Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 16 July [HL8983] about the paybill of the Department for Health and Social Care, why they did not make the provision of high quality palliative care a major priority.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
As set out in the Government’s recently published 10-Year Health Plan, we are determined to shift more care out of hospitals and into the community, to ensure patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate setting. Palliative care and end of life care services will have a big role to play in that shift and were highlighted in the Plan as being an integral part of neighbourhood teams.
Additionally, I refer the noble Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement (HLWS875) that was made to the House on 22 July 2025, which stated:
“It has been brought to my attention that a written answer given to Lord Scriven contained inaccurate information related to the work of the Department for Health and Social Care.
The reply to written Parliamentary Question HL8983, tabled by Lord Scriven on 30 June 2025, stated that “the Department’s staff numbers have needed to increase to ensure the right skills and capability to deliver several of the Government’s major priorities.” The answer then went on to list a number of areas which have required additional staff resource within the Department. The Assisted Dying Bill has required additional resource but should not have been referred to as a Government priority given the Government’s neutrality on the issue.
For clarity, the answer should read:
“The Department’s total paybill and staffing costs have not risen by £20 million since July 2024; rather, they have risen, but by £2.5 million in that time.
Since the General Election, the Department’s staff numbers have needed to increase to ensure the right skills and capability to deliver several of the Government’s major priorities. During this period, payroll costs have also increased because of annual pay increases.
Given the scale of the challenges facing the health and social care system, as part of the Spending Review, the Department is working on reducing its headcount down to pre-election levels during 2025/26. This is a key step towards a streamlined centre, to support continued prioritisation towards front-line services.”
I would like to apologise for any confusion.”
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with reference to paragraph 5.86 of the Spending Review 2025, published on 11 June, what are the £663 million of technical efficiencies by category for each of the financial years until 2029–30.
Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)
Alongside the Spending Review 2025 publication, Departmental Efficiency Delivery Plans were published on GOV.UK. The Department for Transport section at paragraphs 2.83 - 2.92 provides further information on these efficiencies and table 2.10 (copied below) shows the breakdown for how the department will deliver £663million of technical efficiencies by 2028/29.
Table 2.10: Net efficiency gains vs 2025-26 planned RDEL excluding depreciation | ||||
£ million |
| 2026-27 | 2027-28 | 2028-29 |
Corporate initiatives | 52 | 144 | 199 | |
Regulated settlements | 256 | 331 | 424 | |
Reform of executive agencies | 6 | 16 | 39 | |
Total efficiencies net of investment | 313 | 491 | 663 | |
Total efficiencies net of investment (%) | 3.8% | 5.9% | 8.0% | |
Memo: total gross efficiencies | 320 | 500 | 676 | |
Memo: total gross efficiencies (% | 3.9% | 6.0% | 8.2% | |
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government, in relation to the policy paper "Restoring trust in our democracy: Our strategy for modern & secure elections", published on 17 July, which are the "legitimate smaller parties” referred to in paragraph 63.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The prohibition on dual registration has historically affected organisations which operated under formal electoral agreements and stood joint candidates with other parties. Despite their longstanding and legitimate arrangements, these restrictions meant legitimate smaller parties were excluded from participating fully, effectively barring these parties from our democracy.
These reforms now plan to correct this issue in limited circumstances, which will allow legitimate campaigning, while still preventing parties from gaming the system.
These measures support the broader democratic objective of enabling a diverse range of campaigners to participate in political debate. It is vital that voters are able to hear a variety of voices and perspectives, and third-party campaigners play a critical role in fostering healthy democratic engagement.
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government, in relation to paragraph 15 of the policy paper "Restoring trust in our democracy: Our strategy for modern & secure elections", published on 17 July, why it has been decided that (1) the data for children aged between 16–18 will be available on the open register, and (2) children aged between 16–18 will be included in the requirements for house-to-house visits as part of the annual canvass by electoral registration officers; and what safeguarding issues were considered in that decision making process.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
As outlined in the recently published ‘Restoring trust in our democracy: Our strategy for modern and secure elections’, the Government recognises the importance of taking a particularly careful approach to the handling of data of under 18s who are on the electoral register and our plans reflect this. We are working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure appropriate safeguards are put in place to protect young peoples’ data. We will ensure UK GDPR conditions are complied with, including a Data Protection Impact Assessment and providing a policy document setting out compliance and retention policies and we will ensure that any privacy notices are suitable for this age group.
We will also remove the presumption that citizens will be added to the open register unless they opt out. Citizens will need to opt in if they wish to appear on the open register. In line with guidance from Information Commissioner’s Office, we consider that an opt in arrangement is a more effective form of consent than the existing opt out process. This will mean those aged between 16 and 17, alongside those aged 18 and over, will be able to make an informed decision and their data will only appear on the open register if they actively decide that they want to allow it.
This government is committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to register to vote is able to. The primary purposes of the annual canvass are to ensure our electoral registers are kept up to date and to ensure those entitled to register are identified and invited to do so. 16- and 17-year-olds are already canvassed in the same way as other electors due to their inclusion on the electoral register as attainers. In extending the right to vote to 16- and 17-year-olds, it is vital they are given the same opportunities to be accurately registered as any other elector.
Our approach balances the need for adequate safeguards within our electoral system, without disadvantaging young voters from being able to participate in it. This mirrors the approaches taken in Scotland and Wales, where the right to vote has already been extended to those aged 16 and 17.
