Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I want to speak briefly in firm support of this suite of amendments, because they do not obstruct compassion but restore clarity and protect the vulnerable. As many noble Lords have said, the Bill leaves crucial decisions to discretion and delegated guidance. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, it is not precise.

Where I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Harper is that I am worried not about the judges moving the goalposts on the main Act of Parliament but because I believe that there will be more than 40 regulations, of which we have seen neither hide nor hare. We will not even see a draft before the Bill becomes law, and every single one of those regulations will be wide open to judicial review. That is where the judges will not have to move goalposts but have to fill in gaps on issues that neither House of Parliament has considered. They will have to decide whether the goalposts are for rugby or football, which neither House will have determined. I am deeply concerned that the Bill is not precise enough on the details that noble Lords have specified.

That imprecision leaves a big legal vacuum, where the most sensitive judgments about life and death can be initiated or driven by others, where serious mental illness can be overlooked and where people in care homes or in poverty can be pushed towards an irrevocable choice without robust, statutory safeguards. The amendments in this group are practical, proportionate and targeted fixes to those gaps.

First, the amendments make it clear that only the person themselves may initiate a request and that lasting powers of attorney cannot be used to start the process. That is essential, and I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, agrees. If he does, let us put it in the Bill. The law must not be ambiguous about agency of any sort. Where the law is silent, pressure and expediency will fill the silence. We have seen in other jurisdictions how a third party can accelerate a fatal outcome; the Bill must not replicate that risk.

Secondly, the amendments addressing severe mental health are not an attack on autonomy; they are recognition of clinical reality. A person can meet the narrow legal test of capacity while still having a treatable or episodic mental disorder that drives suicidal ideation. Excluding those with a history or pattern of suicidality from eligibility, or at least requiring a specialist psychiatric assessment, protects people whose wish to die is a symptom rather than a settled, autonomous decision.

Thirdly, the Bill must provide an independent, neutral route for information. Many doctors will rightly decline to participate. Patients must not be left to navigate a black box where the only signpost is a clinician who may be unwilling or conflicted. An independent local service or register would ensure that information was unbiased and accessible, and that the pathway into assessment was not covertly steered by those with other motives.

Fourthly, care home residents deserve heightened safeguards. Undiagnosed dementia and fluctuating capacity are common in residential settings. A single visiting doctor cannot reliably detect these risks in one brief encounter. Requiring a specialist assessment for care home residents is a modest, necessary step to prevent tragic mistakes.

These amendments would not create delay for those who are clearly eligible. They would create clear, statutory thresholds and processes so that clinicians, patients and families knew where they stood. They would reduce litigation risk, prevent inconsistent local practice, and ensure that the law aligned with the seriousness of the act that it permitted. If this House is to legislate for assisted dying, we must do so with precision. These amendments are not obstructionist; they are the scaffolding of a safe, humane system. I urge noble Lords to support them so that the Bill protects autonomy while safeguarding those most at risk of being failed by ambiguity, poverty or untreated mental illness.

I conclude in a more inadequate way than my noble friend Lord Deben did, on the point that he also made to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. If he cannot produce an assurance of amendments on the Bill that will implement some of the concerns of the royal colleges and of the three Select Committees of this House, some will be left with the impression that his strategy is not to accept amendments but to beg for more time and drive through the Bill, line by line unamended. That would be unacceptable. I hope that that is not the noble and learned Lord’s intention, but he could reassure us all by coming forward with revisions to the Bill and amendments that seek to implement the safeguards for which many organisations outside the House have been calling.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to three amendments in this group—Amendment 38, in the name of my noble friend Lady O’Loan, to which my name is attached, and Amendments 39 and 68. Amendment 38 seeks to address the challenges of those who have bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder or other conditions associated with episodic suicide ideation, who face a higher baseline risk of self-harm and suicide. Research indicates that suicidal thoughts and behaviours are significantly more prevalent among people with these diagnoses, even without terminal illness, as reported by NICE in 2022 and Public Health England in 2021. Critically, evidence also shows that suicidal ideation tends to increase following a terminal diagnosis, so without the safeguard of this amendment, the Bill risks enabling assisted dying decisions to be influenced by pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities exacerbated by the receipt of a terminal diagnosis.

I support calls in the Chamber today to look at the benefits system. It is a really complicated process, whether you have a terminal diagnosis or not. It is important to learn from other jurisdictions. The 2024 Oregon official report cited that 9% of those who requested to end their lives did so for financial reasons and 42% requested it because they were felt a burden. I think it has already been quoted that in 2011, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, with the Demos report, said that no remedial mental health condition should be eligible for assisted suicide. I do not expect an answer in the Chamber on this question this afternoon because it might take a long time—I am very happy to meet outside—but I am interested to understand what has changed from his view in 2011 to thinking that this would work in the Bill now.

Many of the amendments talk about a settled wish. I could almost see how somebody could try to justify that, for someone with a terminal condition and suicide ideation, requesting assisted dying might be a form of suicide prevention. I feel like I am tying myself in knots with this argument, but I think when we hear the argument that people are already dying, we need protection for those groups of individuals. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who I do not think is in her place—I am sorry, I do not have my glasses on—raised evidence given in the Select Committee and talked about paternalism. My personal experience is that I do not see much paternalism in the health service. What I do see is an awful lot of ableism, and I think that if we are talking about paternalism, we should be talking about ableism as well. From a disabled person’s perspective, this recognises the intersection between disability, chronic illness and mental health vulnerability.

The panel has already been raised in the Chamber this afternoon. The panel is a really important part of the eligibility determination and deciding whether somebody can go forward. I think that one of the only things that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and I could agree on today is that words are important. This relates to the place of the panel. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the clarification statement that was issued by the Association for Palliative Medicine this week. Because words are important, I am going to read it. It states:

“In Friday’s … debate (9/1/26), Lord Falconer cited, and misrepresented, expert evidence presented to the Terminals Ill Adults committee last year by the Association for Palliative Medicine … Crucially, panel members would not be required to meet the patient. They would, therefore, have no individual clinical perspective to bring to bear on the person applying for an assisted death. This renders the panel a mere administrative review, stripping it of the very nuance and human understanding that defines robust, compassionate decision-making at the end of life”.


This is why these amendments are even more important in terms of what we are trying to do.

I have previously discussed suicide among unpaid carers and the pressure on them. In Canada, there is a case of a man who had carer burnout and arranged for an urgent assessment for his wife. She died that day. That is listed in the Ontario coroner’s report. There is also written evidence to show that two men who had caring responsibilities for their partners ended up doing a mercy killing, which is often, strangely, very sympathetically portrayed in the media.

Amendment 39, in my name, is about recognising where an assisted death could take place and who will be most directly affected. The settings that could be affected include care homes or nursing homes—communities that care for those living with dementia, frailty, disability or advanced illness, where dependency is a condition of daily life rather than an exception.

It is important to recognise that a significant proportion of people living with dementia or cognitive impairment remain undiagnosed until the later stages of the disease. On average, people with dementia live with symptoms for three and a half years before receiving a diagnosis. Current NHS England and Alzheimer’s Society data show that only about two-thirds of those with dementia receive a formal diagnosis. The diagnosis rate in Wales is even lower. This further underscores the need for a specialist clinical assessment before any conclusion about capacity is reached. If one in three people with dementia are never diagnosed, one in three potential applicants under the Bill may have an unrecognised impairment in capacity. This is not a margin of error that any legislator can reasonably accept.

A recent report by the whistleblower charity Compassion in Care further illustrates the heightened vulnerability of care home residents. Based on evidence submitted by over 1,000 care workers who called the charity’s helpline to express their concerns about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the most predominant issue raised in 97% of cases was that of fluctuating capacity, which is common among those residing in care homes. The British Geriatrics Society, which gave evidence during the Select Committee, estimates the prevalence of delirium among care and nursing home residents to be as high as 60%.

