as well as professionals in the field. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister: why was this the case? Why have a further review, which involves much work and delay, when much work has already been undertaken? Why not publish an immediate strategy?

Our recommendations included the launch of a new initiative to improve understanding and acceptance of autism and expanding mandatory training on autism for public-facing staff; investment in driving down autism assessment waiting times while developing and scaling up an effective model for identification, assessment and lifelong support; and setting a clear timeline and road map for the development of strong community services so that provisions in the Mental Health Act 2025 to end the unnecessary detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be commenced. Those are some of our recommendations; there are many more. I encourage my noble friend the Minister to have a look at all those recommendations and ensure that they can be placed in a strategy.

How will the Government ensure that autistic people and those who support them are fully involved in any reform of systems for identification, assessment and support? How will they set and pursue priorities for better health outcomes for autistic people in any future autism strategy? I thank my noble friend the Minister and look forward to her response.

Cancer Outcomes in the UK

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on securing this important debate, which places emphasis on diagnostic care, research and the necessary delivery mechanisms to implement the National Cancer Plan.

I am a breast cancer survivor who was on a clinical trial—the add-aspirin double-blind trial—for five years. The result of that trial in both Britain and Ireland will be revealed next year, with the aim of showing—I hope—that taking aspirin can help in the reduction of breast cancer. That is what I hope the research will show; we will see in time.

There is no doubt that research needs meaningful government and charitable investment, which in turn requires sound management. I acknowledge those who have provided briefings for us all today, including the Institute of Cancer Research, Young Lives vs Cancer, Leukaemia UK, Breast Cancer Now and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society—to name just a few. All the briefings highlight the importance of frequent and early screening, diagnostics and equitable access to more effective treatments, as well as the need to strengthen clinical trial infrastructure and create closer links between trials and clinical practice. They also highlight the importance of research and innovation, including the need to improve genomic testing in the UK by mandating faster test turnaround times and to standardise and make accessible a centralised data collection linked to other databases.

Undoubtedly, the National Cancer Plan for England sets out ambitious and necessary targets to improve cancer outcomes, which I welcome. Research is fundamental to delivering all these outcomes, but we will not hit these targets if they are not driven by the latest research. Universities are the primary delivery mechanism for this research, and they are under significant financial strain. The financial health of the universities is the litmus test for the UK’s scientific future. The key challenge is delivery, as was pointed out by Professor Kristian Helin of the ICR and in a subsequent blog by Ollie Richards, the advocacy manager for the Institute of Cancer Research.

The ambitious targets in the National Cancer Plan will not be met without cutting-edge cancer research to drive new standards of care, alongside time-saving and cost-saving efficiencies. The plan aims for 75% of people diagnosed with cancer to survive at least five years: a 25% increase on current levels. Achieving this will require more than incremental gains; it will depend on better treatments, more precise targeting of therapies and a deeper understanding of cancer biology, all of which is rooted in research. At the time of my diagnosis eight years ago, I was told that they were able to diagnose the content of a tumour and direct the treatment to the tumour: that was the difference and the improvement. It encouraged me to go on my treatment plan.

The ambition to diagnose 75% of cancers at stage 1 or 2 cannot be achieved through awareness of existing screening alone. It will require new screening approaches, more sensitive diagnostics, and improved risk stratification—again, all driven by research. This work is already under way at the Institute of Cancer Research at the Royal Marsden, and there is an exploration of saliva tests to assess the genetic risk of prostate cancer, showing that, for some men, it can outperform the current PSA test.

The National Cancer Plan includes targets on diagnosis and treatment times and an additional 9.5 million diagnostic tests by 2029, but volume alone is insufficient. Faster pathways depend on innovation and technologies that streamline diagnosis and reduce treatment burden. Therefore, research is critical here. Dr Matthew Blackledge’s quickDWI project is developing a five-minute MRI scan with the potential of transforming the patient experience, which frees up NHS capacity. Similarly, the PACE-B trial at the Royal Marsden and ICR demonstrated that higher-dose radiotherapy can cut treatment time by up to 75% for some prostate cancer patients. We cannot ignore the importance of early-stage research and discovery science helping to answer key biological questions. It is often the least visible and most vulnerable part of the system—a concern increasingly voiced across the sector in recent months.

