Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 21, 103, 104 and 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). As other Members have said, this is a deeply consequential Bill. I want to record my thanks to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), to all members of the Bill Committee, and to all those who have contributed to its careful scrutiny through the tabling of amendments and debates over them.

The Bill is about the end of life. It is an emotive and sometimes painful topic, and I am grateful to the many constituents who have generously shared with me their experiences and opinions. I have also taken some time to consult palliative care practitioners, including those providing hospice care in my constituency. Those conversations reinforced the awe and admiration I hold for these caring professionals. Their expertise and deep commitment are always impressive. Contrary to the points made by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), they are adamant that they can provide sufficient pain relief to the vast majority of those receiving end-of-life care. The issue is about not the efficacy of treatment, but access to it. In this, I echo the powerful points of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on the present inequality of access to palliative care.

Amendment 21 would ensure that the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care is published within one year of the Act being passed. When assessing the provision of end-of-life care, it is critical that this House and the public can see how palliative care is being delivered. For the measures in the Bill to provide a genuine choice to those at end of life, palliative care must be much more widely available.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) argues that there should be no false choice between palliative care and assisted dying, yet she and health Ministers know that there is a choice as resources are limited. When so many hospices have closed beds due to funding shortages and receive more than 70% of their funding from donations, I am concerned that we may see significant expenditures on a new regime for assisted dying, funded by the state as a health treatment, while the palliative care sector and hospices in particular remain chronically underfunded.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Calum Miller]

I will not give way.

Only by having the assessment of the palliative care system that is proposed in amendment 21 can we be confident of knowing whether access to palliative care is sufficient. If we are to provide a true choice at end of life, that is critical.

I also stand in support of amendments 103, 104 and 42. Amendments 103 and 104 would give this House a say over the key decisions that still remain to be taken on the implementation of the Bill. Given the significance of the Bill and the importance of the many questions still to be resolved, these amendments are critical.

Amendment 42 would ensure that we do not career towards the enactment of this Bill in four years whether or not the system is ready to operate safely and fairly. Taken together with amendments 21, 103 and 104, this would ensure that this House has the chance to consider whether those at end of life can access the full range of support, advice and protections intended by the Bill, and which they deserve from palliative care services across the country.

Like so many in this House, I have direct personal experience of the issues addressed by the Bill. My father was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in May 2002. Over seven weeks, he and my family benefited from the incredible care of our local hospice. Sharing my dad’s life, care and death has shaped me, so I fully understand why so many of my constituents have asked me to vote on this legislation in the light of their and their loved ones’ experience.

Yet our task is to legislate for a new system that will affect thousands of people and society as a whole. However this House votes on this Bill, our debates must result in a new focus on the provision of palliative care, so that all people at end of life truly have options in the management of their care and death.

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point on primary care, which sees 90% of contacts with the NHS and is where most people experience the NHS. That is why it is very much in our sights to support that work. As part of our 10-year plan, we will bring forward the neighbourhood health service to make sure that people can be seen more locally. That will be built around using primary and community care to best effect. He makes a point about funding formulas. We had a long debate about that yesterday in Westminster Hall, and it is an area of huge controversy. He will see over the coming weeks how the funding is allocated. NHS England did issue—if he has not seen it, I will make sure that he has access to it—guidance on the funding formula and where the different systems are in relation to that. We want to move everybody towards that target, and I am happy to discuss that with him once he has had a look.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

This Government have made phenomenal progress on the elective care waiting lists left by the last Government, but the progress on mental health waiting lists has been stubbornly slow, with 1.2 million people still waiting for treatment. That includes 62,000 people covered by the West Yorkshire ICB that serves my Calder Valley constituency, which I think is the second-highest figure in the country. Can my hon. Friend please assure me that we will use this settlement to redouble the work we have done on elective waiting lists, while also putting a real focus on mental health waiting lists?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on mental health, which is of great concern to all Members. He is right that elective care and mental health are measured in different ways, but we are committed to supporting mental health services with 8,500 extra staff. We are making sure in particular that young people in schools are supported. We know that the situation has been terrible for young people in our country, and we will continue to provide that relentless focus.