Amendment 68 is about protecting autonomy. It would ensure that the right to request assistance to end one’s life remains solely with the individual who is terminally ill. It would prevent any surrogate, family member or medical professional making that decision on their behalf. By explicitly prohibiting third-party decisions, we safeguard vulnerable individuals from coercion or misinterpretation of their wishes.

Finally, I would like to ask the noble and learned Lord a few questions. How will he specifically seek to protect those who are in care homes or who may be vulnerable? How will the Bill protect those individuals who have had previous suicide ideation? Where does the Bill seek to understand the intersection of those with suicide ideation who then receive a terminal diagnosis and whether this is a genuine, settled wish? How, through the Bill, will we be able to offer protection to those who have a previous history of self-harm?

Rare Cancers Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a bit frightening for me, as a layman, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, one of Britain’s top professors of surgery. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay, on introducing this small but important Bill. I support it since I have had a couple of run-ins with cancer in the past—but, so far, I am outrunning it.

I had my first cancer at the age of 32, just two years after being elected to the House of Commons. That was a bit scary, but the excellent doctors at the then Westminster Hospital, just round the corner, fixed that. My Yorkshire Whip visited me and said, in that proper style I admire in Whips, “Eh, lad, you’d better not die on us—we can’t afford another by-election”. However, I am particularly grateful to the brilliant men and women of the Royal Marsden, who chopped out some nasty bits a six years ago. It was not a rare cancer, and in fact it was quite common, but it kills 18,000 people per annum in the UK.

Before looking at the Bill properly I had assumed that there would be a dozen or so rare cancers, but I am shocked to discover there are more than 230 different ones, affecting all ages and every part of the body. Diagnosis of rare cancers can be very difficult, leading to delays, and a lot of research information is often limited to common cancers.

In the time available, I will concentrate on Clause 2. Science is moving at breathtaking speed, and one of the fastest innovative cancer centres in the world is the Royal Marsden Hospital in Fulham. The Marsden and its partner, the Institute of Cancer Research, are translating precision diagnostics, early phase drug development, immunotherapeutics, advanced cellular and gene therapies and AI-driven imaging and data science into patient care—techniques that redefine what “radical” treatment for rare cancer means today.

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, in partnership with the Institute of Cancer Research, is widely recognised as a leading expert, one of the top specialist cancer centres in the UK, and in the top four worldwide, for the diagnosis, treatment and research of rare cancers. When we get to Committee, I would like to amend Clause 2 to say that we do not want to appoint a person to be known as,

“the National Specialty Lead for Rare Cancers”,

since I do not think there is a single person capable of undertaking that task. However, the Royal Marsden’s record makes it uniquely qualified to lead this national effort.

It is astonishing what breakthroughs the Royal Marsden is making. There are active programmes at its National Institute for Health and Care Research centre—the Marsden has the only one in the country and has been nominated for it—which translates discoveries from the test bench to bedside care, right across eight translational themes.

The Royal Marsden is noted as Europe’s largest cancer centre, whose expertise is enhanced by more than 2,500 cancer specialists who collaborate in weekly multidisciplinary team meetings to develop personalised treatment plans. It was the first hospital in the UK to use the amazing Da Vinci robot with four arms that have microsurgical tools at the end that can get to the small cancer bits that surgeons’ big hands cannot. If your Lordships want to see something amazing, Google search “Da Vinci robot” and look at the demo. A grape is cut in half, and this robot stitches it together again without tearing the skin. That is why, when they gave me a choice, I said, “I’ll have the robot operating on me, please”, and it did it quite successfully. The Marsden’s Sarcoma Unit is one of the largest in Europe and a world leader in sarcoma research and treatment; as noble Lords present who are surgeons will say, that is one of the many rare cancers the Marsden specialises in.

In closing, the Bill’s measures—especially the careful review of orphan medicinal product authorisations in Clause 1—will protect the incentives that turn radical science into real cures. Putting it simply, if we want the Bill to work, appointing the Royal Marsden as the specialty lead will give the UK the leadership, infrastructure and reach required to make the aims of the Bill a reality.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 12th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister in winding up could advise us what the Companion says about Peers making speeches on the same amendment over several points of the passage of that amendment.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, speaking to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rook. There is a lacuna in Clause 1(1)(d), which, by requiring registration with a GP, does not cover the practical point of what happens to people who have lost contact with their GP. They may have lost contact for no other reason than being so ill, perhaps with cancer as that is the main illness that people who might be seeking assisted dying have, that they have been taken into private care—those who are lucky enough.

An increasing proportion of the population of the United Kingdom now uses private care, not least because employers provide it as part of a package. So, coming to continuity of care, if we must have the light-touch amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rook, in the Bill, to clarify and strengthen Clause 1(1)(d), I will share with the Committee very briefly a practical experience of what it means to have advanced cancer and the interaction with the GP. My GP practice, having failed to diagnose me over six months, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, slipped away the moment I engaged with private care, although every single consultation with a private practitioner is sent to the GP. Nevertheless, between 30 August 2024, when I was first diagnosed, and late this September, I had no contact whatever with my GP practice. I was finally invited to come in and was told I had fallen between the cracks—it must have been a pretty large crack to have lasted 14 months.

I noticed in the equality impact assessment that 66% of the people who sought assisted dying in the two jurisdictions quoted were people who had cancer. My question to the noble and learned Lord when he winds up on this debate is therefore, what consideration has been given, in having Clause 1(1)(d) in the Bill, as to the relationship of the private oncologist who is treating that patient with the local GP, given that terminally ill people in significant enough numbers that we need to be conscious about them in the Bill may well have been—shall I say—passed on from the GP?

As a final point, once I had the diagnosis, I had the experience of requesting treatment at my local—within a walkable distance—leading cancer teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. When I rang about that after the diagnosis, I was told by my GP, “They won’t take you, because now you’ve gone private”. I leave that for noble Lords to reflect on.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Before we move to the rest of the debate, could we please give way to those noble Lords who have tabled amendments? I would like to hear what they have to say.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21, tabled in my name, from personal experience. The richness of the debate today shows that, even in your Lordships’ Chamber, we all have completely different experiences of how we access a GP practice.

I tabled this amendment partly from personal experience, trying to look at how we provide continuous care to a patient. As for my own experience, I am disabled, not sick, but I have had some very interesting experiences of interacting with doctors. Fairly recently, I was asked by a doctor how I caught spina bifida and had to explain to him that it was congenital. As for my husband’s experience of the healthcare system, he had a spinal cord injury in 1984 and, at a recent visit, was continually asked whether it was in 1884 that he had his accident—I know he looks good for his age, but not that good. This is not to be flippant, which I have been accused of before. It is actually to try to ensure that we have proper continuity of care for a person who wishes to end their life.

My amendment is also grounded in coercion detection and the limitations of any capacity assessment. When I tabled it, I was thinking that perhaps a GP could provide extra knowledge to contribute to the decision that was made. But then I heard of the experience of my noble friend Lady Falkner, which is absolutely appalling. It shows that there is far more work we need to do, not just on the National Health Service but on making sure we provide the right care. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the NHS we wish to have. Well, this might be a chance to think about the NHS we wish to have.

I take this opportunity to welcome my new noble friend Lady Gerada and the experience she brings to the Chamber. I have to say that it has left me slightly more confused. I have amendments on data recording, which we will be debating later. Her comments show that data recording and sharing is really important. The part I got a bit confused about was that, if there is a named clinician as part of that process, does that not ultimately feed in to the points that have been made today? I would welcome the chance to discuss that with her outside the Chamber.