The bottom line is that cancer research does not happen in a vacuum. It depends on sustained investment, policy stability and access to the best talent. If we want research to deliver the National Cancer Plan’s ambitions on survival, early diagnosis and faster treatment, all of us—Parliament, the Government, research institutions and clinical practitioners—have to ensure that the system that underpins it is strong enough to deliver what the National Cancer Plan requires. In this respect, I ask my noble friend the Minister what plans the Government have to do just that. I welcome the National Cancer Plan and I want to see it implemented, but I want to see how it will be implemented and the resources revealed to do just that: to ensure that this National Cancer Plan is capable of implementation with sufficient resources in research and innovation and within the universities.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who deserves much personal credit for his work on these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, and I are on the same side on these issues. I will speak in support of Amendment 202, because it would be a good thing to require the Government to publish five-yearly reports, setting out a clear road map towards a smoke-free country.

While the smoke-free generation policy will rightly protect future generations from the harms of tobacco, it does not in itself sufficiently address the needs of the 5.3 million people who still currently smoke. If we are serious about creating a smoke-free country then we cannot afford to overlook them. Smoking remains responsible for around 74,000 deaths each year and a national strategy would ensure a focus on getting smokers the support they need to live healthier lives, free from the harms of tobacco. The UK’s tobacco control policies have, over many years, delivered a remarkable decline in smoking rates, representing a major public health success story, but further progress is not inevitable without sustained action.

This can be shown by the example of Germany, where smoking rates have remained at around 30% since 2017. Key differences are the absence in Germany of a comprehensive national strategy and Germany having weaker restrictions on tobacco. Without a clear plan, progress can stall. Crucially, this amendment includes targets and specific interventions for groups and areas with a persistently high prevalence of smoking. This matters because smoking rates remain deeply unequal. In the most deprived areas of the country, one in five people, 21% or so, smoke, compared with just 6.2% in the least deprived areas. Around half of the gap in healthy life expectancy between these groups can be attributed to smoking. Supporting people in these communities to quit would make a significant contribution towards the Government’s stated ambition to reduce health inequalities and make our country more productive, as well as happier. We need to do more to reach groups where smoking prevalence remains stubbornly high, such as people with serious mental illnesses, those living in social housing and those in routine manual occupations.

The Bill will help to ensure that nobody starts smoking, but it must be the first step in a wider national road map to ensure that everyone is supported to kick the habit, which is what most smokers seek. The publication of a road map would complement the Government’s own Amendment 205, which sets out how the implementation of the Bill will be reviewed. A clear plan would articulate what the Government aim to achieve in future and by when. It could also encompass further measures, long called for by the APPG on Smoking and Health, including action on so-called cigarette filters, the publication of industry sales data and warnings on individual cigarettes.

Amendment 202 urges the Government to be bold, set a new target and back it with a credible long-term plan. The APPG examined evidence last year and recommended a national target of 2 million fewer smokers by the end of this Parliament, alongside a clear ambition to make smoking obsolete within the next 20 years. These goals are achievable. I urge the Minister to seize this opportunity by indicating that there will be a road map of the kind that we seek very soon.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds.

I support a smoke-free generation policy, which is central to the Bill. We who support a smoke-free generation want to achieve better-quality health for all, particularly young people, to ensure that they have better health outcomes in terms of heart disease and various types of cancers. Looking at the proposal made by the UK Government to the European Commission in respect of this, it is quite clear that the number of deaths caused in Northern Ireland as a result of smoking is quite high. We should be making every effort to ensure that it is lowered.

We also need lung screening in Northern Ireland. That would help oncologists to identify those individuals who are liable at a later stage to develop lung cancer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can pass on to the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland that request for the prioritisation of such resources. I have some family members who are involved in oncology in lung specialisms at Belfast City Hospital. They have told me that it would make their job much easier, in identification and in diagnosis, if that screening was available.

