Lords Debate Health Reform as Prison Visits Motion Falls

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords began with the introductions of Baroness Ashley of Lambeth and Lord Lehrfreund, followed by questions on business hiring, the Parthenon sculptures, brain cancer leadership and the Binance security breach. Members then agreed regulations under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 and continued Committee stage of the Health Bill, covering carers, patient choice, palliative care, innovation, workforce planning, and action against antisemitism and racism in the NHS. The House divided on a regret Motion concerning prison restrictions on social visits, which was defeated by 30 votes to 67. The Health Bill proceedings concluded with the relevant amendments withdrawn or not moved, clauses agreed as recorded, and the House adjourned at 9.57 pm.

Detailed Summary

Introductions

Catherine Helen Ashley was introduced as Baroness Ashley of Lambeth, supported by Baroness Hale of Richmond and Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top. She took the oath and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct: “was introduced and took the oath”. Saul Anthony Lehrfreund was introduced as Lord Lehrfreund, supported by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws and Lord Hermer; he made the solemn affirmation and signed the undertaking: “was introduced and made the solemn affirmation”.

Business hiring intentions and the wider economy

Lord Hunt of Wirral asked about business hiring intentions and their wider economic effect. Lord Leong said that the labour market remained resilient, citing 356,000 more people in work than a year earlier and survey evidence that “more than 80% of businesses intend to either maintain or increase their staff levels”. Members then questioned the Employment Rights Act 2025, national insurance, youth unemployment, graduate employment, migration and artificial intelligence. Lord Leong said that the Office for Budget Responsibility expected a negative economic impact from the Act but had found no clear evidence that it would exceed 0.1% of potential output.

The Minister cited the employment allowance, youth jobs grants, apprenticeship hiring payments, graduate and artificial-intelligence initiatives, and a further £2.5 billion for the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy. The Government said they were awaiting Alan Milburn’s recommendations and would continue working with employers; no further decision was recorded in the transcript.

Parthenon sculptures and cultural objects

Earl of Clancarty asked about proposals for the permanent return of the Parthenon sculptures to Greece. Baroness Twycross said that the Government had made no assessment and welcomed discussions between the British Museum and Greek Ministers. She said that the museum would consider a loan if its ownership were acknowledged and a binding undertaking to return the sculptures were given: “it would consider a loan request for the sculptures”. The review of the implementation of Sections 15 and 16 of the Charities Act 2022 was due to report in February 2027.

Members argued for reunification and return, and against creating a precedent for returning objects acquired abroad. Baroness Twycross said that the British Museum Act 1963 generally prevented the museum from disposing of collection items and that the Government had no plans to amend it. The Government remained open to a loan arrangement, said that the museum was not planning a permanent return, and stated that “there is no intention to keep the Bayeux Tapestry in this country”. The Government also maintained that the Koh-i-noor diamond should remain in the UK.

National brain cancer lead

Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush asked about appointing a national brain tumour lead and improving research, clinical care and patient outcomes. Baroness Merron confirmed plans to recruit a national lead, supported by rare-cancer clinical and research leads and the National Cancer Board. Members called for faster clinical trials, measurable objectives, improved diagnosis, better biopsy facilities, patient involvement and research into novel treatments.

The Minister said that an expert review led by Professor Anthony Chalmers would take three months and inform a published national action plan. She confirmed that the Government would publish the plan with measurable markers, were fast-tracking clinical-trial set-up times to 150 days, and were working with sites to provide additional freezer capacity for brain-tissue samples. Trial-specific recruitment figures for glioblastoma were not centrally held because studies covered multiple tumour types and some commercial data was commercially sensitive.

Binance security breach and cryptoasset safeguards

Lord Nagaraju asked about UK consumer exposure to the Binance breach and interim safeguards before the new cryptoasset regime was due to take effect in October 2027. Lord Pitt-Watson said that Binance was not authorised or registered to provide cryptoasset services in the UK, although UK customers might have been affected and the Government were assessing the impacts and risks.

The Minister did not commit to an interim regime, saying that a comprehensive Financial Conduct Authority regime was expected by October 2027 and that an interim arrangement might slow implementation. Members raised bank stability, international co-operation, North Korean cybercrime, financial education and the security of digital gilt instruments. The Minister offered meetings or written responses on several points, said that the Government had been taking powers to trace, seize and recover assets, and undertook to co-operate with regulatory authorities. No interim plan or timetable was agreed in the transcript.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act regulations

Lord Collins of Highbury moved approval of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026. The draft Regulations had been considered in Grand Committee on 28 October and the motion was agreed: “Motion agreed”.

Health Bill: carers and patient involvement

The Committee resumed its adjourned debate on Amendment 21 concerning patient involvement and choice, including unpaid carers and a proposed right to nominate a trusted health and care partner. Supporters cited the scale and value of unpaid care, under-identification, the need for respite, and the importance of relatives or carers being able to visit and advocate. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath referred to “4.7 million unpaid carers in England”, while Baroness Pidgeon argued that a legal right would make a chosen representative part of the care team.

Baroness Merron said that existing duties, including those under the Care Act and Regulation 9A, already protected involvement, visiting and accompaniment. She argued that a statutory definition of “health and care partner” could be too restrictive and referred to the NHS health and care partner policy under development. She confirmed that the voluntary sector would be included in the unpaid carers action plan and that the single patient record could support carers acting on behalf of patients. Lord Hunt withdrew Amendment 21, which was formally withdrawn.

