(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWe all remember Oliver Colvile very fondly. He really was a good MP and a nice kind of guy to meet. I knew Oliver way before he came to this House. We are all saddened to hear the news.
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Government and Labour Members, I associate myself fully with the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). Oliver Colvile was a decent man and a wonderful public servant—we all share that view. I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches will absolutely follow his example when it comes to following the Whip.
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Oliver Colvile was loved by Members from across this House. As it will soon be the 175th anniversary dinner of the Lords and Commons cricket team, it is worth remembering one of the most famous wickets ever taken, when Oliver Colvile bowled and took that wicket in India, on live television, watched by tens of millions. I had never seen a triumph like it. He will be much missed. He was always loved and respected in this House.
(4 months ago)
Written StatementsToday I am updating the House on urgent action to tackle antisemitism and racism across the NHS.
The NHS is a universal service which demands the highest standards of care and respect for all patients, regardless of their background. It is unacceptable that many people, including those in the Jewish community, do not currently feel safe working in or using the NHS.
The vast majority of doctors, nurses and healthcare workers embody the very best of our country. But recent cases have exposed something deeply troubling.
That is why we are taking immediate action.
I have commissioned Lord Mann, the Government’s adviser on antisemitism, to conduct a rapid review into how healthcare regulators can better tackle racism. As well as addressing the real challenges of antisemitism, I also expect Lord Mann’s recommendations to improve the NHS’s ability to tackle all forms of racism in its ranks.
At the same time, all 1.5 million NHS staff will be required to complete updated mandatory antisemitism and anti-racism training, with existing equality, diversity and human rights programmes being expanded.
We are also asking NHS England and all Department of Health and Social Care arm’s length bodies to explicitly adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to ensure consistency across the health system. NHS trusts and integrated care boards are being strongly encouraged to follow suit. The Government are also reviewing the recommendations of the independent working group on Islamophobia.
NHS England is reviewing the uniform and workwear guidance last updated in 2020, in light of recent successful approaches rolled out at University College London Hospitals NHS foundation trust and Manchester University NHS foundation trust. NHS England will engage stake- holders on its proposals and issue new guidance shortly. The principles of this guidance will be that religious freedom of expression will be protected, patients feel safe and respected at all times, and that staff political views do not impact on patients’ care or comfort.
Together, these actions will help us build a health and care system where everyone feels safe to work and be treated.
[HCWS971]
(4 months ago)
Written StatementsOn 23 September, this Government announced the introduction of Jess’s rule—“three strikes and we rethink”—in England. Under this new rule, we are asking GPs and other clinical staff working in primary care to reflect, review and rethink when a patient comes in for the third time with the same symptom or concern.
Re-evaluation may be particularly important if the condition remains unexpectedly unresolved, the symptoms are worsening, or there is still no confirmed diagnosis. Listening carefully to the patient’s symptoms and concerns, and recognising that they are an expert in their own body, remains crucial.
This call for change follows the tragic death of Jess Brady in December 2020. Jess was just 27 when she died of stage 4 adenocarcinoma. In the five months leading up to her death, she had 20 appointments with her GP practice. Tragically, her cancer remained undiagnosed until she was admitted to hospital, by which time it was too late. Her story, and the tireless efforts of her parents Andrea and Simon Brady, prompted an important and necessary reflection on how we can better support clinical teams in identifying serious conditions earlier, especially in younger adults, whose symptoms may not always align with typical diagnostic expectations. Her story should never be forgotten.
This initiative is jointly led by the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, and is supported by the Royal College of General Practitioners, reflecting a united commitment to improving early diagnosis and patient safety across the healthcare system.
At its heart, Jess’s rule provides clear, structured guidance that sharpens and reinforces the intuition which so often saves lives. It is there to back those instincts with a prompt for timely, proactive action when something does not feel right. By reviewing patient records and questioning initial assumptions, we hope to ensure that fewer serious conditions are missed, especially among young adults who may not fit typical diagnostic patterns.
We know that the practice of “three strikes and rethink” is commonplace. Every day, clinicians across the country are doing an extraordinary job, making complex decisions under immense pressure, often with limited time and information. Jess’s rule is designed to support them in this challenging work, offering a prompt for reflection and reinforcing the instincts they already rely on every day.
I want to pay tribute to Jess’s parents, Andrea and Simon. They have shown extraordinary courage and determination in the face of unimaginable loss. They have worked tirelessly to raise awareness of Jess’s story, and to ensure that what happened to Jess drives lasting change in how we think, how we listen, and how we act in primary care.
I would like to recognise the work of Dr Claire Fuller, Dr Kiren Collison and the entire team at NHS England. Jess’s story is included in the “Primary Care Patient Safety Strategy”, published in 2024, which highlight the importance of re-evaluation when a diagnosis remains unclear. Dr Fuller’s leadership has been instrumental in developing and embedding Jess’s rule.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support of the Royal College of General Practitioners in taking this work forward. Under the leadership of Professor Kamila Hawthorne, the RCGP has partnered with Jess’s family’s charity, the CEDAR Trust, to develop an online resource to support GPs in earlier cancer detection. This resource is available to all healthcare professionals registered on the RCGP’s learning platform.
Jess’s rule is more than a clinical process, It is a vital step toward ensuring that patient concerns are taken seriously, that patterns are reviewed carefully, and that every opportunity is used to identify serious conditions as early as possible. We owe that to Jess. And we owe it to every patient who places their trust in our health system when they seek help.
[HCWS961]
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberI thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this extremely powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Before I get into the substance of the debate, since this is Baby Loss Awareness Week, I want to put on record my thanks to the all-party parliamentary groups on baby loss, on maternity and on patient safety for their work in raising awareness; and charities such as Tommy’s, Sands, the Miscarriage Association and Bliss, which give bereaved families a voice and incredible support, and which deserve special recognition. I am extremely grateful to Members from across the House who have named local charities, run by those—often with lived experience—who play such a crucial role in improving services, so that others do not have to experience the torture that they have experienced.
