Medical Nuclear Radioisotopes

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this short debate. All the important issues were covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, in her brilliant, comprehensive speech—but not by me, as they say, so I will repeat them.

The noble Baroness is right that it is time urgently to address this issue. The point has already been made that we increasingly need these radioisotopes as medical advances occur, particularly in molecular radiotherapy, which the noble Baroness did not mention. Molecular radiotherapy is used as internal therapy for diseased organs, as opposed to external radiation, which is what we are all familiar with.

We all know that one in two people are going to get cancer. The monitoring of cancers—for example, prostate cancers—requires a particular kind of radioisotope tracer to identify whether there are any metastases. This is now in short supply because we rely on a supply chain that comes from overseas.

Basically, there are two nuclear imaging modalities: SPECT, single-photon emission computed tomography, and PET, positron emission tomography. SPECT imaging relies primarily on reactor-produced isotopes, and we have to completely import them because we do not have a reactor. PET relies on cyclotron-produced images. While we have that facility, we do not have it extensively, so we often have to rely on overseas supply chains.

I will put it in the context of a patient. The overall problem is that they are waiting for a diagnosis, but cannot have it made because the supply chain for radioisotopes is in short supply or has been held up, and their appointment is cancelled. They wait another few weeks before that appointment is made again, during which time the patient’s cancer grows. Alternatively, they are relying on finding out how the cancer is progressing following diagnosis, particularly to see whether the cancer is responding if treatment is being given, and imaging facilities are needed, but the tracer or isotope is not available.

There is a further issue: if we have our own reactor that can be used for research, we will innovate for newer radioisotopes for both diagnosis and treatment. Our scientists are good enough; in fact, they are world leading. Furthermore, most tissues in the body are specific to certain chemical agents. For instance, iodine is used for the thyroid. If we want to diagnose or treat thyroid cancer using internal therapy, we would have a tracer with iodine to target thyroid tumours. Glucose is similarly used for brain tumours, and for identifying cancers that an MRI sometimes will not see. With a particular kind of tracer, PET-CT scans will see them, and therefore diagnosis and treatment happen earlier.

I could say this in one sentence or half an hour of speech, but the message would be the same. We urgently need UK-based radioisotope reactor facilities that produce tracers using radioisotopes, and also a cyclotron facility, so that the whole UK can then rely on our own supply. It also enables our researchers to further innovate for new tracers, and therefore end up leading the world. I say to the Minister that the time is now. Can we have the plan, please? Whether it is in Wales or not—I might have been tempted to say Scotland—the ARTHUR project has already made a good business case and worked this out. The cost is not enormous, particularly in the context of the NHS budget and the benefits that the NHS will derive. I plead for the same as the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield.

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on securing this valuable debate. I think we should judge its value not by the number of people here but rather by the quality of the contributions. This is an important issue and, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the noble Baroness introduced this in a very comprehensive way, which was extremely welcome.

The Government are committed to delivering critical services that depend on the reliable supply of medical radioisotopes, to which both noble Lords referred. I agree with the noble Baroness and her reflections on the positive health outcomes, also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. These isotopes support positive health outcomes, both for diagnostics and for therapeutics. I was looking at the figures: in England alone, some 700,000 procedures are carried out using radioisotopes every single year. This figure is expected to increase, not least because of their value in the process.

There are three main uses for medical radioisotopes; each relies on different manufacture to get the desired result. PET-CT scans, primarily used for cancer and cardiovascular diagnostics, use isotopes from a comprehensive network of UK-based cyclotrons. SPECT scanners are mainly used to confirm the cancer stage, to identify blood clots and to assess organ functions. These scanners use isotopes manufactured abroad in reactors; the noble Lord, Lord Patel, drew our attention to this. This is also the case for radioisotopes that are used for therapeutics.

As the noble Lord pointed out when he expressed concerns about delays to treatment and the impact on patients—the point was well made—the UK does not currently manufacture medical radioisotopes in reactors. Instead, we have in place a supply chain with isotope sources from multiple countries to aid resilience. I will come on to the point that the noble Baroness made about when that supply chain is disrupted. This gives us access to a global network of expertise and high-quality medical radioisotopes.

The noble Baroness made a strong case in advocating for the Welsh project ARTHUR, a reactor specifically designed for the purpose of medical radioisotope manufacture. The Minister for Medical Technology and Innovation, Zubir Ahmed MP, recently met Liz Saville Roberts MP to discuss this matter, and I can assure the Committee that the Government are in active discussions about this project. I note the points made about the suitability of the area and the potential benefits of this project. The UK Government have not made a formal assessment of the project at this time but are supportive of any manufacturing capacity that can improve reliable access to medical radioisotopes, as has been called for. A domestic reactor would certainly be a welcome addition to the overall supply.