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government, with regard to the policy paper Restoring trust in our democracy: Our strategy for modern & secure elections published on 17 July, whether they will put equal weight on the accuracy as well as the completeness of the electoral register as they develop their policy proposals.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
Electoral registers are the foundation of our democratic processes, showing who is eligible to vote in which elections. The Government is committed to improving electoral registration. We are exploring a wide range of approaches to enable improvements in both completeness and accuracy of electoral registers, including making greater use of public sector data and digital services. Any changes will be based on robust evidence and user research.
The statutory responsibility for maintaining the completeness and accuracy of their local electoral registers lies with Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), and the Government supports EROs in this.
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Merron on 16 July (HL8983), which Minister took the decision to make the "Assisted Dying Bill" a major priority of the Government, when they took that decision and why.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
I refer the noble Lord to the Written Ministerial Statement (HLWS875) which was made to the House on 22 July 2025, which stated:
“It has been brought to my attention that a written answer given to Lord Scriven contained inaccurate information related to the work of the Department for Health and Social Care.
The reply to written Parliamentary Question HL8983, tabled by Lord Scriven on 30 June 2025, stated that “the Department’s staff numbers have needed to increase to ensure the right skills and capability to deliver several of the Government’s major priorities.” The answer then went on to list a number of areas which have required additional staff resource within the Department. The Assisted Dying Bill has required additional resource but should not have been referred to as a Government priority given the Government’s neutrality on the issue.
For clarity, the answer should read:
“The Department’s total paybill and staffing costs have not risen by £20 million since July 2024; rather, they have risen, but by £2.5 million in that time.
Since the General Election, the Department’s staff numbers have needed to increase to ensure the right skills and capability to deliver several of the Government’s major priorities. During this period, payroll costs have also increased because of annual pay increases.
Given the scale of the challenges facing the health and social care system, as part of the Spending Review, the Department is working on reducing its headcount down to pre-election levels during 2025/26. This is a key step towards a streamlined centre, to support continued prioritisation towards front-line services.”
I would like to apologise for any confusion.”
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their planned advertising restrictions on less healthy food on commercial broadcasters' advertising revenues.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has set a bold ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and will take action to address the childhood obesity crisis. This requires a range of policies, which is why we have set out decisive action in the 10-Year Health Plan. As part of this, we are committed to implementing the advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink on television and online. These restrictions are expected to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets per year in the United Kingdom and deliver approximately £2 billion in health benefits. The restrictions are expected to reduce childhood obesity by 20,000 cases. The restrictions specifically target categories of products that have been identified as of most concern in relation to childhood obesity. However, we also recognise that the restrictions will have an impact on businesses, and we have therefore made sure that the restrictions are proportionate and strike the right balance between health benefits and impact on businesses, for example ensuring that brand advertising which does not identify less healthy food or drink products is not in the scope of the policy.
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their planned advertising restrictions on less healthy food on reducing the calorie intake of children (1) in total per year, and (2) per child per year.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has set a bold ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and will take action to address the childhood obesity crisis. This requires a range of policies, which is why we have set out decisive action in the 10-Year Health Plan. As part of this, we are committed to implementing the advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink on television and online. These restrictions are expected to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets per year in the United Kingdom and deliver approximately £2 billion in health benefits. The restrictions are expected to reduce childhood obesity by 20,000 cases. The restrictions specifically target categories of products that have been identified as of most concern in relation to childhood obesity. However, we also recognise that the restrictions will have an impact on businesses, and we have therefore made sure that the restrictions are proportionate and strike the right balance between health benefits and impact on businesses, for example ensuring that brand advertising which does not identify less healthy food or drink products is not in the scope of the policy.
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their planned advertising restrictions on less healthy food on reducing child obesity.
Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government has set a bold ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever and will take action to address the childhood obesity crisis. This requires a range of policies, which is why we have set out decisive action in the 10-Year Health Plan. As part of this, we are committed to implementing the advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink on television and online. These restrictions are expected to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets per year in the United Kingdom and deliver approximately £2 billion in health benefits. The restrictions are expected to reduce childhood obesity by 20,000 cases. The restrictions specifically target categories of products that have been identified as of most concern in relation to childhood obesity. However, we also recognise that the restrictions will have an impact on businesses, and we have therefore made sure that the restrictions are proportionate and strike the right balance between health benefits and impact on businesses, for example ensuring that brand advertising which does not identify less healthy food or drink products is not in the scope of the policy.
Asked by: Lord Harper (Conservative - Life peer)
Question
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether the House of Lords Commission considered the case for (1) the security fence outside the House of Lords, and (2) the pass-controlled door at Peers' Entrance, in combination or separately; and whether they plan to reassess the need for the pass-controlled door in the light of the operational challenges faced since its installation.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The newly installed fence along Abingdon Street, on the western side of the Palace of Westminster, and the works to Peers' Entrance together form part of a single security driven construction project. The House of Lords Commission received an update on the case for enhancing security in January 2023. In November 2023, the Commission considered the options and in May 2024 considered more detailed papers relating to each of the two phases of works to both Peers' Entrance and the Abingdon Street fence. The two phases taken in sequence provide a layered security model for Parliament, to improve the safety of all those who work on and visit the Parliamentary Estate. The priority now is to ensure the door functions correctly and that this element is operating fully.