It is such organisations that drove the adoption of baby loss certificates, introduced by the last Government and expanded by this one. I, too, thank Tim Loughton for his work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her leadership in this space. Not everyone will choose to have a certificate, but the option is now there for all parents who have experienced losing a pregnancy to have that loss recognised officially. I know that this has meant so much to those who have taken up that option, and to those who are providing the service, particularly staff in the NHS Business Services Authority, who have shared with Ministers their pride—many of them having that experience of loss themselves—of being part of the solution. I am of course delighted that the Government in Wales have also taken up this option.
Given the time available, there is simply no way of doing justice to the contributions that we have heard from Members across the House and the stories that they have shared with us. However, if there is one thing I have learned in my time as Secretary of State working on these issues it is that words will not do any justice to these families. What people want to see is action, and what they need to experience is justice.
I really do want to say a heartfelt thank you to Members across the House who have had the courage to share their personal stories. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, by talking about his daughter Mallorie, has given a voice to many fathers and partners who too often feel airbrushed from the conversation and absent from consideration. I think it is very poignant that he opened the debate for us this evening.
This is no exaggeration, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) talked about the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest, and it is truly extraordinary that, in the aftermath of such an awful bereavement with the loss of her father, she was back to work in a matter of days, so that she could be there with families in Nottingham to support them in their ongoing campaign for justice.
Of course, my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) all shared their stories, because others who have spoken previously had the courage to share their own experience. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. I have certainly never forgotten her speech about Lucy, and she really has blazed a trail for others to follow.
I can honestly say that, in the last year, the most difficult meetings have been those with victims of the NHS. I think we should pause for a moment just to reflect on how outrageous that sentence is—victims of the national health service. They are people who, in their moments of greatest vulnerability, placed themselves and their lives and the lives of their unborn children in the hands of others, but who instead of finding themselves supported and cared for, found themselves victims. It is truly shocking.
I have heard dozens of stories, each unique, each told with heartbreaking clarity and each with a common theme: that what should have been a moment of joy became a terrifying ordeal. I have had complete strangers describe to me, a Government Minister, their experience of injuries endured in childbirth. Women have had to share with me, a total stranger, what it has done to their sex lives and what it has done to their continence. I have had fathers share with me for the first time their attempts at suicide, and the impact that their loss and grief has had on their mental health. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) of the harm done to young people, in this case young Ryan, who was with us in the Gallery today. I have seen photographs of parents’ children. I have seen the ashes of their children in the tiniest boxes. I have seen more courage than I could ever imagine mustering if I had to walk a day in their shoes.
Each time they have met me—each time they have met anyone—they have had to relive the trauma inflicted on them by the state. Perhaps what is most shocking of all is that if there is another theme that ties these families together, it is the fact that they have had to battle time and again for truth, for justice, for answers, for accountability and for change, so that other families do not have to experience what they are going through.
I cannot thank enough the Members on both sides of the House who have placed on record not just the stories, but the names of the children we have lost, so that they can stand on the record there for all time, a stain on the history of our national health service, but also a galvanising call to action. I hope there is some small comfort for families who have been with us in the Chamber this evening to hear the debate, or who have watched online, to know that Parliament is listening, that we are learning, and that, crucially, we are acting.
Many Members have remarked on my personal responsibility and the responsibility that weighs heavily on my shoulders to get this right. We have been joined by some of the Nottingham families this evening. When I have met them, they have arranged themselves around a horseshoe table in date order, with those whose experience goes back furthest sat to my left, and those most recently sat to my right. I go back to Nottingham regularly and honestly dread the prospect of going to another meeting with another family arriving on my right-hand side at that end of the table with another story to tell, but one that has happened on my watch.
We know how serious these situations and challenges are. We have an implicit message from the system that tells women not to have a miscarriage at the weekend. We have women who are classed as having a normal birth still leaving traumatised and scarred. We still use terms such as “normal” to describe a particular type of birth for ideological reasons. All these things need to change.
We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill, for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) the shockingly wide race and class inequalities. We should not kid ourselves that these are statistical anomalies or just institutional failures, because I have heard time and again direct first-hand experiences of overt racism: black women told that it was assumed that that they would be “a strong black woman” and so would not need so much pain relief; and examples of Asian mothers described as divas. Perhaps most shockingly of all, taking a step back and looking at the overall picture, we have had the normalisation of deaths of women and babies. We have levels of loss and death in this country that are simply not tolerated in others. We have a shocking culture of cover-up and backside covering, as we have heard across the Chamber this evening.
Recognising that I cannot respond to every individual point that has been made in the debate, I will undertake to write to Members across the House with detailed answers to the questions they posed. I want to conclude by making this point, which is about trust. We are setting out the rapid investigation led by Baroness Amos because I need to act urgently on the systemic challenges. I want to acknowledge openly and publicly that not all families are with me on this; many have concerns, and they wonder whether this will be just another review that sits on the shelf. I want to conclude by assuring those families and this House of my personal commitment to ensuring that that is not the case, and not just through leading the taskforce that will implement the recommendations myself, but by giving a promise to this House and to those families, in the spirit set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest, that grief must be the engine of change. The stories I have heard from those families at first hand will be the steel in my spine to deliver the change they need.
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsToday I want to update the House on the evacuation of children in urgent need of medical care from Gaza to receive specialist treatment in NHS hospitals across the UK. This was announced by the Prime Minister on 25 July, and a further update was published on gov.uk on 22 August.