Continuity of care is really important, and how it relates to improved patient outcomes. In 2012, 56.7% of patients had a preferred GP, but that is declining. There is a link between your preferred GP and being able to access that GP. The decline has happened regardless of baseline continuity, rural or urban location or level of deprivation. Providing a better experience to patients will make those final weeks and months better for them. The Royal College of General Practitioners published excellent work in 2021 on why the patient’s relationship with their general practitioner is so important. Research on coercion and undue influence demonstrates that standard capacity assessments, while necessary, are not currently sufficient to identify subtle forms of coercion. That is why I tabled an amendment.

In response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Pannick, about what happens if a GP dies, I am happy to be corrected, but I thought the provision in the Bill about your doctor dying would cover a general practitioner as well as any other doctor involved in the process.

What we are talking about here are really complex decisions. Consulting an established GP or GP practice might mean that they possess the nuanced knowledge which would help somebody make a choice. The requirement that GPs confirm that they have a good understanding of the individual’s personal circumstances represents, to me, a better form of safeguard, ensuring that this knowledge actually exists. We cannot assume anything during this process. The assessment should provide abuse detection capacity unavailable in other types of consultations. For individuals whose care is family dependent, the home visit element—which I had, not so long ago—can play an important part in identifying coercion. If the debate has raised nothing else today, it is that this is a really complicated issue which needs much further work.

--- Later in debate ---

This issue illustrates a couple of things. Yes, it is down to safety, but I respectfully suggest that the fact that we are having this discussion today shows the immaturity of the Bill. We should have had a royal commission and a Government Bill, instead of trying to do it this way and negotiate on the hoof.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak last Friday, and this is the only group to which I intend to speak today. I could have spoken to the last group, as my former constituency abutted the Scottish border of Dumfries and Galloway and a mere 85 yards across the River Sark was Gretna. I was aware of our glorious 600-year history of border-raiding for cattle and women—in that order—and now it seems we can add free prescriptions to the list as well.

These amendments would strengthen the safeguards with a demonstrable, ongoing clinical relationship with a GP, reducing risk of error, coercion and administrative confusion, while supporting clinical judgment and the continuity of care. Requiring 12 months’ registration plus a minimum number of in-person contacts gives a straightforward verifiable test of recent clinical involvement. We need robust, practical safeguards and clear eligibility checks. These are essential to protect vulnerable people by evidencing local care and oversight. A sustained relationship with a local GP who has seen the patient helps ensure that the patient is informed and is acting voluntarily and free from subtle pressure. The GP’s direct knowledge of the patient’s circumstances is therefore a critical safeguard rather than a bureaucratic hurdle.

The big issue, which has already been raised today, is: who sees the same GP twice these days? I am very lucky, and perhaps some other noble Lords are as well, in that there are superb multi-disciplinary GP practices in Cumbria. I almost always see the same GP, and we can email as well. In fact, in 40 years of living that constituency, I have only ever had two GPs. However, that is not the national picture. Many patients see a different GP every time they visit. Therefore, for this part of the Bill to work, it cannot be any old GP from a practice; it has to be a GP who has treated the patient personally on a few occasions or over a period of time.

Yesterday, I had the wonderful privilege of hearing in this House from a GP who satisfied all the criteria of these amendments thanks to her deep knowledge of her patients. I was later able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, a former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, on her excellent maiden speech. I am delighted to see her here today. I understand that this morning, she was doing the day job, treating her patients in her constituency.

I know that the noble Baroness is in favour of assisted dying, but what she said in one part of her speech yesterday was directly relevant to these amendments. The noble Baroness—I am rather vexed at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who stole these lines earlier this morning—said:

“I became a GP in Kennington, and I have lived and worked in the community I serve ever since … My very first patient was a young woman who suffered a stillbirth. Decades later, I look after her children and now their children too. That continuity, seeing lives unfold across time, gives general practice its unique moral and social power. It allows us to see people as whole human beings, not as isolated organs or diagnoses. We are interpreters of experience, translators of suffering and witnesses to change”.—[Official Report, 11/12/25; col. 370.]


That is exactly the sort of GP I trust to make a decision on whether a person has a confirmed wish to opt for assisted dying—not just any general practitioner, who may never have met the patient before and has just 10 minutes to form an opinion.

I would love to find a way to include that magnificent sentence about continuity and seeing lives unfold over time giving general practice its unique moral and social power; I would love to see whether we could incorporate it into the Bill, because it sets the right moral climate.

As I say, I have a GP. However, for those millions of people who are not so lucky, these amendments would balance safeguards with practicality. Setting a modest minimum of contacts is proportionate. It is enough to demonstrate an established relationship without imposing unrealistic burdens on patients or practices.

Many noble Lords have spoken of multidisciplinary teams. Can the noble Baroness tell me—indeed, can anyone tell me—how many of all the GPs in this country are still single-practice doctors? A Google search suggests that it is around 63%. That seems terribly high; there must be more multidisciplinary teams than that. There are still an awful lot of single-practice GPs. On the rare occasion when I have not seen my own GP, the other GP has had a look at the computer and read all my clinical notes. However, he does not really know who I am; perhaps that is just his good fortune.

These amendments would support patient safety and public trust in any assisted dying regime. It needs to be visible and enforceable, and it needs to have enforceable safeguards. Clinicians must be able to attest to a patient’s circumstances. I support these amendments.

May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that I was dismayed to read some very hostile comments about noble Lords and noble Baronesses in the weekend press? The complaint was that some Peers had tabled a large number of amendments, and that that was somehow wrong. If they were the only Peers who spoke to them, that criticism would be valid, but those noble Lords and noble Baronesses, as professionals and experts, tabled amendments to which many of us wanted to speak. We left them to do it because those Peers have experience; scores of Peers have spoken to their amendments, so they were not abusing the House. I am absolutely certain that the noble and learned Lord was not behind that bad-mouthing, because he is a gentleman as well as a Peer, but some supporters of this Bill are trying to drown out and close down any proper scrutiny in the Lords.

Lastly, I remind the noble and learned Lord and the Committee that Dignity in Dying’s website boasts that the Bill had 29 Committee sittings in the Commons and over 90 hours of consideration. Since the Bill has come to us from the Commons, we have heard devastating criticisms of it from the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and experts giving evidence to the noble Baroness’s Bill Committee. Today, we are on only our fourth sitting, after, I think, 18 hours of debate. So I say this to the noble and learned Lord: please tell some of the others to call off the attack dogs because this House is doing its proper job.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I grew up at a time when the family doctor was looked upon as a family friend who could always be depended on whenever you were ill or in a time of crisis. Unfortunately, that is not the situation today. There is a major problem across the United Kingdom: patients desiring to see a GP find themselves sitting on the telephone and ringing the surgery 120 times, perhaps, but still not getting through to someone and giving up at the end of it. That is the reality of the situation in many places.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not here. He posed a question to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, concerning what happens if your GP retires. Let me give my small experience. My GP was in his late 50s. He was an excellent GP. During Covid, unlike many other practices, he still allowed patients to come to his surgery. Whenever elderly patients could not come, he went out to their houses and visited them in their own homes—unlike many other practices and GPs. Unfortunately, he got cancer and, in his late 50s, just recently, he passed away.

We were left with a practice in our town with several thousands of patients but nobody to take it over. So what happened to us? Our GP died, and so, without any consultation whatever, we were all farmed out to seven or eight practices around the countryside, some of them not even close—just to whoever would take us. It is unrealistic to imagine that somehow a new doctor would have any knowledge of the pressures, the problems or the complex challenges that his new patient was facing; he would not have any continuity of care whatever.