NHS and Care Volunteer Responders Service

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for her work volunteering and supporting the scheme during covid. The announcement is about NHS England. The organisation will continue to work with the NHS and voluntary organisations to ensure that where people are volunteering, that will continue, and that volunteers continue to be recruited, ahead of a fuller launch of the recruitment portal later this year. On her wider point, this Government are not dropping talks with other parties about social care, which is being taken forward by the independent commission under Louise Casey.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to all the volunteers across Calder Valley and the rest of the country who helped with the fantastic vaccine roll-out. Will the Minister confirm that despite scaremongering from the Conservatives, people will of course still be able to volunteer for the NHS and support others?

[Karin Smyth]

This is a good opportunity, which I very much welcome, to highlight again how important volunteering is to the NHS and the care system. It will remain an important part of our plans going forward that. People may have had an email and thought that something is stopping and that there is not more to do, but they should ensure that they press that button and register for upcoming opportunities and are in contact with their local NHS systems. As I said, volunteering is done locally, and it is important that we support those local systems and encourage more and more people to come forward to undertake this important work.

Hospitals

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan]

It is important to recognise that the additional investment in the NHS amounts to about £10 billion a year—according to Office for Budget Responsibility numbers, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has looked at—because of the cost of national insurance hikes and of compensating other public sector employers for those hikes. The £22 billion figure is somewhat misleading. The point that we are making is that it is a false economy to keep those buildings going, to keep repairing a crumbling estate, to keep patching up and putting a sticking plaster on those problems. Those buildings need to be demolished and rebuilt, so that approach is a false economy. It would be much better to build new buildings up front and save on future repair costs. We need to ensure that no one is treated in broken, uncomfortable and unsafe facilities. Repairing and replacing crumbling, substandard hospitals is not only vital for delivering better care and treating-more patients, but crucial for rebuilding the economy after years of Conservative economic vandalism.

How much would all this cost? In my county of Shropshire, the cost of the maintenance backlog across all sites has reached about £75 million. I am sure that everyone here would agree that £75 million is a lot of money—indeed, it is so much that it is the total amount of Government capital investment for hospices this year—but in terms of hospital maintenance it is a drop in the ocean. Torbay hospital needs more than £50 million to clear the backlog, Watford hospital has a backlog of £63 million, and Hull royal infirmary requires an eye-watering £70 million. Across England, the figure is a colossal £13.8 billion—and that is just to bring our existing hospital estate to the minimum standard.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is right that a huge amount of money needs to be spent. A lot of that goes back to the fact that, as Lord Darzi tells us, £37 billion less was spent on hospital buildings in the 2010s than was necessary. Will she remind me who was in government for the for half of the 2010s?

[Helen Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, when one comes into government and has to clean up the mess left behind by the previous Government, one has to make difficult choices. It is the job of the Opposition to point out where they would make those choices or take different options. We would invest to save money in the long run, rather than fritter money away on a repair bill for buildings that need to be demolished. It is not sensible to pour good money after bad when the right thing to do is invest in a new fit-for-purpose and modern estate that does not have endless and extortionate maintenance requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Today’s debate is a welcome chance to talk about the challenges of our health service. The Darzi report was a stark demonstration of the state in which the health service was left by the last Government. I know that part of the game today is for our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches to say, slightly deceitfully, “Oh, the Labour MPs are supporting the delay.”, but Members across the House will know, if we are honest with ourselves, that we cannot delay something that was not going to happen.

What of our inheritance? It stretched far further than just the buildings; it included the staff and the patients in them, weakened by austerity and decimated by covid. Lord Darzi talked about £37 billion of under-investment in our hospital buildings in the 2010s. On top of that, what else did we inherit?

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my real discomfort at the gall of the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) in suggesting that somehow this Government are making the same mistakes that the Conservative Government made, when it was in the 2010s—under a coalition Government—that the rot started, with the Liberal Democrats?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I think if the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) were to reflect on what he said, he would know that these things always go a lot deeper.

What have we inherited? We inherited 14,000 unnecessary deaths in A&E alone each year. NHS waiting lists peaked at 7.7 million. That is people waiting anxiously, needing treatment, tumours growing, their bodies getting further from being well, and every day 2,000 people were being sent to hospital who did not need to be there, because social care had been failed and forgotten by the previous Government and by the coalition Government. In my constituency, that means 20% of beds in our hospitals are taken up by people who do not need to be there.