The noble Baroness understandably highlighted the severe shortage of a specific medical radioisotope in 2024. I agree that this was caused by a global disruption to its manufacture. The underlying issue was that several nuclear reactors used for its manufacture were undergoing critical repair work. As noble Lords can imagine, these repairs are normally planned ahead and co-ordinated to ensure that there is always enough capacity to deliver critical isotopes. However, the safe running of reactors will always determine whether they will be taken offline for repairs. In this instance, critical repair work was identified and meant that multiple reactors were closed down at the same time.

Due to a diligent response from the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, industry and the NHS services impacted, I am glad to say that the patient impact from this severe shortage was limited. I am grateful to all those who worked to ensure this. However, it underscores the need for multiple available sources of medical radioisotopes. A Welsh reactor—or perhaps a Scottish one, although I would rather not dwell on the argument around the devolved Governments and locations—could be an important addition to this supplier base.

Also raised were the issues with the supplies for PET-CT scanners earlier this year. I can give an assurance that, when there are specific supply issues, such as the one the noble Baroness referred to that impacted north England and the Midlands, the department works with suppliers to recover supplies and services. We are aware of the difficulties and issues that both noble Lords have raised. I hope that response is of some assistance.

We are working to support services and improve outcomes for patients. The noble Baroness said that the Government should explore long-term solutions, so let me outline some of these actions. First, we are committed to a thriving life sciences sector and the development of high-skilled jobs in that sector. The Government have made up to £520 million available through the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund; that is available for any private manufacturing proposal, including for medical radioisotopes in the UK.

Medical radioisotopes support life-saving services, including for diagnostic tests; this Government are committed to supporting the improvement of these services. Therefore, we have announced £6 billion of additional capital investment over five years across new diagnostic, elective and urgent care capacity. This includes funding to increase capacity for both testing and reporting across community diagnostic centres and hospitals.

In early 2026, which is nearly upon us, the Government will publish their national cancer plan. This will set out how we will improve diagnosis, treatment and waiting times in order to improve outcomes for cancer patients and increase survival rates. UKRI, the UK’s national funding agency for science and research, also supports the overall service delivery and has recently invested £32 million for novel total-body PET-CT scanners. All these interventions will, as I say, improve the situation for patients and improve services.

In conclusion, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have called for, this Government are committed to ensuring robust and reliable supplies of medical radioisotopes to deliver critical services. We are supporting the development of manufacturing and delivery capabilities in the UK, where this is appropriate, alongside working closely with international partners and suppliers. We are also committed to the economic and industrial development of the UK science sector. That is why we have made available investment funds that are open for applicants who are looking to expand or improve UK manufacture of medicine and medical technology products. This includes UK-based manufacture of medical radioisotopes or their adaption for diagnostic or therapeutic applications.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

I know that intervening on the Minister is unusual in a short debate, but we are not exactly short of time. I think the Minister said that if we had a reactor, it would be a useful addition. It would not be a useful addition; it is a necessity. She did not define any solid plans—unless I missed them—where the Government have a clear intention to establish a nuclear reactor for producing radioisotopes. There is a promise that we will have good contractual agreements with the supply chain lines that the Minister mentioned—I cannot make the Minister’s speech, but I am asking the question—but those cannot be guaranteed because there are only six reactors in the world and they are more than 50 years old. Maybe the Minister could comment on that.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Patel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have added our names. I declare an interest as the president of the Local Government Association. I thank ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—for its briefing, in which it laid out these amendments clearly. It supports the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, though not the one in my name; however, it raises some really interesting points around what we are trying to do and how far we need to go.

It is important to raise the issue of greenwashing and to look at better solutions than the one we currently have. Although this amendment does not go as far as some want, it is a step forward. I came to this amendment, which looks at the equivalent number of plastic straws that are in each cigarette—it is two plastic straws—because I worked on the impact of the ban on plastic straws on disabled people. Disabled people were vilified for daring still to want to use plastic straws, whereas people who smoke do not seem to have that same level of pressure against them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, always makes really interesting speeches and asks really interesting questions. Are we doing this from the point of view of public health, the environment or littering? I would say, “All of them”. As somebody who has never smoked—I question how interesting any of the parties I went to as a teenager were—I presumed that filters were safer. It is only when you do the research that you realise that people have been deceived into thinking that they are safer than they actually are. The number of butts that are littered worldwide—4.5 trillion—is absolutely horrendous; it is the equivalent of 1.69 billion pounds of toxic trash. Look at the impact on the UK: a minimum of 3.9 million butts are littered every day. I am also interested in the fact that cleaning up these cigarette butts costs local authorities around £40 million a year; I think that that money could be spent far better in different ways.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The point I am making is slightly different. If I had my way, I would ban cigarette sales completely, but I know we are not going to get that far in a hurry.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the filters are made of cellulose acetate that is converted into plastic. They are promoted as a health benefit in the sense that people think they filter out harmful tar, nicotine and carcinogens, which they do not. They are of no benefit. Filters also make people more addicted, because they make the cigarette smoke temperature lower and feel smoother, so I am told. People therefore take deeper breaths and become more addicted to the substances they inhale, because there is a higher concentration of them. They are actually more harmful, despite being promoted as less harmful than just cigarettes on their own.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Lord Patel Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