No one who has watched the intolerable humanitarian crisis unfolding nightly on our TV screens can fail to be distressed by the devastating consequences for the people of Gaza. They are exhausted, scared and hungry. And they are dying. As of now, there are also no fully functioning health facilities and the few that remain open are operating under the most extreme and dangerous conditions. Water, fuel and medical supplies are all in short supply. Missile strikes are a constant hazard. It is a soul-destroying situation that compels us to act.
That is why a cross-Government taskforce, on the orders of the Prime Minister, are working urgently to get some of the critically ill and injured children medically evacuated from Gaza. We expect the children and their immediate family members to arrive in the UK over the course of the autumn where they will receive first-class care, from first-class medics in surroundings that are safe and welcoming. This is a UK-wide process, and I am grateful to the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for their willingness to participate.
The UK Government are partnering with the World Health Organisation, which works on the ground and plays a critical role in supporting medical evacuations from Gaza. Participation in the UK Government evacuation is solely through the WHO supported process, and the UK Government cannot consider direct requests for assistance. The WHO will provide a list of potential patients assessed as priority cases by Gazan medical specialists, for an expert NHS clinical leaders team to review. Gazan children needing highly specialist medical care will then be matched with locations where capacity exists within the NHS to treat them.
Mindful that for these gravely weak and vulnerable children this is a potentially hazardous journey, children will only be transferred to the UK where it is clinically safe to do so and in the interests of each individual patient. As such, we will ensure medical assessments are undertaken before they travel.
On arrival in the UK, patients and their immediate family members will be granted access to the NHS, housing and other services for an initial two years. Should these individuals and their families wish to remain in the UK beyond that, they can apply for further permission to stay under existing routes within the immigration rules.
Robust security checks will be undertaken on all individuals who enter the UK as part of this process. Biometrics will be collected as part of the visa application process and prior to the final decision on the terms on which they will be granted entry to the UK.
The Government are working with both the NHS and the relevant local authorities to make sure both the children and their immediate families receive the help and support they need for the duration of their time in the UK. These are the innocent victims caught in the crosshairs of a bloody and brutal conflict. The least we in Britain can do is play our part and do our utmost to help them.
I expect to provide a further update to the House when the first cohort of children have arrived in the UK.
[HCWS899]
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
This Government inherited an intolerable situation in A&E, where over a decade of Tory failures left patients waiting in pain. We are doing the hard work needed to start repairing that damage. Our new urgent and emergency care plan is backed by nearly £450 million, which will mean 800,000 fewer A&E patients waiting more than four hours this year, new urgent treatment centres, mental health crisis centres and almost 400 replacement ambulances. Those are just some of the steps that we are taking to rebuild our national health service.
Lillian Jones
I welcome the progress this UK Labour Government have made in reducing A&E waits in England. That sadly contrasts with a crisis in Scotland, where recent figures revealed 2,472 Scots waited over eight hours to be seen. Jackie Baillie rightly warned that
“Lives are being put at risk”
under the SNP, and it has been years since the Scottish Government last met any of their targets. Does the Secretary of State agree that only Labour in Westminster and in Holyrood has a serious plan to back NHS staff and cut waiting times?
I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no sign of the SNP Members this morning. They have obviously clocked off for the summer—or maybe they are just sparing their blushes, because the party has been in power for close to two decades in Scotland and has been steadily driving the NHS into the ground. The chair of BMA Scotland has said,
“the NHS is dying before our eyes”
with the SNP. It is on its fifth NHS recovery plan in less than four years. Scotland needs a new direction with a Scottish Labour Government. Working in partnership, we will fix the NHS across the United Kingdom and make it fit for the future.
Sojan Joseph
One of my first visits after being elected last year was to the A&E department at the William Harvey hospital in my constituency, where 19 patients were being treated in the corridors and others faced long waits for treatment. I therefore welcome the progress that has been made so far on reducing A&E waiting times. However, too many people end up at A&Es like the one at the William Harvey because they have no other option. What are the Government doing to increase care options in local communities, including the use of virtual wards to ensure that more people are treated closer to home and that patients in A&E are those in an emergency?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is unacceptable that corridor care became the norm under the Conservatives. We will not accept it as normal; it is not acceptable. Ahead of this winter, we will require local NHS systems to develop and test plans to significantly increase the number of people receiving urgent care services outside hospital, including more paramedic-led care in the community, more patients seen by urgent community response teams, and better use of virtual wards. Together, we will improve our emergency services and make sure that people get the right care in the right place and at the right time.
The Government have spoken passionately about how minor injuries units, such as the one at Mount Vernon hospital in my constituency, help to take the pressure off A&E by diverting less urgent cases for treatment elsewhere. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his time for a brief discussion about that last week. Will he now respond to the 25,000 local people and my constituency neighbours, including the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who are joining my campaign to save the minor injuries unit? Will he intervene with the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust to prevent the unit’s closure?
Configuration of services is a matter for local commissioners. However, let me take this opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken into account representations received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as his letter. I apologise to him for the delay in response, but I assure him that he will get one.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
In June, just 66% of patients admitted to Woking’s local A&E at St Peter’s hospital were seen within four hours. That is way below both the national target and the national average of 76%. Will the Secretary of State agree to investigate that to find out why my constituents of Woking are facing such lengthy and unreasonable waiting times?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, urgent and emergency care services have been struggling right across the country, but he is right to identify where there are serious and significant variations in performance. One of the focuses of this Government is to try to reduce unwarranted variation from one NHS provider to another, so that we get consistently good standards of care across the country. I commit to write to him to further explain why there are particular challenges in his area and what we can do together to help resolve them.
Respiratory syncytial virus—RSV—is a common reason for attendance at A&E and admission to hospital among older people, and I have raised this repeatedly. Last week, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation recommended that the RSV vaccine programme should be extended to the over-80s and those living in adult residential care homes. Can the Minister confirm that these vaccines will be available in time for this winter season?