We have work to do, and I am concerned that in this debate we will get caught up in a discussion about hospitals and will not fix the systems within them that we need to fix. That is why we have talked about three shifts. The first is from hospital to community. We have to stop people needing hospital care because they have been failed by care closer to home. That is why our revolution in GPs will make a real difference. The second is the shift from fitness to prevention. We can have the best buildings, but with less prevention they will still be full. Finally, there is the shift from analogue to digital; every week, the Health and Social Care Committee hears about people caught between systems and between computer systems.

Although I welcome this debate, we must not fetishise buildings over people. We need to think holistically about our system and deliver the decade of national renewal that the public voted for. We need to look at all of our health service, across parties and in good faith.

NHS Pensions

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee makes a good point, as she so often does, about what went on previously. This is an issue from the McCloud judgment that runs across many Departments. It was a problem under previous Governments, starting with the coalition Government. I know that the Public Accounts Committee, on which I served, and the Treasury Committee have looked at the matter over time. The Department will certainly co-operate with any inquiry and investigate what happened across Government. I am happy to get back to the hon. Lady on that point.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

This issue appears to be yet another example of the hangover left by the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that part of getting the NHS back on its feet includes cleaning up this mess and cutting waiting lists, which have already dropped for five months in a row?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. As I have said, Lord Darzi has helpfully outlined the breadth of the mess that we inherited back in July, and it makes for stark reading. We have still not had an apology from the Conservative party, so I am happy to take an intervention now if anybody decides to provide one. In these issues, we are seeing the depth of the destruction that the Conservatives have caused widely across Government. We will continue to fix that on behalf of the British people.

Rare Cancers Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak about a Bill that will increase research funding focused on more effective treatments for rarer forms of cancer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for introducing the Bill.

Like many in this House, I rise today because I have lost a family member to a rare cancer, and I also rise as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. In the last Parliament, the Committee conducted a Future Cancer inquiry, which recommended that

“the UK should be leading on driving up international action to tackle the poor outcomes for the least survivable and least common cancers. “

This Bill will do that—but, as I say, my reason for speaking in this debate is much more personal. On 20 January this year, my brother Alex English passed away from high-grade acinic cell carcinoma, a form of salivary gland cancer. I tell his story to highlight what we can win, because this Bill can give families the gift of more time with the special people they love.

Increasingly, more common cancers are treatable or are illnesses that people can live with, but on rare cancers we still have a way to go, and without focus we will not get any further. There are more than 700 diagnoses of various forms of salivary gland cancer each year, but my search for related terms in Hansard finds only two mentions in this Chamber in the past 30 years—my hon. Friend has just made the third. One of those mentions was from me, following my brother’s death. That is why we need more focus.

In evidence to that Select Committee inquiry, Cancer52 noted that, while they represent 47% of diagnoses of less common cancers, rare cancers account for 55% of deaths. Members across this House have our own cancer journeys—ourselves, our friends or our loved ones—and I want to talk about my brother’s journey. Not all cancer journeys have the outcome that we want, and even with this Bill we will still lose some people, but more investment into research for rare cancers can give us something crucial: time. I would do anything for more time with my brother.

If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk for a minute about the person who Alex was.  The most important thing about Alex was not how he died; it was how he lived and the mark he left on the world. He fit a lot into 53 years. A lot of us think that our elder siblings are rock stars, but in my brother’s case that was literally true. The band he joined at university, called Pure, toured with bands like Soundgarden and reached the top 10 in Japan.

I have always been tremendously proud to call him my brother. I was proud of the horse-drawn narrowboat company he ran in Hebden Bridge, which forms part of many people’s happy childhood memories, and of his subsequent time at the National Trust, where he helped properties to become profitable, worked to restore nature and worked with local authorities. His last major project was creating woodlands near Lunt, in Liverpool. But most of all, I was proud of the person he was. He was always funny—he had a surreal wit. He was unfailingly kind and the sort of non-toxic model of masculinity that the world needs more of. I remember the humour and love in the best man’s speech he gave for me, and I will never not be sorry that I have written eulogies for my brother but never a best man’s speech.

While preparing for Christmas in 2023, I got a call from Alex and he asked if I had a minute to talk, which was unlike him, because he would not generally be over-serious. He said he had a lump on the side of his face that was, in his words, unsightly but not overly concerning. It might have been cancer, but there are a number of other things that it could have been, and if it was cancer, it was likely to be a very treatable form. He instructed me to be aware of it but not make a big deal of it, because, typically, he did not want to worry our mum. Later, it transpired that it was acinic cell carcinoma, but the prognosis was good and they were going to operate. The cancer continued to grow. His operation took 14 hours. The thing about Alex’s tumour is that the version of the illness he had was high grade, which meant that it mutated faster. It is something that has only been identified in about 100 cases, and which no doubt could have been identified earlier had we known more about cancers like his.