It was even worse than that, because it was several months before the notes went to the next practice that you were farmed out to. You were allotted a practice but the notes concerning any illnesses of the patients did not immediately follow; it was several months before they arrived. What has been suggested in these amendments today strengthens safeguards. Therefore, they are worthy of the support of noble Lords in this House.

Wheelchair and Community Equipment Strategy

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be the first Conservative to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gerada, on an excellent maiden speech, as one would expect from such a distinguished doctor. How wise of her to speak today and not step into the maelstrom of assisted dying tomorrow—although there will be plenty more days and opportunities for her to give a view on that as a distinguished former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners. We shall also expect her to singlehandedly save the NHS and solve the serious problems of general practice moving patients into hospital care. We all look forward to hearing from her again.

I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on securing this debate and on his excellent contribution. NHS wheelchair provision has been widely criticised for inconsistency, long delays and poor suitability of equipment. Costs are driven up by inefficiencies and the false economy of supplying inadequate wheelchairs. A cost-effective strategy would focus on standardising services, improving assessments and investing in fit-for-purpose equipment to reduce downstream health and social costs.

What are the key criticisms of NHS wheelchair provision? First, it is a postcode lottery, as services vary significantly across regions, leading to inequitable access. Secondly, there are long waiting times. Delays in assessment and delivery leave users without mobility support for months. Third is the poor suitability of equipment. Many wheelchairs provided are heavy, cumbersome or not tailored to users’ daily lives, forcing some to buy their own. Fourthly, there is limited user involvement. Assessments often fail to consider lifestyle needs, reducing independence and social participation. Fifthly, standards are inconsistent. NHS England acknowledges variation in service quality and outcomes. Putting it simply, NHS wheelchairs are dirt cheap and for that you get big, heavy, ugly things which appal young people who may need to use them. The wheels may not detach. Car transport can be difficult, if not impossible.

Noble Lords have seen my sophisticated wheelchair parked around the corner. It is similar to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. However, these wheelchairs are of a 10 year-old design. They are on a solid steel frame and very heavy, no doubt designed for 40 to 50 stone Americans. A replacement these days would be lightweight aluminium. Lightweight aluminium wheelchairs have been taking over the scene in the last few years. That is what people want and need, but there is a higher cost.

That cost could be contained if there was a national NHS strategy. First, it would standardise provision nationally, implement the NHS wheelchair quality framework across all ICBs to reduce variation, and appoint a senior NHS England lead to oversee wheelchair services. Secondly, it would improve assessments and user involvement, ensuring that assessments consider lifestyle, employment and education needs rather than just the medical factors, and co-design services with wheelchair users to avoid unsuitable provision. Thirdly, it must invest in fit-for-purpose equipment, providing wheelchairs that meet individual needs, reducing downstream costs from poor health outcomes as they get worse in the future with bad wheelchairs, and expand personal health budgets to allow choice and flexibility. Fourthly, it must streamline procurement and maintenance, centralising purchasing to leverage economies of scale and introducing rapid response maintenance contracts to minimise downtime. Fifthly and finally, it must measure outcomes, not just costs, tracking independence, employment and health outcomes as key performance indicators—the value added—and using data to demonstrate long-term savings from better provision.

While upfront costs of better equipment and services may rise, the long-term savings in health, social care and productivity would make this a cost-effective strategy. Standardisation, user-centred assessments and investment in suitable wheelchairs are the most impactful reforms. I beg your Lordships to support this.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I do not believe that people are tabling amendments simply to wreck the Bill. That may be the noble Lord’s opinion, but he should remember that other people have different opinions. I respect the noble Lord’s opinion, but I hope that he will in turn respect my right to have an opinion. I believe that we must scrutinise this well. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, objected to the fact that practically no one who supports the Bill has spoken. I know of no one supporting the Bill who has been stopped from speaking. They did not get up to speak, and therefore they were not stopped. If there are those who want to support this Bill and to get up to speak, they are free to do so. I certainly would like to hear their opinions just as well. I believe that I have an opinion that ought to be heard equally, as they have.

I come from a family that knows what the reality of suicide means and the heartbreak of suicide, where we examine and wonder whether something more could have been done before that person ended their own life in suicide. I know the pain of that and the loneliness that they went through. Therefore, I believe we must get this right.

In the domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour context, a victim may, due to intimidation or trauma, deny that their actions are caused by wrongful coercion. Is the doctor supposed to be weighing the patient’s words against the very limited evidence that they can see in an examination room? Professor Jane Monckton-Smith OBE, professor of public protection at the University of Gloucestershire, emphasised in her testimony to the Select Committee the significant difficulties in relying solely on a person’s verbal denial of abuse when assessing coercion:

“I have worked in this area for a very long time. I have seen victims refuse medical help when they have been hit in the head with a hammer through fear. That is not an isolated example. If you speak to the other people here, I think they will probably agree with me. What I am saying is that coercive control is a serious social problem. It will impact on the people who are going to look to this Bill”.


Also in the Lords Select Committee evidence, Cherryl Henry-Leach of Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse warned

“the difficulty is the lack of insight into the impact of coercive control on somebody’s ability to make decisions, even though that has been enshrined in case law”.

I do not want to detain the Committee, but in over 50 years as a minister I have experienced people coming to the end of their life. I have been with them in their moments of their deepest pain, and, as a noble Lord said, was there with the families after the occasion, trying to minister to them. I also know what it is from my 25 years as a constituency Member of Parliament in the other House, and we should not close our minds to the fact that people can be coerced. Sometimes it is done very subtly and gently within family dynamics, and that is difficult for assessing doctors to detect in limited formal settings.

Therefore, I believe it is vital that the words put into this legislation, if it is passed, are the correct ones that cover all these possibilities. Remember, when the person takes that lethal injection or whatever potion they take, there is no return as far as this life is concerned, but they go to another.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I had intended to give my strong support to Amendments 3, 45 to 49, 52 and 58—a mere eight amendments out of the 21 in this massive group—but in the interests of time I will dump my notes on all those and speak merely to Amendment 58 in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has made a crucial point with regard to that amendment.

Coercion and pressure do not always manifest themselves as direct, intentional acts by individuals. Instead, they can arise from broader and societal structures and conditions that constrain genuine choice. When a person facing terminal illness is subject to circumstances such as chronic poverty, social isolation or a systemic lack of quality healthcare, their options are severely limited. In such scenarios, the choice to pursue end-of-life options may not be a true expression of free will but rather the result of enduring disadvantage and unmet needs.

At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Moylan made the telling point that many people contemplating suicide do not want to die; they just want their life circumstances to change for the better. Therefore, “structural disadvantage” refers to the social, economic and institutional barriers that systematically disadvantage certain groups. When terminally ill individuals lack access to palliative care, social support or financial resources, they may feel compelled to consider end-of-life options not out of genuine preference but because their suffering is exacerbated by these systemic failures.

Poverty is a profound social vulnerability. A terminally ill person living in poverty may fear becoming a burden to family or may lack the means to access pain relief, counselling or hospice care. The psychological and practical impact of poverty can create a sense of hopelessness, making the option of hastening death appear more acceptable or even inevitable. When systems persistently fail to address the needs of the most vulnerable, this neglect can be seen as a form of institutional or collective intent. Thus, the responsibility for coercion or pressure extends beyond individual actors to the structures that shape people’s lives and choices.

Many years ago, my illustrious predecessor in my constituency, the great Willie Whitelaw, said to me, “David, I was never interested in pensions until I turned 65”. The wonderful thing about this House of ours is that the average age in here is 71, I understand, and our average death age is 81. That, as we have heard from many noble Peers, gives us a unique insight into the sorts of infirmities that we and our close relatives suffer and the close experience of those near to us who have died from them.