I can certainly reassure the shadow Minister on this. The Minister for Public Health has already accepted that recommendation and is working at pace on implementation. May I wish the hon. Lady well in the Opposition reshuffle?
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The driving force behind this Government’s approach to health is the principle that whoever a person is and whatever their background, they should receive the same world-class services as everyone else, based on need and not the ability to pay. That is why at its core, our 10-year plan for health looks to stamp out health inequalities, freeing up billions to move critical resources such as medicines and equipment to the regions and patients that need them most. Only a Labour Government will protect the NHS as a service free at the point of use, rebuild it, and make it fit for the future for everyone in our country.
Perran Moon
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Carn to Coast runs GP surgeries across my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, including the surgery where my father practised for over 30 years. It is struggling under intense pressure, with deep-rooted health inequalities linked to the surrounding areas of deprivation. While I welcome the review of the Carr-Hill formula as part of the 10-year health plan, will the Secretary of State come to Cornwall and visit a Carn to Coast health centre with me, to see the innovative work that is already being undertaken and to discuss how the reforms will support health outcomes in the most deprived areas?
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that commitment. The damage that was wreaked by the previous Government, not just across our health service but across every other part of Government, means that the gap between the health of the poorest parts of our country and that of the wealthiest has widened enormously. We have seen real challenges in general practice, which is why there are 300 more patients per GP in the poorest communities compared with the richest, and that particularly affects rural and coastal communities with higher levels of deprivation. We are going to carry out a review of the Carr-Hill formula. That formula has to work for general practice, and I would be delighted to come and see the work that the team at Carn to Coast are doing.
Joe Powell
In Kensington and Bayswater, there is now a staggering 19-year gap in life expectancy between men living in Notting Dale and those living in Holland Park—which are just hundreds of metres apart—and that gap has grown in recent years. The Minister knows that this is a whole-of-society issue to do with housing, employment and education, but can he outline what steps the Department are taking to help inner-city areas with very high levels of health inequality, such as that experienced by my constituents in Kensington?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out those stark differences in healthy life expectancy within a single inner London borough that contains some of the richest people on earth, as well as some of the poorest in our country. As for what we are doing as a Government, in addition to making sure that funding follows need and that we are tackling deprivation, our approach to neighbourhood health should make sure that we are working proactively in those communities that have the highest level of need, including pockets of deprivation within areas of higher affluence. Of course, as our plan recognises and as our mission-driven approach addresses, there are so many social determinants of ill health, including poverty, a lack of good work, damp housing, dirty air, and an inability to access culture and leisure opportunities that are affordable for everyone, not just the privileged few. Those are the issues that this Government are addressing, consistent with the Labour values that got us elected.
For residents of New Court Place care home in Borehamwood, wheelchairs are their lifeline. However, they are being badly let down by AJM Healthcare, their NHS wheelchair provider, with multiple unresolved assessments, bad communications and waiting times for repairs and replacements unbelievably extending to four years. Residents with physical and intellectual disabilities feel let down, overlooked and traumatised. In tackling health inequalities, can I urge the Secretary of State to look urgently at this provider and come to the aid of people who desperately need our help?
I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department will look into the provider that he raises. One reason I was proud that this Government increased the disabled facilities grant is that it means not just more ramps, handrails and accessible kitchens and bathrooms, but dignity, independence, freedom and quality of life. That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents are being deprived of if they do not have wheelchairs that meet their needs. I would be delighted to look into this, and I am extremely angry that the failures he raises require me to do so.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that public health is at the heart of addressing the long list of inequalities he has just highlighted? I am deeply concerned that a major reorganisation of local government and the cutting of budgets to the integrated care board will undermine the co-ordination that currently exists in Oxfordshire to deliver public health. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that public health will continue to be a priority at the heart of the prevention strategy, and that funding for public health will rise in future years to make that possible?
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman reassurance that the work we are doing to streamline and rationalise the amount of money we are spending on NHS bureaucracy means that we will free up resources that can be spent on the frontline, improving patient care and public health. Thanks to the decisions taken by my Department, the Deputy Prime Minister and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, investment in public health is rising and the spending power of local authorities is improving. That is all good news for public health.
Tackling health inequalities requires a strong workforce. I recently met a constituent who is about to qualify as a nurse, but she has been unable to find work. She is not alone; this is a widespread problem. The reasons she has been given include recruitment freezes to save money and nurses brought in from overseas instead. We need more nurses to tackle health inequalities, so will the Secretary of State ensure that trusts are funded to support and employ new nurses, and to prioritise British nurses for British jobs?
I can certainly assure the shadow Minister that the chief nursing officer and I are working proactively to deal with nursing unemployment. We are also working with the leadership of the NHS to make sure that we are reducing our reliance on overseas workers. Grateful though I am to all the healthcare workers who come from overseas to work in our health and care services—the service would fall over tomorrow if they all left, so we should be extremely grateful—there is certainly an overreliance, and that is what we are addressing. I have to say to the shadow Minister, though, that both those issues are a result of appalling workforce planning, for which the previous Government bear a huge amount of responsibility.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
It is only with proper investment and reform that we will bring care closer to people’s homes and into the community. Our 10-year health plan will roll out a neighbourhood health service in every community, as one-stop shops for health and care services that meet the needs of local populations, including rural and coastal communities like my hon. Friend’s constituency. The previous Government failed to move care into the community. We have already hit the ground running on delivering the 10-year health plan, and launched the national neighbourhood health implementation programme on 9 July to start that work at pace.