Will His Majesty’s Government look further at the impact of these products, and what is the best way to protect young people? My fear is that it could potentially be decades before we have the evidence to prove that they are very damaging to young people. We have to do something right now, not wait until we are a few decades down the line.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. We know that nicotine is highly addictive. In fact, it is one of the most addictive substances there is, even in small quantities. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, made the point that people use it for cessation of tobacco or cigarette smoking. That is true, but the dosage, even of 20 milligrams, is too high. High doses of nicotine cause serious diseases, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. But apart from that, in older people it causes higher risk of cardiovascular disease, not just by increasing heart rate and blood pressure but by making platelets stickier and leading to higher levels of fibrinogen, which increases the risk of forming a clot. This is a good amendment and there is no reason, to my mind, why the Minister should resist it.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have made some interesting cases probing the issue of the high nicotine content of pouches. However, it is worth noting that Cancer Research does not support these amendments. It says that there may well be a need for a deeper dive into the evidence, but it stresses something that has been missed in some of the debates we have had so far, certainly at Second Reading: it is tobacco that is the cancer-causing ingredient in cigarettes.

Nicotine patches do not contain tobacco. Nicotine is addictive, but the overall evidence does not support a direct causal link between nicotine and cancer: it is not carcinogenic. That is what the scientific evidence seems to show, and it comes from anti-tobacco lobbying groups and people whom I would not necessarily usually cite. It is noted that nicotine products and pouches are being used as recreational products, but they are also helpful for smoking cessation.

We have to consider what we are doing with the Bill. The NHS itself calls nicotine “relatively harmless”, and, in his 2022 review, Dr Javed Khan said that

“the government must facilitate access to the various already available safer alternative nicotine products such as nicotine pouches”.

We therefore have to be careful about demonising these things, because it is not straightforward.

There is a danger throughout the Bill—it will come up in other groups—of a constant slippage between tobacco and nicotine. Sometimes that occurs through a discussion around addiction. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks about this—she talked about the problems of addiction on our first day in Committee—because the Bill is not necessarily tackling addiction; it is tackling harms. There is a danger that we get confused between that addiction, which, as I say, many people in the health professions do not see as a problem per se, and what we are targeting. I am worried that that slippage between nicotine and tobacco, between vapes and smoking cigarettes, leads to an unscientific mishmash of misinformation that, ironically, can damage public health.

In relation to young people using pouches until they vomit, young people use lots of things until they vomit. They can overuse a range of things, not helpfully, but it does not necessarily mean that the product itself is always the problem: sometimes, it can be youthful lack of restraint, which one might want to intervene in but not necessarily through the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

If it is a tobacco product, I take the point, but I thought that the noble Baroness was also arguing about handing out free vapes. Making it illegal for a shopkeeper to supply an adult with a regulated vaping product as a free sample feels very much like an unreasonable restraint of trade. If someone enters a shop to buy cigarettes—let us say he is a smoker—and the shopkeeper offers him a free vape, what exactly is wrong with that, as long as the regulations are adhered to? Do we really want to criminalise that kind of free supply? I am afraid that I am not convinced.

The Bill already imposes a series of significant new obligations and compliance costs on legitimate businesses. The restrictions contained in Clauses 13 to 15 alone are substantial and will likely require many retailers to make complex and costly adjustments. To introduce further constraints and prohibitions, as well as a substantial potential liability, however well-intentioned, has to be thought about very carefully before we go down that path.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, if the nicotine contained in the vapes is not extracted from tobacco, where is it coming from?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Lord, with his compendious knowledge, can enlighten us on that.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

It comes from tobacco.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this group of amendments exploring the part of the Bill that relates to the sale of vaping products. I will make a general point to start with, which may be helpful as it has come up a number of times in the debate. It is true to say that vapes are less harmful than smoking because they do not contain tobacco and have fewer harmful chemicals. However, because there is a nicotine content and there are unknown long-term harms, there is a risk of harm and addiction that comes with vaping. That is particularly acute for adolescents whose brains are still developing.