Health Bill: patient choice and out-of-hospital services

Earl Howe moved Amendment 22, with related Amendments 23, 24, 67 and 68, to expand meaningful patient choice among providers for out-of-hospital and community services. Supporters argued that choice could reduce waiting times, bring care closer to home and make use of NHS, independent, charitable and community capacity. Audiology, optometry and other non-consultant-led services were highlighted, alongside the need for information on waiting times, quality, location and travel costs.

Baroness Merron said that the Government supported patient choice and would use the NHS App and the “Manage Your Referral” website, alongside non-digital routes, to help patients choose. She said that secondary legislation was preferable for defining the services and operational detail because it could be updated as services developed. In response to Baroness Pidgeon, she said that secondary legislation would provide patient choice across all NHS services, and agreed to meet Baroness Neville-Rolfe about local variation. Earl Howe withdrew Amendment 22; Clause 5 was agreed, and Amendments 23 and 24 were not moved.

Health Bill: palliative and end-of-life care

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment 26 for a transformational fund for specialist palliative care, alongside amendments on equitable access, commissioning, accountability and advance care planning. Members cited unmet need, geographic variation, pressures on hospices and the contribution of specialist services to quality of life and reduced hospital use. Baroness Finlay said that specialist palliative care “reduces hospital bed days, deaths in hospital and healthcare costs”. Other contributions addressed sustainable hospice funding, integration with social care and voluntary organisations, and the recording of patients’ wishes.

Baroness Merron said that integrated care boards already had statutory responsibility to provide palliative and end-of-life care to meet reasonable requirements, including specialist care where appropriate. She said that the modern service framework would address inequalities, variation and strategic commissioning, and that the Government did not favour a ring-fenced fund in primary legislation because it could restrict local flexibility. Baroness Finlay withdrew Amendment 26, requested a meeting with the Minister and interested Members, and indicated that she might return to the issue if no satisfactory solution emerged. Clause 6 was agreed.

Health Bill: access to health innovation networks

Lord Kamall moved Amendment 27 to establish a single national access point for innovators seeking support from health innovation networks. He said that innovators struggled to identify the correct NHS entry point and proposed a single route with triage and co-ordinated regional support. Lord Scriven and Baroness Merron said that the NHS Innovation Service already provided such a national point of access. Baroness Merron said that more than 2,200 products had been registered with and received support through the service, including 710 in 2025–26.

The debate therefore focused on the spread and adoption of proven innovations and responsibility for the service following the abolition of NHS England. Baroness Merron said that the work of nationally funded health innovation networks would continue under the Secretary of State’s oversight. Lord Kamall asked for information on how the existing service would be publicised and withdrew the amendment.

Health Bill: workforce planning, education and training

Members debated Amendment 28 and related amendments seeking an independently verified long-term workforce assessment, a 10-year plan, mental-health and learning-disability workforce planning, district-nursing provision and transparent continuing professional development. Supporters cited more than 100,000 vacancies, shortages in primary and community care, mental-health staffing pressures and the long lead times for training clinicians. Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson argued that “training must be paid for today and the benefits of training are realised only in the future”.

Baroness Merron confirmed that the Government remained committed to publishing a 10-year NHS workforce plan but gave no publication date beyond “in due course”. She said that an external expert panel had scrutinised the planning approach, that £181 million had been allocated for continuing professional development in 2026–27, and that measures were under way concerning mental-health, learning-disability, general-practice and district-nursing workforces. She also confirmed planned reforms to require automatic removal from the register for certain listed sexual offences. Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson withdrew Amendment 28 but indicated that she might return to the issue on Report.

Prison social visits as a disciplinary punishment

Lord Farmer moved a regret Motion opposing rules allowing governors and adjudicators to remove or restrict social visits as a punishment. Opponents argued that family contact supported rehabilitation, mental health, accommodation on release and reduced reoffending, and that restrictions would also affect innocent relatives. Lord Foster of Bath said that “family contact improves prison behaviour, supports mental health, reduces self-harm and, importantly, reduces reoffending”. Supporters of the rules, including Baroness Gill, argued that they provided a tangible sanction for serious or persistent rule-breaking and reinforced attendance at sentencing; she said that “true rehabilitation cannot begin without accountability”.

Baroness Hyde said that the sanction was intended as a last resort, with exemptions for children and people under 21, consideration of individual and family circumstances, and reasons required from adjudicators. She offered to meet Lord Farmer and said that an independent review of the prison system was due to report the following month. Lord Farmer sought a division. The regret Motion was disagreed to, with Ayes 30 and Noes 67.

Health Bill: antisemitism and racism in the NHS

Baroness Gerada moved Amendment 29 and related amendments to require training on recognising, preventing and responding to antisemitism and racism, improve data and accountability, and address suitability conditions for general practitioners. Members cited discrimination reported by Jewish NHS staff, concerns about patient trust, staff neutrality, leadership responsibility and protection for those reporting misconduct. Baroness Gerada said: “A health service that makes any group of patients hesitate to seek care, or any group of staff feel unsafe at work, fails us all”.

Baroness Merron said that the Government had accepted all 36 recommendations of Lord Mann’s review. She confirmed that a new NHS equality, diversity and human-rights training module, including antisemitism and anti-Muslim hostility, was being finalised; that a consultation would consider Jewish and Sikh data categories; and that new national guidance on staff uniforms would be published. She said that the Government intended to amend performers-list regulations, subject to consultation, and that existing fitness-to-practise procedures could result in removal from the register. Baroness Gerada withdrew Amendment 29 and indicated that she might return to the issue on Report. Clause 7 was agreed and the House adjourned at 9.57 pm.