We have heard from many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Polak and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, their experience of beating the odds because the prognosis was not right. I quoted in my Second Reading speech that Sir William Osler, the father of modern medicine, said, in about the 1890s:

“Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability”.


Because my noble friend Lady Berridge mentioned NICE, I am tempted to cite an example. I have experience of NICE. I am grateful to it in some ways and hate it in others. One of the side-effects of MS is that one’s feet feel nailed to the ground: they are as heavy as lead and do not move. Fifteen years ago, NICE approved an experimental drug call Fampridine. I was one of about 500 patients put on it at the National Hospital.

Fampridine is an absolutely miraculous drug. What does it do? You saw it in effect this morning. It helped me stagger from my chair to here. With assistance from my noble friends, I can manage to walk—not very fast—to the Dispatch Box. Every six months, I have to do a walking test. If my walking is not fast enough with the drug, they cut it off and I do not get it any more.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 14th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Some people may detect from my accent that, although I hail from the great city of Bangor, it is not the great city of Bangor in north Wales but the great city of Bangor in Northern Ireland. I have particular empathy with the amendments that have been put forward by the noble Baroness due to my experience as a Minister in a devolved Administration. The clarity the noble Baroness seeks goes to the heart of the relationship between the devolved Administrations and Westminster, and it is of particular relevance to this Bill.

Generally speaking, a Minister in a devolved institution will face three categories of legislation. First, there will be reserved matters, which are entirely within the purview of Westminster—national issues, which I think everyone would accept. Secondly, there will be a range of issues which, although not strictly reserved, are of such obvious applicability across the United Kingdom that a legislative consent Motion should be applied. I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his place, but on occasions even the SNP Government in Scotland have been prepared to sign up to legislative consent Motions. The third category—the bulk of legislation—is situations that should be decided locally, where a devolved Government and a devolved Parliament can choose whether to follow what is happening at Westminster and in England, to take a different path in seeking either to virtually replicate or to amend, or to go in a tangentially very different direction. That is at the heart of democratic accountability in devolution.

I believe that this is an issue that should be decided in Wales. It is an issue that should clearly fall into category three. We all know that we have a very unusual constitutional set-up in the United Kingdom, where devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is on a slightly different basis in each case. That can produce some unusual aspects. What we have today is a certain level of anomaly, because this legislation falls into what may be described as a fourth, hybrid category. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, highlighted, the distinction is between the aspects that deal with criminal justice and criminal responsibility, and those that deal with health and social policy, with the former being reserved and the latter being devolved.

It is very clear that the heart of the Bill makes major decisions that impact on health and social policy. However, we are left with a situation for Wales that means, if this goes through unaltered, that the criminal responsibility will be lifted but there will be no regulations coming from this House as to how that will actually be brought about. It is the equivalent of this House saying that we are going to bring in new road safety measures, which will not apply to Wales, but if you are caught speeding on the motorway there could be no criminal sanction against you. What we have potentially arrived at for Wales is the worst of all worlds.

We need to take a step back. We need to ensure that the wishes of the Welsh people, as exercised by the Senedd—they may change over time—are respected. Rather than, in effect, imposing something that then has to be more or less corrected in Wales by way of changes to their health and social policy, we should be allowing the issue of assisted dying to be decided by the Welsh Senedd. If they decide to make those changes, this Parliament should then reflect them by way of changes to the criminal justice system, which I think would be relatively easy to do.

In the absence of that, the importance of these amendments, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is that if we cannot get things definitively the right way round, we can at least get a level of clarity over what aspects apply to Wales, rather than a potential wall of obfuscation. This is an ideal opportunity for the Government and the sponsors to highlight where exactly the demarcation is, which will be very helpful as we move through the rest of this Bill.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendments in this group. As I looked at the title of the Bill, “terminally ill”, and then saw clause after clause talking about the patient and the doctor’s involvement, I was clear that this was a medical Bill. We had the Secretary of State for Health saying that he was in charge of it, and the Department of Health and Social Care, which seconded about 30 officials to help rewrite it, in a way taking ownership of it. Then I asked myself: why on earth are we legislating for Wales when health is a devolved matter in Wales and the Senedd is in charge of health matters? This is where it is really Pythonesque, because although this is a medical Bill in England, it is a criminal Bill in Wales, and criminal matters are not devolved to Wales. How on earth can the same Bill be a health Bill in one country of the union and a criminal Bill in another?

On 23 October last year, Senedd Members, including the First Minister, Eluned Morgan—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—and the Health Minister, Jeremy Miles, voted against a Motion calling for a new law to allow assisted dying in Wales and England. Miles had earlier warned of “huge ramifications” for Wales if the law changed. In total, 19 Senedd Members voted in favour of the Motion, with 26 against and nine abstentions. However, the Senedd does not have the power to change the law on assisted dying in Wales, so the vote was symbolic. The Senedd does not have the power to legalise assisted dying, but the Health Minister indicated that it is likely that future legislation will require another vote to give Parliament consent.

The Welsh NHS, which is almost totally devolved and overseen by Cardiff politicians, would be responsible for implementing the law. However, I understand that the Senedd can still vote on whether to implement the legislation, as parts of the Bill touch on devolved areas, so the Welsh Government would need to pass specific regulations and gain an affirmative vote from the Senedd before the Welsh NHS could provide the service. I am not a great fan of the devolved Administrations, but they exist and they have a genuine job to do. In Wales, this would mean that their NHS and its doctors would have implemented all the provisions of an English law, which they had no power to change. That does not seem right. If the Senedd in Wales can be trusted to run the NHS in all medical facilities in Wales, it should be trusted to make its own terminally ill end-of-life Bill.

Next year there will be Senedd elections, and on current polling there may be a large majority of Plaid Cymru and Reform Members elected. It cannot be right that they inherit a Bill relating to the deaths of about 35,000 people in Wales each year and that they have no say over how their constituents die.

Of course, the Senedd could refuse to give consent to the legislation, but I suspect it will be threatened and blackmailed into doing so. It will be told that it is the English Bill or nothing and that Wales has no power to do its own law, so the Senedd had better approve it or else. But the Senedd could do its own law; all we have to do is grant it the constitutional power to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

As people around me are saying, I do not think I said that. They are neutral. The royal colleges have said that they have problems with the Bill, but they have been neutral on the principle, save for the Royal College of General Practitioners. I am sorry; I stand corrected on that. They are neutral, as is the Association for Palliative Medicine, which is not a royal college.

When one looks at the evidence that we took, of course individuals from within that group would come along whom we had to call. It was right that we did that, but one looks at a corporate view. I enormously respect Professor Sir Chris Whitty, but I heard his evidence on this and he was not the highest expert in the land. He was humble enough to write to correct himself, as he had misunderstood the Mental Capacity Act when he gave evidence in the Commons.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing this matter before the Committee, but also to my noble friend Lord Harper, who has highlighted some of the deficiencies in in the Mental Capacity Act. Yes, it may be tried and tested in its current usage but, as we heard from many sides of the Committee, it may be inadequate for dealing with death issues.

I was going to speak in support of Amendment 2, but I might also be willing to support the potential oral amendment from my noble friend Lord Deben. When considering important decisions, particularly in the context of healthcare, it is crucial to understand the distinction between capacity and ability. This is especially relevant for terminally ill patients, as questions about decision-making may arise on treatment options, advance directives and legal matters.

