Health Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Weir of Ballyholme

Committee stage
Monday 9th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said, I and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, have co-signed her amendment, I think rightly. It would provide a proper prioritised focus on dementia, as it is very significant within our society. Mention has been made of the estimated 1 million people suffering from it. That is very much an estimate, because roughly one in three people who have dementia is not diagnosed at present.

I suspect that there is nobody in this Chamber who does not have a family member who has suffered from dementia or, at the very least, a friend of the family who suffered from dementia. It is something that touches all our lives. For those families and individuals who have dementia, we know this can be an incredibly painful experience and a very difficult time for them.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, indicated, this condition has much wider implications for the NHS as a whole. The statistics suggest that, at present, one in six hospital beds are occupied by someone with dementia. We know that this is a condition which is going to simply expand over time. Part of that is largely because of our ageing population, which itself is a testament to the success of our health service. We are seeing, with many terrible conditions, much greater levels of survival rates and much greater levels of increased lineage because of that, but it also means that we have an increasingly aged population. Even Northern Ireland, from where the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I hail, which has traditionally always had a very young population, will reach the tipping point next year, when the number of pensioners in Northern Ireland will outweigh the number of children. We can see that this is going to be an expanding problem.

Secondly, the amendment is important, because there is a lack of consistency around the country in tackling dementia in terms of care, although this is not unique to dementia. There are inconsistencies over the speed of diagnosis, over the advice given on pathways for those with dementia and over the level of provision of social care. I know the Government are very much right, when they look at inconsistencies, to tackle health inequalities. I do not think any of us would disagree with that, but this goes even beyond health inequalities. It is a certain level of postcode lottery where what you get can be very different according to the luck of geography. With a national report, on an annual basis, based very firmly on data, shining the light on the data could itself act as an incentive towards improving performance. Where we can see geographical areas lagging behind each other, it will be an incentive for them to improve. Where we perhaps see improvements on one side of things with dementia but not on another, having that data could act as a driver for that.

There is a race against time, given the increase in the number of people who are likely to suffer from dementia. Much more positively, we know that it appears that we are on the cusp of great breakthroughs in the treatment of dementia, perhaps through drugs that can slow it down and ultimately put us in a position, we hope, to provide a cure for various forms of dementia. However, a key barrier to that breakthrough has been the lack of consistent data, both in terms of quantity—we know that approximately only 1% of those with dementia are involved in any form of trials to push for solutions—and in terms of quality, because we do not necessarily have it on a consistent basis. Again, an annual report could help do that.

The amendment is well-timed, and it is very compatible with the proposed publication of the dementia side of the modern service framework. The amendment goes to a lot of the Government’s rightful aspirations to integrate social care within the system and to move beyond the idea of rhetoric and good intentions towards delivery.

Finally, the amendment, importantly, tries to provide a solution to one thing that sometimes, as legislators, we are not as focused on as we should be—I do not mean this as a criticism of this Government or, to be honest, of this Parliament, because it could happen in any legislative forum. As legislators, our tendency is to see a problem, find a solution through legislation, get that legislation passed and then we feel the problem is solved. The reality is that legislation should be simply the start of a process rather than the end. It is the implementation of that legislation and the follow-through into people’s lives that are critical. To put it another way, we often fall into the trap of seeing legislation as the full stop; we should see it as the comma and simply part of a continuum of a process.

Whether it is through this amendment or something similar, we need a clearer focus on dementia. We need something that is much more nationally based and data-driven. That could be a very useful tool in combating something which we are all on the same page on and in trying to provide better care for those with dementia and better support for their families.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make one or two remarks and probably ask some questions of the supporters of Amendment 180. I regard these amendments as what one might call the “moving parts” amendments. We are all trying to work out how on earth we are going to get reform in the NHS and get social care and all those things, which is why the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, were particularly pertinent. It is reasonable that, during the course of the Bill, we should be asking how social care is going to be pushed forward and whether we need to put measures in the Bill which will help that process, even though we know we are in the middle of the Casey review and we have the determination of our Prime Minister to deliver long-term change to our social care system.