Michelle Scrogham
My constituents in Barrow and Furness very much welcome the Government’s move towards delivering more neighbourhood health services, but my right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern locally about the proposal from Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board to permanently end level 3 critical care at Furness general hospital. More than 10,000 people have signed my petition just this week to oppose that move. Will the Secretary of State please ensure that decision makers meet me and representatives locally to explore an alternative path forward that ensures patient safety, protects the integrity of our hospital and reflects the area’s growing population?
That was just one of many instances in which my hon. Friend has made the voices and views of people across Barrow and Furness heard loudly and clearly in this place and across government. In response to her question, I say yes, absolutely: on such an important matter her local commissioners should be meeting her, as the local Member of Parliament, and I think I can commit to that on their behalf. While such decisions must be made locally and clinically led, they must also be made in partnership with the local authority and the local community. We must ensure that we are engaging democratically elected representatives, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend secures that meeting.
My constituents in Cranleigh have no train service and no direct bus service to the Royal Surrey County hospital in Guildford, which is a big issue for older residents who do not drive. Does the Secretary of State agree that some of the empty rooms in Cranleigh Village hospital could provide a very good opportunity for the expansion of neighbourhood health services, and if he has not been briefed on this pressing issue by his officials, may I brief him, or one of his Ministers, on it in the autumn?
That sounds like another bid for a neighbourhood health centre in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but I am sure that local commissioners will be delighted to hear the case he has made, given the experience that he brings to bear.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Before this Government came to office, strikes were crippling the NHS. Costs ran to £1.7 billion in just one year, and patients saw 1.5 million appointments rescheduled. Strikes this week are not inevitable, and I sincerely hope that the British Medical Association will postpone this action in order to continue the constructive talks that my team and I have had with its representatives in recent days. Our priority is to keep patients safe regardless, and we will do everything we can to mitigate the impact on them and the disruption that will follow should these totally unnecessary and avoidable strikes go ahead.
Robin Swann
In a previous role, I found that health workers took industrial action only in extreme circumstances, so I agree with the Secretary of State that if the strikes can be prevented, they should be. During previous resident doctors’ strikes, elective or scheduled procedures were usually postponed, or planned to be postponed, to free up senior doctors to cover their work, but I note that the chief executive of NHS England has instructed hospitals to continue those procedures. Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of the impact that would have not just on patients but on the staff who would have to remain?
The approach we are taking is different from that taken during previous periods of strike action. NHS leaders have made it clear to me that those earlier strikes caused much wider harm than had previously been realised. There is no reason why planned care—appointments relating to cancer, for example, as well as other conditions—should be treated as being less important than, or playing second fiddle to, other NHS services. That is why the chief executive of NHS England has written to NHS leaders asking them to keep routine operations going to the fullest extent possible, as well as continuing priority treatments. It will be for local leaders to determine what is possible given staffing levels, which is why it is so important for resident doctors to engage with their employers about their determination—or not—to turn up at work this week, and why I must again spell out the serious consequences for patients should these avoidable and unnecessary strikes go ahead.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Healthcare assistants at Blackpool teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust have been underpaid on the wrong band for years, but the trust has consistently failed to put that right, and as a result staff have been left with no choice but to be balloted for strike action by Unison from today. Healthcare assistants play a vital role in our NHS, but is it any wonder that they often feel undervalued and demoralised when they are not paid the correct rate for the duties that they undertake? Does the Secretary of State agree that Blackpool’s healthcare assistants are worth just as much as those in the rest of the north-west and that the trust should pay up now?
I should declare that I am a member of Unison. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a serious one. We obviously do not want to see strike action impacting on her local constituents, and my Department will do everything we can to help bring an end to the dispute.
I will make a more general point: these sorts of choices and trade-offs about resources are precisely why the BMA resident doctors, having received a 28.9% pay rise from this Government in the last year, ought to remember the responsibility that I and they have to some of their lower-paid colleagues. Resources are finite, and it is important that I act in the interests of all NHS staff and have particular concern for those who work extremely hard but are not properly rewarded.
The resident doctors’ strike is unnecessary, irresponsible and wrong. Recently, and again today from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State has been resolute in not giving in to the BMA resident doctors committee’s demands. Although I do not know the details of the current status of his discussions with the committee, may I encourage him to remain firm in his stance and, while being fair to doctors, to always ensure that he puts the interests of patients and taxpayers first?
Once again, the House is speaking with one voice, and I hope that the BMA understands the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about the unnecessary and irresponsible nature of the proposed strike action this week. Discussions in recent days have been constructive, and I hope that gives grounds for the postponement of strike action so that we can work together to avert it—not just this week, but altogether.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Under this Government, waiting lists have fallen by more than a quarter of a million in our first year, but strike action puts that hard-won progress at risk. If strikes do go ahead, we will do everything we can to minimise the disruption to patients, who will bear the brunt of cancellations. We continue to work with the BMA resident doctors committee in the hope that its members will do the right thing and call off the strikes. None the less, if they go ahead, we stand ready, responsive and resolute.
Lewis Atkinson
There were 5,448 drug-related deaths in 2023—the highest figure ever—and an 84% increase from the number that led the previous Government to publish their drugs strategy, which was supposed to save lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that the existing drugs strategy is not fit for purpose, and will he urgently start work on replacing it with a public health-led drugs strategy to tackle this public health emergency?
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The number of drug-related deaths remains far too high, and we are committed to saving lives through access to high-quality treatment. For 2025-26, my Department is providing £310 million in addition to the public health grant to deliver the recommendations from Dame Carol Black’s independent review, but there is much more to do. We look forward to working with my hon. Friend to achieve success.
Dementia is one of the greatest health challenges that we as a society face today and in the future, but too many people with dementia end up in hospital, rather than being treated in more appropriate community settings. The 10-year NHS plan offers a real opportunity to shift care into the community and away from acute settings, including for dementia. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with Dementia UK, the Alzheimer’s Society and other fantastic charities as he develops the implementation of his 10-year NHS plan to ensure that it truly delivers for people with dementia and those who care for them?