I believe that we should change references from “capacity” to “ability” when discussing decision-making for terminally ill patients. The reason for this change is to ensure clarity and accuracy in describing a person’s actual situation. We should not be afraid to bring in a new word if it is more relevant than “capacity”. Although “capacity” is a legal and clinical term for specific criteria, “ability” is a broader term that may better reflect the practical realities and nuances of an individual’s situation. Using “ability” can help to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that patients are supported in ways that are appropriate to their unique circumstances.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, for the wonderful work she has done as chief executive of the Breast Cancer Campaign, fighting cancer there, and for her wise words in this Chamber of Parliament here today. My concern with the Bill is that we might not hear those wise words—or anyone else’s wise words —in Parliament again, since the Government in this Bill are taking so many powers away and delegating them to Ministers.

Like every other Member who has spoken, I generally support the thrust of the Bill. As we know, the last Conservative Government introduced a similar Bill with these generational restrictions, and which many people thought were possibly unenforceable. The new Government have also reintroduced it with the generational powers, which again may be possibly unenforceable.

My main concern about the Bill are the unacceptable parts with excessive amounts of parliamentary scrutiny being taken away and given to Ministers and others in the delegated powers. As has been said by others, the previous Bill had 33 delegated powers and this one has 66. Some are repeats of the same powers, duplicated for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England but, nevertheless, the extent of the delegated powers is a slap in the face for the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, which was praised by the current Government.

In that report, we warned about the four major abuses we increasingly see in legislation—but this Bill has every sin we warned against. It has 17 Henry VIII powers, enabling Ministers to change Acts of Parliament, avoiding proper parliamentary scrutiny. It has skeleton clauses saying that Ministers can create offences on a range of topics and set a maximum penalty. That is not good enough. Any and all criminal offences should be set out in detail in primary legislation.

It has subdelegation of powers. It is bad enough that Ministers have been given excessive delegated powers, but some clauses permit subdelegation of these powers to other organisations. Clause 104 simply says:

“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions”.


There is identical wording in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and local authorities are given carte blanche to invent their own licensing conditions without Parliament ever looking at one word of them. At least with statutory instruments there is a slim chance that Parliament can debate them, but not when the power to make these laws is delegated to some other body.

The Delegated Powers Committee also slammed the increasing trend for disguised legislation, where the Minister issues guidance which everyone must have regard to. This is a way to get round making a statutory instrument, which of course might get some Parliamentary scrutiny. Technically and legally, the words “must have regard to” are not compulsory, but they can only be disregarded if the target organisation or persons can show exceptionally good reasons not to follow them, which is a heavy bridge to cross. Of course, all government information when the guidance is issued gives the impression that it must be followed on pain of death—we have that here also in Schedule 1.

We have heard from every noble Lord today that there is a justifiable case to add more restrictions to the sale of tobacco and vapes. If that is the case, the myriad offences in the Bill should be set out in detail and not hidden. Let us justify what the Government are doing in legislation.

I leave it to other noble Lords to point out the difficulties of enforcement of the age and generations restrictions, not least the thousands of extra inspectors who may be required and the impossibility of retailers checking the ages of people between their twenties and thirties, thirties and forties, and forties and fifties. Two weeks ago, I was in the Little Waitrose down Victoria Street, and a lady in front of me was stopped at the till because they wanted to check her age for a bottle of Nyetimber champagne that she was buying. She said, “I’m in my forties”, but the assistant said they needed to check her age. The rather elegant lady in her forties had some choice language to give to the Waitrose staff who wanted to check the age of a lady who was obviously older than 21. That is just in a professional Waitrose store; I shudder to think of what will happen in the thousands of little retailers around the country.

I conclude with a word about the illicit market. Illicit is not counterfeit, but real cigarettes made by legitimate companies in Romania, say, and intended for the Romanian market or other eastern European markets—where there may be no duty or taxes—are being brought here illegally. It is massive, and this Bill will add to it. In 2023, one in four cigarettes consumed was illicit—that is 6.7 billion cigarettes—losing HMRC £3 billion per annum. Every single expert, and everyone in the tobacco companies, says that this Bill will further boost this dodgy market. My concern is not around the potential loss of revenue to HMRC but that 25% of cigarettes are able to be sourced illegally in pubs around the country.

We have a Bill with excessive powers and with large parts that are possibly unenforceable; it will lose the Government money and give young people a way to get cigarettes illegally in any case. Although I support the Bill, I hope that we will explore these issues in Committee.

Homecare Medicines Services (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this important debate, and I regret that it is tail-end Charlie today when the report deserves much greater prominence. The only credit I can take for this excellent report is that I suggested the topic. I pay tribute to our brilliant chair and her devastating summary today, and to colleagues on the committee and to the officials, who did all the probing and heavy lifting and concluded that this is a major opportunity lost.

My personal interest is that I get two different medicines for multiple sclerosis delivered to my home. The one which sparked this inquiry is called fampridine. Most people with MS cannot lift their feet and they drag on the floor; I can trip over a dead fly on the carpet. Fampridine enables us to lift our feet by as much as 5 millimetres—that is all—but it is the difference between walking and not walking at all. To me and others, that little fact makes it a miracle drug, and I was lucky enough to get in on the trials when they started. As an aside, NICE will no longer approve it for new patients, but all those of us in the trials can keep getting it. That is grossly unjust—like many other NICE decisions.

I had excellent service until 2017, when the delivery contract was allocated to a new company; it is named in the report and I will not name it again, but it began to fail abysmally in getting the deliveries to me before the last pills ran out. I complained on many occasions and it came to a head in July 2021, when I had no delivery and no pills for 10 days. I was unable to walk—or stagger, in my case—from where I park my Ferrari at the Bar of the House even to get to this Front Bench here.

I looked up the company in Companies House, found the names of the main directors, tracked down their addresses and sent them a stinking note with my full rank and titles and a draft of my letter to Sajid Javid, the then Secretary of State, calling for the company’s contract to be terminated. The net result was that, two days later, some poor chap was dispatched on a 500-mile round trip to deliver on a Saturday my fampridine to Penrith in Cumbria.

I looked further into this company and found that the Care Quality Commission—a thoroughly useless body if ever there was one—had just published a report in May 2021 showing that over 9,885 patients had also failed to get deliveries of their drugs, and some had to be hospitalised. The CQC report gave the company an overall rating of “inadequate”. On patient safety it rated it “inadequate”, and on “Are services well led?”, it rated it “inadequate”. Therefore, with all these negative ratings, what did the CQC do? It listed all the regulatory breaches and asked the company to kindly send it a report on how it would behave better in future. As Bob Geldof might have said, “Is that it?”

That is one reason why I say that the CQC is a useless regulator, which our report also suggests—or hints at, in very strong terms. By the way, a month after the scathing CQC report, the company changed its name and pretended to be a completely different supplier altogether.

I wrote to the Secretary of State calling for the contract to be removed, but that did not happen because he was not properly in charge of it and he was not sure quite who was. I now get Rolls-Royce service from this company because of who I am and because I created a big stink, but the other 9,884 victims, who have conditions far worse than mine, might not be so well served.

When I joined the Public Services Committee, colleagues were looking for a short-term inquiry to fill a gap as we looked at suggestions for a longer inquiry. I suggested investigating the delivery of medicines at home and supplied details of my own experience. I think that initially my colleagues thought that I was perhaps exaggerating the shambles I had described, but when our excellent clerk, Samantha Kenny, looked at it, she thought that it deserved a deeper look.

My colleagues thought that there may be a bit of a mess here, and then the evidence started to come in from various patient groups such as Crohn’s & Colitis UK, and the superb report from the British Society for Rheumatology which suggested that the system was a complete shambles and cited countless examples of failure to deliver medicines on time. I think colleagues then concluded that old Blencathra was not so barking after all.

We have called the report An Opportunity Lost and that is true, but we could easily have called it “A Complete Shambles”. Those are not just our words; the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer for England told us that our inquiry had unearthed,

“a complicated picture that is quite hard to understand even when you are working in the area”.