There are two questions I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Why does Amendment 180 exist without any reference to what is happening at the moment, which is that we are in the middle of a social care review that will bring forward some proposals about what a national care service should look like? Also, perhaps the noble Lord would like to talk a little bit about the commitment that his party will make to that social care reform and the need for there to be consensus and cross-party review to take it forward. In that way, I kind of welcome what the amendment says, but I am slightly puzzled as to why it sits there in the Bill and does not really relate to what is actually taking place.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Weir of Ballyholme

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has been around this circuit before, I think on a Private Member’s Bill proposed by one of his noble friends, about collecting the statistics. It shows that he does not actually seem to have checked what statistics are already collected before deciding that these things need to be done. I thought that it might be useful for the Committee to know that the annual abortion statistics already include the ethnicity of the woman and medical complications as part of the treatment. The noble Lord will also be aware that it is incredibly rare that the sex of the foetus is known, because the vast majority of abortions are carried out or happen before 10 or 12 weeks—so that is simply not known or collectable.

Complications from abortion care are extremely rare and are already reported. Abortion care providers are regulated and scrutinised through long-established accountability mechanisms, including published safe- guarding reports and Care Quality Commission inspections. These are on the public record; I am not sure why the noble Lord has decided that these things are not. Doctors are already legally required to provide information about abortions to the Chief Medical Officer, including gestation complications and grounds for an abortion.

The noble Lord is bringing forward amendments that would cause a huge amount of bureaucracy and might risk leaving medical professionals permanently unsure of the status of abortion law. I am sure that we would wish to avoid that happening. I shall be very interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the Government have to say about the implications of all these amendments.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. We live in what a lot of us would describe as a post-truth world, in which facts are often passed off as opinions or, worse, that terrible phrase “fake news”. Sometimes opinions are passed off as being completely truthful facts, and sometimes we have misinformation going around the globe that comes not simply from conspiracy theorists on the internet but, sadly, sometimes from world leaders.

Given that context, it is important that when this House resolves on any legislation, looking into the future, that it should be on the basis of evidence, truth and facts. That is particularly true when it comes to abortion. It is an issue, irrespective of your views on it, which is deeply sensitive, and on which raw emotions are often provoked. To some extent we saw that earlier when, at times, the atmosphere of the Committee got a little bit tense. People have genuinely conflicting views on this, so the more we can try to base this on evidence, the better.

That is particularly true for the proposed changes that are being made in Clause 191, for two main reasons. First, although there has been some mention that this has been in the ether for a number of years, the specifics of this legislation came about by way of a Back-Bench amendment to a different piece of legislation, with a limited amount of debate on it. It was not part of a government programme or manifesto commitment. Any Back-Bench Member is perfectly entitled to bring forward an amendment; that is the normal procedure. The downside of that is that there has not been a direct level of consultation on this specific proposal.

Secondly, despite what has been said, there are some concerns about the quality of the data that we have on a range of issues. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and it seemed that she was putting forward two somewhat contradictory positions. You can either make the argument that all this data is already there and already gathered, and therefore these amendments are unnecessary, or, alternatively, you can make the argument that this would involve so much gathering of data that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. You can argue either of those propositions, but the two are somewhat mutually exclusive in that regard. It strikes me that when we take decisions on this, it is important to get the data.

It has been highlighted—I think it was mentioned in a Private Member’s Bill that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposed—that there are sometimes concerns over the quality of the data. Perhaps not unsurprisingly—it is not unique to this particular debate—we have heard different people on different sides of this argument quote sometimes contradictory data as to where we are.

It strikes me that there are one or two solutions to these problems, neither of which is mutually exclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in the next group of amendments, proposes, apart from anything else, that we pause things until there is a proper consultation period. These amendments then look towards the idea of producing data and a report, and gathering evidence so that there can be a review of the procedures and how things work out. They highlight the range of issues that formed a number of the concerns in the previous debate. These are issues around the level of coercion, the medical complications that arise as a result of changes, whether it leads to a driver on sex selection, and, as mentioned, the incidence of late abortion, which then leads to a live birth. This range of issues highlights a lot of the concerns that were raised in the last group.