I absolutely agree with what the shadow Secretary of State has said. All three shifts—from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention—ought to benefit people with Alzheimer’s, dementias and other neurological conditions, as will the pioneering science that we need in this country, which I know he is so passionate about.
Maintaining the focus on local communities, the fantastic St Mary’s birth centre in Melton Mowbray, in my constituency, has recently been temporarily closed by the local NHS trust for six months due to staff shortages. Although I appreciate that the Secretary of State does not have powers over such temporary closures and that local NHS leaders have engaged constructively, many local people fear that “temporary” could risk becoming permanent. If that risk looks like becoming a reality by the end of the summer, will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers pre-emptively agree to meet me at that point to discuss it?
Mr Speaker, if I may briefly crave your indulgence at what is my last Dispatch Box appearance for the foreseeable future, may I take the opportunity—after seven years, almost continuously, on the Front Bench in government and in opposition—to thank you, to say that it has been a privilege, and to tell the Secretary of State that it has been a pleasure to shadow him? I think he knows it, but I genuinely wish him well.
I absolutely give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I would be happy to meet him about his constituency issue, or indeed anything else. For all of the exchanges that we have across these Dispatch Boxes on issues of disagreement, what is not always readily understood beyond this House is the extent to which those on both sides work extremely constructively together, on the enormous number of issues that we have in common, in pursuit of the national interest. The virtues of wisdom, kindness and selfless dedication to public service are not the preserve of one side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has those qualities in abundance, and we wish him very well, personally and professionally.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I deplore Israel’s attacks on healthcare workers, as well as those on innocent civilians trying to access healthcare or vital aid. These actions go well beyond legitimate self-defence and undermine the prospects for peace. I will be in touch with the World Health Organisation to offer my support following the intolerable incident yesterday. I sincerely hope that the international community can come together, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been driving for, to ensure that we see an end to this war, but also the recognition of the state of Palestine while there is still a state of Palestine left to recognise.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Carers across the country have launched a protest from home today, with the Carers Trust. Their faces are projected on screens around Parliament Square because they are unable to leave their loved ones to protest in person. The Government’s pledge for the carer’s allowance review to report by early summer looks set to be broken. Can the Secretary of State today commit to ending the cliff edge for carer’s allowance and to introducing a statutory guarantee for respite care so that carers know that he is listening?
I thank the hon. Member for her question, and for making everyone aware of the powerful protest taking place today, which so visibly reminds us that lots of people’s voices may not be heard if they cannot participate in person. It is a reminder of the challenges that people face. I will undertake to raise her concerns with my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary, and I give carers across the country the assurance that we are working as fast as we can. Having delivered the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s, we want to ensure we deliver for this extremely important group of people, whom we are lucky to have in our society.
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. It was appalling that the previous Government not only cancelled lots of the deprivation-linked funding put in place by the Labour Government but threw all that progress into reverse. That is not the approach that this Government will take. We will have funding based on need, not pork barrel politics. I can assure my hon. Friend that his constituents in Stoke-on-Trent will benefit from our sincere commitment to tackling health inequalities.
I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are looking right across NHS estates to make sure we are making best use of them, particularly in the context of neighbourhood health. I have heard the case he has made about how neighbourhood health services could be provided on that site. I hope commissioners have heard the case, but if not I will make sure that they do and that he gets the relevant meetings he needs.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
When this Labour Government came to office, we promised 2 million more appointments, but we have actually delivered 4.5 million. We have cut NHS waiting lists month after month, and they are now at their lowest level in two years. Of course there is more to do. I regret that we had to delay Watford general hospital; the previous Government left a plan that was not credible and had no available funding. We are cleaning up their mess, and the hon. Member has a cheek to complain about it.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The report, “Barriers for adults with Cerebral Palsy on achieving full life participation”, published by the former all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy, highlighted the cliff-edge in support for those with cerebral palsy when they transition at the age of 18 and the need to end the separation of neuro and musculoskeletal knowledge within the NHS, given that cerebral palsy is a neuromusculoskeletal condition, and that those living with it need easy and ready access to both areas. I would therefore be grateful if I could understand—
Brierley Park medical centre applied for funding from the primary care utilisation and modernisation fund earlier this year. It has been successful, but it has not yet had the money, and the money must be spent by the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State please tell my medical centre when it will receive this vital funding?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the timeliness of decision making and the need to release funding when it is allocated. I shall make sure that my Department looks into that, and write to him with an answer.
I commend my right hon. Friend for his work on reducing waiting lists, but at the Homerton in Hackney, because of a system-wide funding failure, deficit reduction money was removed three months into a 12-month agreement, which reduced the opportunity to drive down waiting lists still further. Will he or one of his colleagues meet me to discuss this issue and see what we can do to drive down those waiting lists?
We are taking action to deal with the over-running of budgets and the reckless spending across the NHS and to bring deficits under control, but I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Spelthorne residents Emma and John lost Holly to cancer in October last year. They set up the charity Holly’s Heroes in her name. Before she died, Holly was given a wheelchair by the NHS, and Emma and John cannot now give it back to the NHS for love nor money. I have raised this with the chief executive of the trust, but can the Secretary of State reassure me that this practice is not replicated nationwide?