The proposal made by the UK Government to the EU clearly demonstrates that these clauses and this Bill are not at variance with the Windsor Framework. Tobacco products will continue to be available in Northern Ireland. The Bill received legislative consent. Northern Ireland is a divided society where there are different views on the Windsor Framework. I support it, but I respect that others are opposed to it. But if the Executive and the Assembly—made up of various parties in a mandatory coalition, with different political perspectives on the constitutional issue and on Brexit and the Windsor Framework—had noted a breach of the principles of free movement of goods and conflicts with the EU, the Windsor Framework et cetera, the Bill would not have received legislative consent.

Vaccine Health Technology Assessment

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to include wider societal and economic benefits within the vaccine health technology assessment, rather than limiting evaluation solely to clinical outcomes.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I was delighted to secure this debate as this is a subject of significant importance and one in which I have a close interest. Health and economic growth are rightly identified by the Government as two of their central priorities and they sit at the core of the NHS 10-year plan. Vaccines lie at the intersection of these ambitions, yet the way we currently assess their value does not reflect the full contribution they can make to either. Vaccines are among the most effective public health interventions ever developed. For more than two centuries, they have saved lives, reduced pressure on health services and enabled societies and economies to function. Yet, despite this well-established record, the health technology assessment of vaccines in England remains too narrow.

At present, vaccine assessment focuses predominantly on direct clinical outcomes and immediate health system costs. While these are clearly important, they do not capture the wider societal and economic benefits that vaccines deliver, benefits that are directly relevant to both national growth and the long-term sustainability of the NHS. Vaccines keep people in work and children in school, and they enable carers to care. They reduce absenteeism, protect productivity and help prevent avoidable demand on already-stretched NHS services. In doing so, they support economic growth and help deliver the Government’s ambition of a healthier, more productive population, as set out in the NHS 10-year health plan. This matters because vaccines are fundamentally different from many other health technologies. They prevent disease before it occurs, reduce transmission and generate benefits that extend well beyond individual patients. Assessing them through a narrow clinical lens risks undervaluing prevention and slowing access to innovations that could deliver long-term health and economic gains.

Recent evidence from the Office of Health Economics provides compelling data in this regard. Its latest report provides estimates of the annual burden associated with respiratory illnesses for four selected vaccination programmes from the NHS routine schedule, as well as the projected costs and savings associated with those vaccines. Despite the delivery of national vaccination programmes for these four disease areas, a significant burden of disease remains. The report shows the costs to the NHS and quantifies the broader socioeconomic impact of vaccines, specifically the impact that they can have on reducing the UK welfare budget and workplace absenteeism and increasing UK productivity—helping to support the Government’s priorities on health and growth.

Key findings include the fact that the cost to the NHS of treating the unprotected population for these four respiratory illnesses alone is £3.9 billion. The cost to the wider economy is £3.6 billion, making a total of £7.4 billion a year. At the same time, the UK spends only 1.07% of health expenditure and 0.1% of GDP to cover immunisation programmes in the national schedule. A 10% reduction in the current burden, through higher coverage with the same vaccine, a future vaccine with higher efficacy or improved effectiveness at the same coverage levels, or a combination of the two, could deliver significant benefits—£384 million in annual NHS savings and £356 million in lower productivity costs. These findings are undoubtedly compelling and reinforce the point that vaccines should be viewed not as a short-term cost but as a strategic investment with benefits that extend well beyond the health system.

The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic made this abundantly clear. Vaccines were not only a health intervention; they were essential to economic recovery, educational continuity and social stability. Yet our routine assessment frameworks have not fully embedded this lesson.

I say gently to my noble friend the Minister that if the Government are serious about delivering their growth agenda and the ambitions of the NHS 10-year health plan, prevention and vaccines in particular must be valued accordingly. That requires assessment frameworks that recognise long-term, cross-government benefits, not just short-term clinical outcomes. I thank the Minister for the recent response she gave to my Parliamentary Question on this issue.

I welcome the recent positive decision by NICE to revise its cost-effectiveness thresholds. This is an important and constructive step. However, with these revised thresholds, the current framework does not systematically include broader socioeconomic benefits. I therefore ask the Minister whether these changes will feed through to JCVI evaluations of vaccines and immunisation programmes.

Crucially, while changes to thresholds may improve flexibility at the margins, they do not address the more fundamental issue that vaccines are still assessed using methodologies that fail to capture their full, long-term societal and economic value. I therefore urge the Government to consider how vaccine health technology assessment can evolve, including clearer guidance on incorporating societal and economic impacts, improved alignments between NICE, JCVI and the NHS, and an explicit recognition that prevention requires a different evaluative approach from treatment.