I appreciate that we have had this debate today, and that the proponents of Clause 191 will say that the concerns that have been raised—although I am sure they will accept they are genuine—are, in their view, misplaced or perhaps exaggerated, and that we have nothing to fear from Clause 191. Various incidents of what has happened in other parts of the world have been quoted. It is important, therefore, that we test that out. These amendments would gather that data and allow us to assess that. If we are dealing with false fears then, for the proponents of Clause 191, this will strengthen their argument in a year or two years’ time, whenever these things are reviewed. If the fears are genuine and are realised, however, then it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, says, that if we gather evidence, it is not some sort of desktop exercise where we simply look at figures. If we gather evidence then it should be on the basis of having the opportunity, if it shows that there are increased dangers, for instance, to women or concerns over any other categories, to take a level of corrective action. That seems a very sensible course of action. I do not think there is anything that anybody should have to fear in these amendments, so I commend them to the Committee.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornton and Lord Weir of Ballyholme

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, at this late hour, I sound a slight note of caution and concern over Amendments 465 and 471. I do not have any particular problem with Amendment 463, which is something all of us should be able to embrace, in terms of ensuring education around prevention of sexual violence and promoting respectful relationships.

Amendment 465 in many ways transposes the proposed Private Member’s legislation and tries to put it within this legislation. By removing the requirement for collective worship, what is put in its place seems to be quite vague and ill-defined in its nature. It talks about assemblies that have to promote

“spiritual, moral, social and cultural”

aspects. It strikes me that it almost replaces a religious assembly with what is, in effect, a humanist assembly. That is a conclusion which a lot of people will draw.

The vagueness of what is being proposed to, in effect, replace the collective worship will lead a lot of schools into trying to find other forms of lectures and lessons that they will try to put across within an assembly. There is no doubt that this will lead to a widespread and vast difference of interpretation. There is also no doubt that many of the subjects, while very merited, can be quite controversial. We would be naive if we did not believe that this would create a situation in a number of schools in which there were levels of friction, perhaps between parents and the school, or between governors and the school. There is a certain element of the hornet’s nest being stirred up.

The proposer of the amendment also then talked about choice. It is absolutely right at present that no child or family is compelled to attend religious or collective worship. The right to opt out is enshrined in legislation and, as such, clearly will remain, and I think everyone would accept that. However, the way the amendment before us today is drafted creates this alternative form of assembly, which is compulsory for everyone. It would mean that if a parent objected to a particular assembly, to a lesson, there is no right for them to withdraw their child because there is no provision directly to do that.

There is a danger of unintended consequences as a result of this. Mention was made on a number of occasions today of not wanting to go down the route of Northern Ireland education. Without going into the details, some of what has been said was a bit oversimplified and wrong. But leaving that aside, Members made the point that they see the best social mix of education where there is a wide range of faiths—where, indeed, there is a considerable level of mixing. Removing collective acts of religious worship will actually push some parents much more towards faith schools, feeling that perhaps the faith of their children is not being represented. That will create a situation that makes integration less likely, albeit perhaps in a relatively small fashion. So there is that question of unintended consequences.

I do not believe that Amendment 471 is necessary. The curriculum already at times reflects non-religious topics within RE. This, to some extent, supercharges the non-religious issues within RE. Whether we have faith or not, I think everyone in this House probably, in different ways, holds non-religious beliefs. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell is gone. I share with him one unfortunate trait, in that I am a lifelong Manchester United supporter. I have a belief that within the next few years, Manchester United will win the Premiership again. Perhaps that is not a non-religious belief, because the amount of faith required to hold that belief is such that it perhaps tips over into being much more a matter of faith over hope and experience.

Nevertheless, we have seen that the definition is tied to the provisions of a particular part of the ECHR. We know that, as a result of that clause, there has been quite a lot of case law, not just here but throughout Europe, in relation to the definition of non-religious beliefs. A very wide range of topics has come into play and been defined in case law. Again, all those are perfectly legitimate topics. However, it raises the prospect of the non-religious belief side overwhelming the religious side of RE. I may be quite literalist in my view, but I think religious education should principally be about religion, and this clearly dilutes that to an unacceptable extent.

In conclusion, I appreciate, given many of the figures that have been quoted, that we are becoming an increasingly secular society, so I suppose what I am saying may be regarded as a bit unfashionable. But I believe that, in an age when perhaps there are a lot of unnecessary divisions within this country, a lot of our laws and collective values ultimately rely on Judeo-Christian values and traditions. We should not abandon those in a school setting, on a casual basis without specific consultation. These amendments take us too far in that direction.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the naivety that the noble Lord referred to is actually his own naivety. Because of the area in which it is, the primary school that I attended in Manningham—which is part of my title—in Bradford now has a population that is over 70% Muslim. The idea that, by law, that school has to have Christian services and assemblies is naive and possibly offensive to the parents of those children. Our society needs to recognise that it is not fair to impose these things upon those parents and children.