Last spring, in my mum’s garden, during a hushed conversation with a different family member to the side, they told me that Alex might only have 18 months to live. I hugged my two-year-old son, who was playing in the garden unaware, because I was trying not to make a big deal of it—but sometimes you need to hug someone. Every update got worse, until I took a day off during the election campaign to visit him at the Christie hospital because his lung had collapsed.

Then, because it is never a straight line, his health improved. He got to sit up there in the Gallery to watch my maiden speech in Parliament. We went to a Pixies concert together at the Piece Hall in Halifax. Then he got worse, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on Christmas Eve last year he was hospitalised again. When he returned home, we knew he was coming home to die. I cannot say enough about his wonderful friends, particularly Matt and Sarah, and my incredible family, who cared for him at the end. All of us would have spent more time at his bedside if we could, because time with people you love is a privilege.

That is what this Bill is about: giving people more time with those they love, perhaps even a full lifetime together. In cases where the cancer is worse and it cannot be treated or cured, it is about giving people more time, better health and an understanding of the journey that they are on. It is about giving people more special moments, be it a Pixies concert or reading a story to a child—Alex read the best stories—and time to organise what you leave behind. People who develop cancers that are rare still matter, and they still deserve more time. The work to help people like Alex in the future must start today.

The Government have a renewed emphasis on tackling rare cancers, in memory of the sister of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and of Tessa Jowell, and for countless other campaigners, including those in the Gallery. What we need is focus and determination to respond quickly. I thank the House for indulging me today. Let us be that world leader that is so desperately needed in tackling rare cancers. Let us give families special time with those they love the most. Let us pass this Bill.

NHS England Update

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful question. Let me say two things to him. First, democratic accountability matters, both in terms of patient outcomes and value for taxpayers’ money. One of the things that I, my Labour and many of my Conservative predecessors have reflected on a lot over many years is what the role of the Secretary of State, and Government, is in a national health service where clinical decisions should always be clinically led. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to be the champion for patients and for taxpayers and to ensure that the system as a whole delivers better outcomes for patients and better value for taxpayers.

The argument that I have started, however, which has ruffled some feathers within the NHS and even more so with some of our country’s most loved charities in recent months, is the fallacy that the Secretary of State can or should just fire endless instructions into the system, as if a Secretary of State or, for that matter, an NHS England could just pull some big levers and drive change in such a vast and complex system. That is a falsehood. Of course, we should set national strategic priorities on behalf of the public. We should ensure that there is more transparency and information so that patients, communities and staff can hold the system and themselves to account to improve performance. However, the overcentralisation has to stop.

In future, it will be for the Department and the NHS nationally to do the things that only the national health service can do, providing the enablers for the system as a whole. What we are presiding over and embarking on, however, is the biggest decentralisation of power in the history of our national health service. That will put more power into the hands of frontline leaders and clinicians, but even more fundamental and transformational, more power into the hands of patients. If we get that right, we will have an NHS that can truly be the envy of the world. If people continue to indulge in the fallacy that more targets from the centre or more—or indeed, less—political control is the answer, we will fail.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the CQC. It has got itself into a terrible mess and I know that that is not what he intended when he rightly made the decision to create the Care Quality Commission. That is why Sir Julian Hartley knows that he has our full support, not just in turning around the CQC as it is, but in reforming it so that it can be the best guarantee and safeguard of quality that patients and the public deserve. Dr Penny Dash’s forthcoming review findings will also help to drive that reform agenda at pace.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for making the statement today. I want to echo the thoughts of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that it would be helpful to see him in front of the Select Committee to outline his vision for NHS England. Will he tell us today how the new structure of the NHS will help us deliver truly excellent social care and also primary care, and what drivers he can use to make that happen?