That is a nice way of saying “a complete shambles”.

The then Minister for Health and Secondary Care, Will Quince MP, stated:

“It is certainly complicated. That is an understatement”.


That is, again, a nice euphemism for “a complete shambles”. As the noble Baroness said, the NHS has not a clue how much it costs. The National Clinical Homecare Association told us that the Treasury spends £4.1 billion per annum on homecare medicines, but the NHS told us it is only £3.2 billion. We asked the Minister—he said it was £2.9 billion. As we say, it is utterly shocking that no one in the NHS can give us an accurate figure for the billions spent on home deliveries, but then the NHS does not have a clue about how bad it is and how many patients have suffered. KPIs are a mess, as the noble Baroness explained.

We said in our report:

“Different sets of performance data are available to manufacturers and the NHS. This creates confusion and prevents effective monitoring … NHS England must develop and implement one consistent set of performance metrics”.


Performance data must be published.

The National Clinical Homecare Association told us that

“98.8% of deliveries were delivered on the day they were intended to be delivered on”.

That is a very clever form of words but quite misleading. Yes, 98.8% were delivered on the dates that the delivery company decided they were to be delivered on, but those were not the dates the doctors prescribed, which were always much earlier and before the medication for patients ran out. Part of these failures are delays in the NHS prescribing system and delays by the delivery company.

Chapter after chapter of our report highlights the failings of the system. Thus we say:

“No one—not the Government, not NHS England, not patient groups, not regulators—knows how often, nor how seriously patients suffer harm from service failures in homecare”.


Let no one misconstrue our conclusions as an attack on the private provision in the NHS. While we found myriad flaws in the provision at all levels, God help us if the NHS tried to run a courier delivery service, since that would be infinitely worse. Delivering medicines at home by couriers is eminently sensible but has to be better managed at all levels. The problems that we identified all relate to the fact that there is not one single person or NHS body in charge. Different people and organisations negotiate different contracts. There is no quality control or negotiating competence, there are no consistent KPIs to measure performance and the various regulators are all fairly useless. It seems there is no one with the power to sanction failure or cancel contracts. Worst of all, I got the feeling that the NHS rather likes it this way because when things go wrong there is no one individual or organisation to blame. They can all carry on presiding over a shambles but carry no personal responsibility for it.

I get exceptionally good medical care from the National Hospital for Neurology in Queen Square, the Royal Marsden and the Lakes Medical Practice up in Penrith, but if you want to see the general bureaucratic incompetence of the NHS and why it is failing so badly in so many areas, the bureaucratic shambles that we are reporting on here is a perfect microcosm example.

However, in the report we did not just criticise but offered solutions. Theoretically, there is a Minister in charge, but he or she has no say in the running of the system, which is delegated to the NHS. The Minister should be charge and have a very senior person reporting to them. We say:

“NHS England should designate a senior, named person with responsibility for the homecare system. That person should be given sufficient powers and resources to discharge that responsibility”.


That person’s responsibilities should include:

“Setting clear national KPIs for organisations commissioning and providing homecare medicines services … Collecting data on those KPIs, and publishing data on those KPIs in a way which supports public scrutiny of the homecare medicines system … Holding relevant bodies such as individual providers, Chief Pharmacists, the National Medical Homecare Committee and pharmacy teams to account for work on homecare medicines services … Responsibly using new powers to issue appropriate penalties to under-performing providers”.


That is essential; there must be sanctions.

The fifth recommendation is:

“Ensuring trusts or hubs procuring homecare medicines services have access to sufficient financial and expert procurement advice and information, including template legal agreement frameworks, so they are able to effectively deliver value for money services and influence the homecare medicines services market”.


As in every government department I have served in and witnessed over 40 years in Parliament, the lawyers employed by the outside commercial contractors are infinitely better than government lawyers trying to negotiate contracts; they outwit and outmanoeuvre us every time.

Finally, we said that:

“Achieving value for money and increasing transparency on homecare funding”


should be another part of their individual duties.

As the noble Baroness said, the government response accepted about 90% of what we say—that is jolly good. On that basis, let us have urgent action to implement those proposals and the remaining 10% as well.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House that there is an advisory speaking time of nine minutes.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 48C in lieu, and what an extraordinary amendment it is. The Government have accepted, for the first time, that they must make—and will make—regulations

“eradicating slavery and human trafficking in supply chains”.

This is an extraordinary turnaround, and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, on it.

However, the real hero here is the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. In every relevant—or even vaguely relevant—Bill we have considered in this Parliament, he has sought to pass an amendment or new clause tackling genocide or slavery in Xinjiang province. Every time, his amendments have been rejected on the absurd notion that only an international court can decide on genocide. He has articulated again and again the terrible abuses of the Uighurs in China: forced labour camps, sterilisation of women—that is slow-motion genocide—systematic rape, murder and torture. He has called for us not to trade with any company making anything which emanated from such slave labour, either in China or anywhere else in the world. His persistence has paid off and, aided by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith in another place, the Government have now produced this amendment in lieu.

At this moment we have no idea what a change this will bring about. It may seem a small start now but I care to bet that in, say, 20 years’ time, historians will point to this amendment and the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and say that it has changed world history. I will press my noble friend the Minister on the timescale here. I hope we will have the regulations on the statute book within about 12 months and will not have to engage in the formerly proposed and rather convoluted 18-month consultation system with everyone under the sun around the world. Indeed, the Secretary of State announced last week that he was banning CCTV cameras from Hikvision, a company with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. I assume he did that without extensive consultation.

My noble friend the Minister probably cannot answer this, but I hope that the promised procurement Bill will have equally strong provisions. Indeed, it will not get through this House unless it mirrors what the Secretary of State has done here. There can be no back- sliding now.

In conclusion, and in addition to once again congratulating my noble friend Lord Alton, I wish to praise my right honourable friend Secretary of State Javid, who—if I may say so without being patronising—is turning out to be rather good. I tried amendments on single-sex provision in NHS hospitals and the Secretary of State has now urged NHS trusts to do it. I say to him, “Don’t urge them, Secretary of State—make them do it. You must re-write Annexe B and protect women.”

He has also rightly demanded a review of the consequences of children having their sex changed on the basis of inadequate evidence. As he points out, the zealots in the militant trans lobby who are marching children through the sex-change machine could be committing child abuse. That is the real conversion therapy that needs to be banned. It looks like we may have someone sensible in charge of the DHSC. The Motion moved by my noble friend tonight proves that and I commend it once again.

Health and Care Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 5th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Motion D1. It is straightforward and I need not detain the House long. We all know the situation in Xinjiang province; it has been set out in graphic detail in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others.

In recent years, the Government have procured billions of pounds’ worth of medical equipment sourced in whole or in part from Xinjiang. Despite widespread reports of forced labour in that region, our supply chain laws have failed to prevent such procurement. The Government have repeatedly condemned China over its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province and has imposed sanctions in response to its human rights abuses. Indeed, my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary said that torture “on an industrial scale” was happening there. Then the new Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Liz Truss, told our ambassador to China that China was committing genocide—at last someone in the FCDO was admitting the truth. Everyone knows that it is genocide. The independent Uyghur Tribunal, the US Government, our own Parliament and five other Parliaments determined it.

However, every time we try amendments, however modest, on trade with companies using slave labour in Xinjiang, the Government throw a wobbly if we use the word “genocide” and give the usual, simply unbelievable answer that only a court can pronounce on that, despite there being no court capable of holding China to account. There have been an awful lot of government pronouncements in the past two days about Putin and Russia committing war crimes and atrocities, and rightly so, but there has been no suggestion of a court needing to pronounce on that. However, let us park all that.