We absolutely need to look at reducing waste in the NHS, so I would be delighted to pick up that case. Can I also say an enormous thank you to Holly’s family for the work they are doing in such unimaginable circumstances? I really admire people who put themselves forward to serve others in that way after such a painful experience.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Last Friday I brought together GPs, housing developers, the local authority, the ICB, and anyone else you care to name, to try finally to solve the issue of our having one of the most under-doctored areas in the country for primary care. Among the many issues raised was a particularly niche one: thanks to NHS Property Services demanding a late payment from a couple of GP surgeries, which were unaware that they were due to pay this rent, those surgeries now face the possibility of having to pay a bill that equates to the cost of one GP’s salary for a year. That cannot be right.
I would be delighted to look at the issue that my hon. Friend raises. I am only sorry that I missed the party last week.
Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board is having to make savings of £142 million this year, and the backdrop to that is a loss of wards at Barrow, Lancaster and Kendal. We hear a lot about additional money for the NHS. Why is none of it coming to Cumbria?
It is not the case that none of the money is going to Cumbria. We are taking action to deal with the persistent overrunning and over-spending of NHS budgets, which was an intolerable situation that we had to get a grip on. We are investing £26 billion more in the NHS, and that will rise over the course of this Parliament. We will make sure that every part of the country gets its fair share, not least through the deprivation-linked funding that I mentioned. I know that it is bumpy for ICBs as we get them back to balance, but believe me it will be worth it in the end when we have a sustainable NHS that is fit for the future.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
In 2020, a consultation was carried out to give prescribing rights to operating department practitioners, but despite positive discussions with the Department we are no further forwards and OPDs and allied health professionals are being held back. Does the Secretary of State agree that expanding their roles within scope of practice will improve efficiency, patient care and professional development?
We are keen to address these sorts of issues through our workforce planning and to ensure that staff are working to the top of their licensing capability, always within the training provided. That way we can get the best possible value for taxpayer money and, most importantly of all, the best outcomes for patients.
Does the Secretary of State agree with me about the importance of step-down provision, provided by community hospitals such as Petersfield and Alton, both for patient care and for relieving pressure on acute hospitals, such as Queen Alexandra and Basingstoke?
Yes, and that is why we are reforming the better care fund.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Key to the shift to prevention is making sure that people can stay in their own homes or get home from hospital. The Health and Social Care Committee found that such provision costs the NHS £1.9 billion every year. Can the Secretary of State update me on what we are doing to get the social care system working?
Thanks to the decision that the Chancellor has taken, spending power in social care is rising—not just through Department funding but in the spending power of local authorities. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have to get the right care in the right place at the right time. That often means better care for patients and better value for taxpayers.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
At midnight, The Times published an article on the ME final delivery plan, carrying quotes from three ME campaign groups. The charity Action for ME published a five-page briefing at the same time, and “BBC Breakfast” also featured the plan, so they had all read the plan. I checked with the relevant officers and went to the House of Commons Library about half an hour ago, and no plan has been published. More than 12 hours after the Department’s press release, no MP can access the plan. Is this how it should be?
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsI would like to update the House of an important issue affecting the NHS’s provision of vaccinations.
An issue has been identified in the use of Accurx batch messaging, a system that allows GP practices to send the same message to a group of patients, via email, NHS app or SMS. In some cases, when invitations have been sent to patients inviting them to receive a vaccination, the code for a completed vaccination was selected on the system, rather than the code for an invitation. This did not affect patients being invited to receive a vaccination, but their record on the GP practice system was updated to say, incorrectly, that they had received a vaccination.
This has affected around 57,000 records across 337 GP practices. Our investigation suggests that this has primarily affected records in relation to vaccinations for the respiratory syncytial virus vaccination—a maximum of 2% of vaccines administered—but also some other vaccinations. For anyone to miss the opportunity to be invited to receive a necessary vaccination is extremely regrettable, and we are taking steps to resolve this. There is currently no evidence that anyone has been harmed as a result. Not everyone whose record has been affected will have missed out on a vaccination, as an initial vaccination invitation will have been sent out and a direct invitation is not the only route to securing a vaccination. We would strongly encourage anyone eligible to come forward for their vaccinations when invited, to get vital protection.
Accurx has amended its clinical coding to prevent this happening again. GP practices affected will review patient records, to make sure that anyone due a vaccination who has not received one is offered one as soon as possible, and that records are accurate and up to date. On average, an affected GP practice will have to review less than 200 cases and NHS England and integrated care boards will support them in this process. A detailed root cause analysis will be carried out to ensure that we learn from this and avoid similar issues in the future.
[HCWS850]
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsI am today confirming that the Government will proceed with the construction of a new, state-of-the-art health security campus—including new high containment laboratory facilities—in Harlow, Essex. This site will replace the UK Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) existing facilities in Colindale and Porton Down and will form part of the Government’s network of national biosecurity centres as announced in the national security strategy. This decision reflects the hard work and extensive campaigning by the hon. Member for Harlow and is a vote of confidence in Harlow’s potential.
This facility represents the most significant investment of its kind in a generation. The programme is a multi-billion-pound investment, with £250 million to be spent over this Parliament to kickstart delivery of the new facility. It will consolidate, into a single purpose-built site, the critical high-containment laboratory functions as well as the existing research and diagnostic functions of our existing facilities in one location and will also serve as UKHSA’s corporate headquarters.
The new Harlow site will strengthen the UK’s pandemic preparedness, reinforce national security, and provide world-leading capability to detect, assess and respond to health hazards.
In addition to the public health benefits, this development will support economic growth and create an estimated 1,600 additional high-skilled jobs. It will enable closer collaboration between leading scientists and the life sciences sector. The Harlow site offers strategic opportunities for new partnerships and scientific innovation and will further enhance the Oxford–Cambridge corridor as a major engine of national prosperity.
UKHSA will finalise the design of the Harlow site before construction begins, with phased occupation of the facility starting in the mid-2030s. The site will be fully operational by 2038. A period of dual running with existing sites will ensure a safe and effective transition of operations. UKHSA will maintain operations at Colindale and Porton Down until Harlow is fully validated and operational.