In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether His Majesty’s Government will commit to establishing an independent committee to evaluate this existing vaccine health technology assessment process. Such a review could assess whether current approaches are fit for purpose, consider international best practice and make recommendations on how wider societal and economic benefits can be appropriately and consistently incorporated.

This is not about lowering evidential standards; it is about measuring the right outcomes over the right time horizon in support of the Government’s priorities on health, growth and NHS sustainability. If we continue to undervalue vaccines, we risk missing one of the most effective tools available to improve population health, reduce pressure on the NHS and support long-term economic prosperity.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on how the Government intend to take this forward and the contributions of other noble Lords on this very important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her thorough introduction and for securing this debate. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for their considered contributions. The subject of today’s debate reflects my noble friend’s steadfast commitment to improving access to immunisation and her tireless efforts to ensure that vaccination matters continue to receive the attention that they undoubtedly deserve. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said, this is a very important debate to have and I welcome the probing that it provides.

Let me say at the outset that I believe we in the UK can be proud that we have one of the most extensive vaccination programmes in the world. We protect people across their life course and it is underpinned by rigorous scientific evidence and a commitment to equitable access—a point made both by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and my noble friend Lady Goudie.

The question of international comparators was raised. Our vaccination progress serves as a global benchmark for innovation and best practice, and many nations look to align their immunisation schedule with ours.

I will focus on the specifics as best I can in the time available. On the JCVI, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, made a number of comments suggesting what I might say, and in a number of cases he will be entirely right, so I am grateful to him for shining a light on some of those points. Decisions on introducing or changing vaccination programmes are informed by advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. It is an independent and expert committee and world leader in this field, as has been recognised in this debate. It bases its advice on high-quality data, disease burden, vaccine safety and efficacy, and the impact and cost-effectiveness of programmes, and it ensures that we maintain public confidence in our policies. I know that all these things are important to noble Lords.

On the current approach to evaluating vaccines, the cost effectiveness analysis used by the JCVI compares the cost of a vaccine relative to the health benefits it provides. I appreciate that this debate is about extending beyond that, but that is what it does. It looks at the health benefits provided for a vaccinated individual and others—this point was raised in the course of the debate—and it considers direct cost savings to the health and social care system resulting from immunisation, such as averting hospitalisation and the need for social care.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie suggested that the current approach somehow undervalues prevention, can delay innovation and does not take into account benefits beyond those to the individual patient. I would put this rather differently to my noble friend, because the methodology is entirely focused on prevention. As I mentioned, the positive benefits are not just for the person who has been vaccinated but for those around them. We look to reduce the incidence of infection, and we are also mindful about the transmission of conditions and infections to others.

My noble friend also asked about changes to thresholds. I can say to her that we are actively considering the impact of changes to thresholds in vaccination programmes. Perhaps I will only be a little cautious, but there is the potential that such a change would increase the costs of existing programmes, perhaps by incentivising higher prices from suppliers. But there is a recognition of the role that such a change could play in encouraging innovation, and I know that my noble friend is very keen to see that.

I am not sure this came up too much in the debate, but it is an important point. Our use of data to establish cost effectiveness has ensured that we get value for money from manufacturers, and that has allowed us to deliver a comprehensive programme. It is important that we continue to keep that value for money.

On wider societal and economic impacts, it is the case that wider benefits can be highlighted by officials or the JCVI when advising government on vaccination programmes, but it is also true that it does not account for the impact of vaccination that I have heard all noble Lords call for. A key reason for this—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pre-empted this—is that the wider benefits cannot be quantified consistently across all vaccination programmes. There is currently a lack of available high-quality data on socioeconomic benefits. As the noble Lord said, robust data may be available for very few programmes. Basing decisions on wider benefits would create disparities whereby vaccination programmes with high-quality data and wider benefits were considered more valuable. So we do not have the basic situation to achieve what we all want.