There is a careful balance to be struck in taking action against youth vaping, by which I mean children and young people, while ensuring that vapes absolutely remain accessible to adults who are seeking to quit. Noble Lords will have heard me refer before to the Chief Medical Officer, who is clear that if you smoke, vaping will be a better option; but if you do not smoke, do not vape. It could not be clearer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I disagree that we can necessarily distinguish between nicotine and a tobacco product, given that most nicotine products are derived from tobacco and are, therefore, tobacco products. However, the key thing here is that nicotine is being targeted at children, who often then graduate to smoking cigarettes. So you have not only an addiction but a potential route into the problem that we have worked on together for many years: reducing smoking, especially among the young, for all the reasons we know about.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

May I join the argument? The noble Earl is quite right: there is a synthetic nicotine product, which is manufactured chemically. So you can have nicotine that is not a tobacco product. However, as far as we know, most of the nicotine used in vapes is derived from tobacco.

By the way, I want to come back, slightly tongue-in-cheek, on the noble Earl’s question about where it comes from. Of course, I was hoping that he would say, “From tomatoes, potatoes, nightshade and some other plants”, from which you can also get small amounts of nicotine.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, if we take the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument about nicotine being derived from tobacco, does that drive a coach and horses through the distinction between tobacco products and vaping products? Wherever you stand on this argument, are we now arguing that vaping products are, in fact, tobacco products because the nicotine in them is derived from tobacco? We all have to clarify this, whichever side of the argument we are on.

MBRRACE-UK Report 2025

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, we have another MBRRACE report and the same message. Black women are at twice the risk of dying and Asian women have a higher incidence than white women, and we are not addressing the issues that lead up to these deaths in these minority groups. Can the Minister tell us what measures the Government are likely to take in the maternity review to address this?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This Government are committed to closing the black and Asian maternal mortality gap. It is unacceptable that, in 2025, black women are twice as likely to die in childbirth. I was speaking yesterday with a clinician who said that for every woman who dies, 100 women experience a severe maternal morbidity event, such as stroke, kidney failure or acute psychosis, which can lead to lifelong health implications, as the noble Lord has referred to. The maternal care bundle, which we have developed in partnership with MBRRACE, proposes intervention on the issue of blood clots, which are three times as likely to occur in black women and can have tragic consequences.

HIV: Testing and Medical Care

Lord Patel Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

As I have mentioned, the plan—which is due to be published by the end of this year—will include a focus on HIV testing and will take account of the groups that are less likely to be tested, because that will be key to our success in eradicating new HIV transmissions by 2030.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, every time we have debated this subject, we have acknowledged the difficulty in identifying at-risk people who do not come forward to be tested for HIV. One such group of people are those who go to pharmacies or GPs to get a prescription for PrEP medication. What information do we give them about the need for getting themselves tested for HIV when they approach pharmacies and other sources for PrEP medication?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Although I cannot answer specifically, I would be very happy to write to the noble Lord about what information is in pharmacies. I know the noble Lord will appreciate, as your Lordships’ House has welcomed, the greater use of pharmacies, not least because they are more accessible for those who otherwise would be disadvantaged.

Prostate Cancer

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for initiating this debate. Some of my comments are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, on whose behalf I also make them, as he is in hospital with a broken leg—but he is doing okay.

I agree with the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Mott, made about identifying and offering the PSA test for higher-risk patients. My comments are therefore not about GPs’ role in offering the test to men at higher risk of prostate cancer. My comment is mostly based on the use of PSA as a test for screening purposes. It is a test which has a fairly high degree of sensitivity but a very low degree of specificity, which means that the rate of false positives and false negatives is very high for a screening test.

I agree that some of the trials being carried out—the noble Lord, Lord Mott, mentioned one in Royal Surrey hospital, and there are others in Europe and the United Kingdom—may help us modify the guidance that could be given based on the results of the study and therefore could be targeted at a wider group of people. But we need a test that is much more reliable, easily carried out and much more accurate. Such a test as a preliminary study was developed by the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital. It uses a spit test, which recognises 130 different modifications or mutations of DNA with a high degree of specificity, much higher than the PSA, and a high degree of sensitivity. In a model trial, it would have identified nearly 13,000 patients, the same number of deaths that occur per year, with low-grade prostate cancer. It is a test that requires further trials, because it is easily administered and may become part of a wider screening programme. So we need to be much more aware of innovations that may occur.