The Government will not accept any amendment which remotely hints at genocide. So my amendment does not seek to go there. Instead, it uses the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which is already on the statute book. We sent a simple, three-section amendment to the Commons: first, to make regulations ensuring that the DHSC did not buy goods and services from a country which may be in contravention of the genocide convention; secondly, a Minister should assess whether there was a serious risk of genocide; and, thirdly, a Minister had to make that assessment if a chair of a Select Committee requested it. That was rejected in the Commons and the Government gave us back the complicated and rather complex Amendment 48A in lieu. As we see from the government amendment, the Secretary of State would have to carry out a review in case there was slavery and human trafficking. He would determine the scope of the review and what parts of the NHS it might apply to. Then he must lay it before Parliament within 18 months and give his own views on how he would mitigate it.

My amendment combines that government review amendment with a simple one-line clause. This one-line amendment was moved in another place by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith MP and was supported by all Opposition Front Benches and Conservatives who included the former Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt MP, and the latterly Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland MP. In the other place this simple amendment was rejected by my honourable friend Ed Argar MP. Now Ed Argar is a good Minister but someone drafting his speech obviously found an old “Yes Minister” script and wrote a classic Sir Humphrey response:

“In developing the modern slavery strategy review, it will continue to be important to engage across Government and civil society, nationally and internationally, to collect the necessary evidence to agree an ambitious set of objectives … We remain of the view that this is not the right legislation for the proposed changes.”


Can your Lordships not just hear Sir Humphrey adding, “A very courageous decision, Minister”?

Well, the right time is right now and the right legislation is this Bill. Of course, the Government always have a better Bill coming along in the future. The government amendment in lieu relies on the Modern Slavery Act, and so does mine, and while I criticise the obfuscating waffle of the government amendment in lieu, I am not attempting to replace it or reject but will support it. I am merely adding a one-line sentence to it. It is simple and does what the Minister in the other place said the Government wanted; that is, to

“further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to exclude suppliers from bidding for contracts where they have a history of misconduct—or extreme misconduct in the case of slavery, forced labour or similar.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/22; cols. 926-27.]

Ignoring the fact that genocide and slavery are a wee bit worse than misconduct, my amendment gives the Department of Health and Social Care the opportunity to desist from buying goods and services from anywhere practising modern slavery.

I do not blame those involved in procurement for the sorry fact that slave-trade goods have entered our supply chains. Those working in the Cabinet Office, NHS procurement and the Department of Health have worked jolly hard in very difficult circumstances over the past few years. The fault is not theirs. We clearly need better tools to keep slavery out of our supply chains and this neat little amendment would allow the Government to do exactly that.

We do not need to engage the whole of government, nor civil society here and abroad. After all, Dominic Raab has just cancelled a contract for solar panels on prisons because parts were made in Xinjiang province, and I am certain that he did not consult civil society here or overseas before doing so. If the Secretary of State for Justice can make that unilateral decision, so can the Department of Health and Social Care. Nor need we worry that we will be deprived of essential PPE from Xinjiang. On 31 March, I found the following announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care:

“Personal protective equipment for sale by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) including visors, gowns, aprons and goggles”,


alongside a link to a site listing:

“Various Locations - Online Auction of Pallets of New PPE Equipment to include Gowns, Visors, Goggles, Sanitizer & Aprons - NO RESERVE!”


Let us be honest: the DHSC is the Government’s biggest procurer and happens to be the department with the biggest problem. More than any other department, it needs extra help to keep slavery away. I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister has said, but in view of the fact that the Government will not support my amendment, I regret that I shall have no option but to test the opinion of the House in due course.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said. I find it extraordinary that the Government are taking such a slow pace in relation to the important issue he raises. Of course, I relate it to my own amendments on forced organ harvesting, which is yet another example of the deplorable behaviour of the Chinese authorities. I refer the House to the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice in 2019, which stated:

“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”


Current human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants. My amendment, which the House accepted, went to the other place. It was not accepted there but, as the Minister has kindly said, the Government put in their own amendment in lieu which we see here this afternoon. I am very grateful to the Minister for this. The impact of the Government’s amendment is to ensure that offences under Section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, which currently prohibits people in this country from commercial dealings in human material for transplantation, will now be extended to acts outside the United Kingdom. The amendment covers people who give or receive a reward for the supply or for an offer to supply an organ or any controlled material. That is very welcome indeed. It is welcome because it deals with a gap in UK legislation, but it is especially welcome because it sends a powerful message internationally that the UK will not be complicit in this appalling crime. I am very grateful to the Minister and very much support the amendment he brings.

I now turn to my Amendment 57B, set out in Motion F1, which relates, as the Minister said, to issues to do with patient data and the proper protection of it. Laid out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the concept of a safe haven for patient data across health and social care. Because of the sensitive nature of that data, I sought, and the House agreed, to keep those statutory protections in place and not allow NHS England to take on that responsibility because of a potential conflict of interest in that role.

The issue arises because, last November, the Secretary of State announced that NHS Digital and NHSX would merge with NHS England to accelerate the digital transformation of the NHS. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to do this by the transfer of a function from one relevant body to another. NHS Digital is currently the statutory safe haven for patient data and my concern is whether it is appropriate to place that responsibility in NHS England, in view of the inherent conflict of interest that might occur in its wider role. As a matter of principle, I and a number of other noble Lords consider that the collection, analysis and publication of public data should be independent of any operational body. In effect, NHS England will be able to decide that its legitimate interests override those of the citizen and the patient, with little or no external constraint or scrutiny.

The noble Lord and I are at one in wanting to speed up digital transformation. I will set out what I am trying to do here, with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We are trying to be helpful. We want to make sure that the integrity of the safe havens is retained within this digital transformation. As the noble Lord said, we have had an extremely useful discussion with officials who are leading this programme in the department. I hope the Minister will be able to offer assurances that the integrity of the safe haven concept will be retained; that no transfer will take place until those safeguards are fully set out in the regulations necessary to bring the transfer into force; and, in particular, that strict governance arrangements will be put in place, subject to external independent scrutiny and oversight established on a statutory basis.

Can the Minister also confirm that the merged entity will at the least maintain the status quo of transparency and, indeed, go further for the patients whose data it is and whose trust and confidence are so necessary? Can he further confirm that a data usage register will be published which covers all projects accessing patient-level data and shows which data was accessed? Will the National Data Guardian be consulted on all this before the Government progress the regulations? Finally, will the Minister ensure that the regulations will avoid the need for NHS England—this was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—to be in the difficult position of sending legal directions to itself, and can he say how in practice this would work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kamall]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 48A in lieu.

48A: Page 49, line 3, at end insert the following new Clause—


“Review into NHS supply chains


(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review into the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in relation to people involved in NHS supply chains.


(2) The Secretary of State may determine which NHS supply chains to consider as part of the review or otherwise limit the scope of the review.


(3) But the review must at least consider a significant proportion of NHS supply chains for cotton-based products in relation to which companies formed under section 223 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (taken as a whole) exercise functions.


(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the review before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.


(5) The report must describe—


(a) the scope of the review, and


(b) the methodology used in carrying out the review.


(6) The report must include any views of the Secretary of State as to steps that should be taken to mitigate the risk mentioned in subsection (1).


(7) NHS England must assist in the carrying out of the review or the preparation of the report under this section, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.


(8) In this section—


“health service in England” means the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006;


“NHS supply chain” means the supply chain for providing goods or services for the purposes of the health service in England;


“slavery and human trafficking” has the meaning given by section 54(12) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”


Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

[Lord Blencathra]

Moved by

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 48B in lieu—

48B: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—


“Health service procurement and supply chains: modern slavery


The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the purposes of ensuring that procurement of all goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England avoids modern slavery.””