There are also many uncertainties when modelling socioeconomic benefits. Unpaid care was mentioned, for example; I think my noble friend Lady Goudie referred to it. Quantifying the impact on that would be extremely complicated, and there is no clarity on how estimating or modelling this or other impacts should be approached. That concern was echoed by NICE when it did an appraisal on this very topic in 2022, and it agreed to maintain the approach that it currently takes.

On the point about supply that I mentioned earlier, there can also be a risk that by adding wider benefits into formal evaluation methods we send a signal to suppliers that we could be open to paying higher costs for the same vaccines or medicines. I see noble Lords both nodding and shaking their heads, which is the purpose of a debate.

There are additional ethical concerns. As was mentioned, vaccination programmes for working populations, important though they are, could be preferred over programmes for those who are not economically active. That is not a basis on which we would want to proceed because it would exacerbate inequalities and undermine the equity of our approach.

I recognise that my noble friend Lady Ritchie has raised this Question as part of a focus to broaden vaccination access. That is a goal to which we are absolutely committed. We have been putting plans into action to provide new programmes—for example, launching programmes to protect infants and older adults against RSV. Just this month, we announced that a vaccine against chickenpox would go into the routine childhood immunisation schedule. That is expected to save the NHS some £15 million a year in costs for treating vaccinations.

The important matter of improving uptake has been raised. We are delivering vaccinations in new ways via community pharmacists, and pilots for administering vaccinations within health visits are starting this month. Through this targeted outreach, we offer an opportunity to increase uptake and reduce inequalities by providing vaccinations to those who might not otherwise access vaccinations. We are also working with healthcare professionals so that they can confidently discuss immunisation with concerned patients, because it is vital to tackle vaccine information. We are exploring innovative delivery models and delivering trusted messaging, to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who spoke about other influences that we would not welcome.

A number of questions have been asked, and I will be glad to write to noble Lords to pick up their specific points. I realise that my remarks in general will not be the ones that my noble friend and other noble Lords will have hoped for, but I hope I have been able to outline some of the difficulties while appreciating the points that have been made.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I ask that she and her ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care give particular attention to establishing the independent committee to evaluate the existing vaccine health technology assessment process so that the impact of vaccines on the economy, education and wider society can be seen clearly.

NHS: Winter Preparedness

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

First, we have started earlier and done more than ever before to prepare for the winter pressures. The good news is that the flu vaccines are working well to protect people against severe disease, and they are certainly working well in comparison to how they used to. In fact, we are the first country in the world to show vaccines working this well. On the uptake of vaccinations, 60,000 more NHS staff have been vaccinated this year than last year, which is extremely welcome. We have delivered over 17 million flu vaccines, which is tens of thousands more than we had delivered this time last year. We have a particular programme of communication and support and availability to those groups which are less likely to take up vaccinations. Vaccinations are our best line of defence against RSV and flu. I will be pleased to provide more detailed information to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, given that not all babies are currently able to benefit from protection under the two-pronged approach to the RSV programme, what efforts will be made to ensure that other babies, such as those born to unvaccinated mothers, who remain at risk, will be included in any extension to the RSV vaccination programme?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I know my noble friend is very familiar with the maternal RSV programme, not least because of her campaigning, for which I pay tribute to her. It only began in September, and it is already proving successful. We want to see more pregnant women being vaccinated; we have updated and made available information resources in 30 languages for better access to vaccinations. We encourage maternity services to have early discussions with pregnant women about vaccination, and we ensure that training is in place to allow staff to have the knowledge and confidence to address concerns and build confidence. I hope that this answer is helpful not just to my noble friend but to the noble Lord.

Breast Cancer

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The answer to that latter question is yes, and the noble Baroness will not have to wait too long to see the national cancer plan.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, as a breast cancer survivor, I cannot estimate enough the benefit of breast screening leading to early diagnosis. In that respect, I urge my noble friend the Minister to talk not only to her ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations but to oncologists within the Department of Health to ensure that we get an earlier date for publication than 2027. Women, particularly those over 70, want reassurance about the prevalence or non-prevalence of cancer within their body.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

We certainly do speak with the devolved Governments, as my noble friend highlights. As I have said, this whole area is guided by the scientific and independent advice of the UK National Screening Committee, which is closely involved in the AgeX trial to which I have referred. I assure my noble friend that action will be taken as quickly as possible.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