This decision will affect approximately 1,650 UKHSA staff across the Colindale and Porton Down sites and staff at its headquarters in Canary Wharf. UKHSA will work closely with affected staff throughout the transition period, recognising the unique and vital expertise of its workforce.
The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) site at Porton Down is not affected by this decision and will remain in operation on its existing site.
[HCWS843]
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsIn November 2024, I asked Professor Gillian Leng CBE to undertake an independent review of physician associates and anaesthesia associates in England, and to set out recommendations to ensure the safety of the roles and their contributions to multidisciplinary healthcare teams.
Today I want to update the House on next steps following the publication of the review.
Professor Leng sets out 18 recommendations that will give much-needed clarity, certainty and confidence to staff and patients. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full.
The overarching recommendations include: renaming the role of “physician associate” to “physician assistant” and “anaesthesia associate” to “physician assistant in anaesthesia” to reflect their position as a supportive, complementary member of the medical team; providing ongoing opportunities for training and career development; making it easier for others to identify these roles; establishing permanent faculties to provide professional leadership and set clear professional standards; greater clarity in the differences between the regulatory requirements of doctors and assistant roles; training in line management and leadership for doctors, with additional time allocated; redesigning models of multidisciplinary working; and improvements in safety reporting.
For physician assistants specifically, Professor Leng has recommended that their initial practice is clearly defined in line with job descriptions; they do not see undifferentiated patients (except within clear national clinical protocols); that newly qualified physician assistants should gain at least two years’ experience in secondary care, to enhance clinical skills, prior to taking a role in primary care or a mental health trust; and that they should form part of a clear team structure and have a named supervisor.
For physician assistants in anaesthesia, the review recommends full compliance with the existing Royal College of Anaesthetists scope of practice; that any further expansion of the role should be taken forward in conjunction with the Royal College of Anaesthetists; and that there should be an ongoing national audit of safety outcomes in anaesthesia, to gain assurance around the safety of the physician assistants in anaesthesia role.
Implementing the recommendations will require organisations to work together and take action. Some actions will be implemented immediately, while others will require wider input, with benefits being fully realised over time. I have asked NHS England to move with immediate effect to implement those recommendations which most directly affect patient safety, including moving to the use of physician assistants and physician assistants in anaesthesia titles and ensuring that physician assistants do not see undifferentiated patients, except within clearly defined national clinical protocols.
The NHS is its people, and physician assistants and physician assistants in anaesthesia can play a vital role in the delivery of the shifts set out in the 10-year health plan for England. The findings in this report demonstrate that, when integrated appropriately, physician assistants can improve access, enhance capacity, and provide continuity of care, while physician assistants in anaesthesia can help expand theatre capacity and flexibility in anaesthesia services.
However, the review is clear that change is needed. It sets out the fundamental issues that need to be tackled to effectively and consistently embed change into the NHS workforce. These recommendations provide a practical way forward on title, ongoing development and practice that we can all have confidence in.
I would like to express my immense gratitude to Professor Leng and her team for their effort and dedication in carrying out this considered, complex and comprehensive review. I also want to extend my thanks to all those who have engaged constructively with the review, including those resident doctors who have respectfully raised concerns, and physician assistants and physician assistants in anaesthesia who make valuable contributions across the NHS and have been subject to intense scrutiny.
We will consider Professor Leng’s findings and recommendation in detail in conjunction with the 10-year health plan. The lessons learned in the review will be embedded into the upcoming workforce plan to improve how we effect change in the NHS, and ensure the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future. We will work with key partners, including NHS England in advance of publishing a fuller response, setting out a clear implementation plan to make the required changes in due course.
[HCWS830]
(7 months ago)
Written StatementsToday, the independent inquiry into the issues raised by the actions of David Fuller has published its phase 2 and final report. It focuses on whether procedures and practices in hospital and non-hospital settings sufficiently safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased and would prevent a recurrence of the issues identified by the inquiry, as well as considering the role of regulation.
I wish to pass my thanks on to any individual or organisation who has provided evidence to this important independent inquiry. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims and assure them that we are committed to learning from these events.
In 2023, the independent inquiry, chaired by Sir Jonathan Michael, published its phase 1 report, which set out how Fuller was able to commit such shocking crimes, undetected for so long at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS trust. The trust set out its progress implementing all the inquiry s recommendations via an assurance statement in February 2024.
A phase 2 interim report was published in October 2024. The inquiry’s chair expedited the inquiry’s work on the funeral sector in light of reports of cases of neglect. The interim report presented preliminary findings and recommendations on the funeral sector in England. The Government committed to responding to these recommendations as part of the final phase two Government response.
The overall conclusion of today’s final report is that current arrangements for the care of people after death are partial, ineffective and in some areas completely lacking. The overarching recommendation for Government is that there should be statutory regulation to protect the security and dignity of people after death, regardless of the setting or institution.
Today’s report makes 75 detailed recommendations in total, including 19 for trusts and 25 for local authorities focusing on access, dignity, security, and wider processes and procedures to protect deceased individuals. A smaller number of recommendations—31—focus on independent hospitals, medical education, hospices, ambulance services, care homes, the funeral sector and faith organisations, making specific recommendations to improve the care of the deceased. This includes recommendations for the UK Government to establish an independent statutory regulatory regime for the funeral sector.
Every deceased individual deserves to receive the highest standard of care and dignity. The Government will work to ensure this is the case, across all settings, be that in the NHS or other settings including local authority mortuaries, hospices, ambulance services, care homes, funeral homes, and faith organisations.
The Government recognise the urgency of the concerns raised by the inquiry’s recommendations and will respond at pace. This will include an interim update on progress this year and a final response by summer 2026.
[HCWS824]