Diabetes: 10-Year Health Plan

Lord Patel Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The matter of health inequalities is, obviously, one we are very concerned about. A national review is currently under way to update on monitoring, including of various groups. NHS England supports ICBs in improving diabetes care, including through the use of the medical technologies that the noble Baroness referred to, and, importantly, in reducing the variation in care that we still see across the country. It does that by using national data and insights, funding local clinical needs and addressing health inequalities through the national diabetes prevention programme. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of raising awareness and the incredible contribution that new technology is playing. It has to be available for all and I hope we will establish that in the way I have mentioned.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of the South Asian Health Foundation. The south Asian population has a very high incidence of diabetes, particularly type 1, which is probably related to a strong gene marker. Some 50% of people with type 1 diabetes have some kind of gene marker. Those who have a strong gene marker in a particular region, the HLA region of chromosome 6, have a very high incidence. My point is that, if we screen people, particularly those with a family history of diabetes, for genetic markers, we will identify them much earlier, even in childhood. The prevention that is therefore required—changing their environment and diet—becomes more effective. This ought to be one of the preventive strategies for diabetes in high-risk populations.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right in his observations, which play to the point of the NHS that we want to see not just now but in the future. Noble Lords may have heard the announcement earlier this week that the Government are committing the necessary funding to screen babies early in their lives through the use of genomics, in order to, as the noble Lord said, identify underlying conditions that can be dealt with early on. There are some that cannot be prevented, but if they are diagnosed and anticipated, their management will be much better.

Perinatal Mental Health

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I do not share the view that it is discretionary funding, not least because what matters are the outputs, which are, as I described, that a record nearly 65,000 women accessed a specialist community perinatal mental health service or maternal mental health service in the 12 months to April 2025. That gives some idea of the scale—that is a 95% increase compared with four years earlier. So the output is absolutely there. Was it ever the case that all needs were met? No, it was not, even before the change to the planning guidance and the ring-fencing. I emphasise again that this Government’s whole approach is to ensure that local communities are properly served. That is why ICBs can make decisions about how they provide what I regard as first-rate services.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, said, particularly about the leading cause of maternal deaths—39% of them—being suicide. Not only that: 37% of those mothers who took their own lives had a known history of mental health issues, yet they were not properly looked after. That is the main problem. Although guidelines exist for screening mothers during pregnancy and after the birth of a baby, they are not universally followed. There is a great variation in the adoption of these guidelines and using the screening tools that are available to identify mothers at risk during pregnancy. We need to put much more effort into that. On the cost, there is only one small model that describes the benefits of identifying mothers at risk during pregnancy and after delivery. We need a detailed study to show the cost-benefit analysis of doing that.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord, building on my noble friend’s point, makes a very important point. I will add to what he said. The impact on affected families is absolutely devastating and has very long-lasting effects, particularly on children. As the noble Lord said, the suicide prevention strategy outlines what clinicians should do, which is complete screening of women’s mental health during pregnancy and the first year after pregnancy. I hear the points that the noble Lord made and will put them into my discussions about suicide prevention, because I am also concerned about the number of people who take their own lives who are in no contact with the health services; we have to find a way of making contact with them. This is less the case in this circumstance, but that theme is still there. I thank the noble Lord for that contribution.

NHS: Private Equity

Lord Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Again, if there is particular information I should have, I would be delighted to receive that. I can only wholeheartedly agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the need to use capacity in the private sector. It is one of the ways we are driving down waiting lists and offering more appointments. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, we committed to 2 million extra appointments in our first year of government; we have far exceeded that already with 3.6 million.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I accept what the Minister said about how the leasing arrangements will remain the same. But can we be assured that both KKR and PHP—whichever wins the bidding war—will follow the same procedures; that is, they will be responsible for providing the equipment and the rents will not increase based on what equipment they provide, and that, therefore, patient care will remain of the highest quality?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for seeking that reassurance, which I can indeed give.

Learning Disabilities Nursing

Lord Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

This is indeed a vulnerable group, as the noble Lord says, and it is probably best that I refer to the upcoming 10-year plan, which will deal with inequalities throughout a number of sectors, including the most vulnerable and including this group.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, coming back to original Question, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, alluded to a drop in recruitment of 42% and only one place where such learning disability nurses are trained, is there not a need to expand ways of getting more people to train for learning disabilities without the penalty of fees for three years and for them instead to train as apprentices, where they do not have to incur such fees? Is that not an impediment to the recruitment of more nurses?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Certainly, apprenticeships are important, and that is one of the ways we have expanded the routes into the nursing profession, including learning disability nursing. That means that the apprenticeships we are applying allow opportunities for people from all backgrounds and in underserved areas, which is another important area of ensuring that we remove the barriers to training in clinical roles.