I confess I was slightly aghast by the Committee stage in the other place. MPs had tabled amendments to include much more explicit protections in the Bill as safeguards for individuals who might be vulnerable to coercion in all its forms and to more subtle interventions that could be characterised as encouragement. Amendment after amendment along these lines were rejected. I hope that this Committee will adopt a different approach and tighten up the drafting of the Bill precisely so that autonomy is meaningful and not just a slogan.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments to Clause 1 in this group. I speak in particular to Amendment 48 in my name. This seeks to strengthen the safeguards against someone being coerced into an assisted death by removing the words “by any other person” from Clause 1(2)(b). This would extend the notion of coercion by recognising that coercion or pressure can come from a multitude of places—an institution, a circumstance or another individual. I am sure there is agreement across your Lordships’ Committee that nobody should feel obliged to opt for an assisted death. This amendment aims to strengthen and clarify the eligibility criteria in the Bill in recognition that they are perhaps its most important safeguard.

I have deep concerns, as many of us do, about how we protect vulnerable people from unnecessary, unwanted death. I am especially anxious that we should be aware of the risk of coercion in all its forms, which is an issue that I raised during Second Reading. This includes somebody who feels coerced through a lack of real choice.

The National Audit Office’s recent report into the state of the palliative and end-of-life care sector is stark. As we know, funding is stretched and provision is disparate. As things stand, there is a lack of real choice for many people about the end of life. The knowledge of this could easily be internalised by people, leaving terminally ill patients in certain regions or who are part of particularly vulnerable marginalised populations feeling that they have no choice but assisted dying, whether or not another person is explicitly pushing this.

Therefore, my Amendment 48 seeks to ensure that such cases are not left out of the Bill’s definition of coercion. I ask my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, in his summing up, to give consideration to this, so that it remains possible to detect and prevent any death that the person has not freely chosen.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I do not like this Bill, but I am here, like many other Members of this House, to agree on amendments that will make this a better Bill, and I hope it will be effective.

When my father died, the family nanny, who had also been his housekeeper, needed somewhere to live, and my brothers and I paid for her to live in a very nice care home, where she was entirely happy, until I went to see her. On each occasion, she said to me, “I shouldn’t be alive. I ought to die. It is not right that you and your brothers are having to pay for me”. I have this direct knowledge. She was perfectly happy when I was not there and, of course, we continued to look after her until she died.

But the Bill, once it is passed, is absolutely certain to be enlarged in all sorts of ways, as happened with other Bills in other countries once they became law. There are various reasons why it would be a good thing to enlarge it. For example, it seems to me bitterly unfair that those with locked-in syndromes such as motor neurone disease would be extremely unlikely to benefit from the Bill in the last six months, because many—those I have known—have been unable to do anything themselves in the last six months. The word “encouragement” is absolutely crucial. It does not have to be coercion. It does not have to be abuse. It could be nice people listening to a loved one and realising that they are saying, “I ought to die”, and consequently saying, “Yes, why not?” That would be extremely unjust.

Goodmayes Hospital Mental Health Facility

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

These are very serious issues, and we continue to work on them. We are also very grateful to the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, whose reports highlight extremely important concerns and safety recommendations, with an aim to help us improve in-patient mental health services. Therefore, I can say to the noble Baroness that we are in the process of formally responding to those recommendations made within this report, in addition to the changes I have referred to. As the Mental Health Minister, I am invested in making sure that we continue to drive forward improvements to patient safety and accountability.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, given the testimony presented by my noble friend Lady Berger, what assurances can my noble friend the Minister provide to your Lordships’ House to underpin the Mental Health Act by way of financial spend, to ensure that it is protected for mental health services to deal with all the challenges that have happened over the last number of years and into the future?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The Mental Health Bill, which is, I hope, within touching distance of Royal Assent, is absolutely crucial. It is a reform of an Act which was 41 years old; it will undoubtedly be crucial. I am grateful to many noble Lords for their participation in getting us to the right place. It will deliver on our government commitment to modernise the legislation. I hope my noble friend is aware that implementation is absolutely key, but there are rightly a number of points within the Bill—which I hope will become an Act—which will take effect only when services are in the right place. It would be wrong to do so without it.