[Wes Streeting]

It always worries me when my hon. Friend says he wants to see me in front of the Select Committee because he does not pull his punches, despite being on the Government side of the House. Let me reassure him that on primary care, I hope that we are beginning to turn what I think has been a deep anger, frustration and anxiety among primary care leaders about the state of the system as it is and a pessimism about its future into increasing amounts of quiet optimism and hope. I think GPs can see we are walking the talk, with the biggest funding uplift in a generation and the fact that we have worked constructively with GP leaders to reform the contract and agree that further, more radical reform is needed together. We will be embarking on that under the auspices of the 10-year plan. As well as delivering that significant achievement with GPs, the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), is also in the very final stages of work with pharmacists to stabilise the community pharmacy sector, which is vital for the NHS’s future as a neighbourhood service.

May I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) that under the auspices of the 10-year plan for health, notwithstanding Baroness Casey’s work on the long-term future of social care, we have an eye on social care and the relationship between health and social care? People will not, therefore, be waiting until next year for the first Casey report or, indeed, later for the final Casey report on the longer term to see action from this Government on social care, particularly as it relates to the NHS.

Department of Health and Social Care

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be called to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we talk about the NHS, we can argue either about specific investments or about general principles, and like many colleagues, I have received a great amount of correspondence highlighting no end of specific areas where investment is needed. I could also speak about the need to invest in urgent treatment centres in Todmorden, or to celebrate the work of Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust—two things that I continue to raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. However, as I have the privilege, along with others, of sitting on the Health and Social Care Committee, I want to talk in more broad terms about some of the problems facing our health and social care system, and about how the proposed shifts in the NHS need a reprioritisation of resources.

I will focus on what I argue is the most important of those shifts—the so-called left shift of care from hospitals to the community. The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) outlined the need for that well—even if to hear him speak one might think that it had come from on high, and not as the result of 15 years of the previous Government. One in 10 people are stuck on waiting lists in a healthcare system that is becoming increasingly hospital-centric, and those lists will only grow if we continue on the same course. There is no solution to our crisis in emergency medicine without the left shift of solving problems earlier and closer to home.

Of course we need hospitals and to invest in them, but they should be where people go with acute and complex cases, not where they go for want of working services elsewhere. Despite the need to shift to community care being obvious to just about everyone, one of the most glaring revelations of the Darzi report was how poorly successive Governments have gone about achieving that. Meanwhile, we are not training or retaining enough GPs—that is where the renegotiation of the contracts is important.

In Calder Valley, the retention crisis has meant that Bankfield and Church Lane surgeries, Northolme practice, and Rastrick health centre all have a ratio of patients to fully qualified GPs that is far higher than the local, regional and national averages—averages that simply do not meet what is needed from our health service. More than a decade after the Dilnot report, social care remains the forgotten service—the Cinderella service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) artfully called it. With 1.4 million social care staff, our care system is the same size as the NHS workforce, but it receives nothing like the support or understanding of other areas of our health system. The consequence is that our Committee, week after week, hears about delayed discharge, with 20% of beds in my local hospital taken up by people who should be treated at home or closer to home. Meanwhile, carers are missing their appointments because they are delivering care to loved ones, and they end up with worse illnesses, adding to the strain on the NHS.

In less than a year, this Government have ended the industrial action in our NHS and delivered 2 million additional appointments, and they are now setting up a new deal with GPs. However, that cannot be the extent of our actions. The 10-year plan cannot continue down the same road that the last Government took us on, of trying to fix a crisis in the NHS by putting more money into hospitals and nothing else, because that tackles the symptoms but not the causes of the problem.

Therefore, when setting out the estimates, I urge the Minister to be mindful of the shifts we need to ensure that funding not only increases, but increases with a focus on community and social care. That is what we need for a sustainable system that will protect the rest of our health service in future, because a sustainable system is the only way to deliver better healthcare and better social care for people across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity to thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for his work, as well as other Members who I sit on the Committee with?

The financial sustainability of our national health service will have an impact on patients now and in future. Given that such a huge amount of money is spent by the Government, it is imperative that they focus on value for money for the taxpayer so that, at a time when demand is going up but resources are limited, we can deliver the very best health service that the British people deserve and that my constituents in Barking can rely on.

For too long the Department and NHS England have taken a short-term approach to budgeting, relying on reallocating capital budgets to cover revenue shortfalls. Between 2014 and 2019, more than £4 billion was raided from the Department’s capital budgets to fund day-to-day spending. As a former council leader, that approach has always been curious to me, given that, as others have mentioned, local authorities are not permitted to have the same approach. Equally, councils are legally obliged to set annual balanced budgets, and even when they overspend because of demand-led statutory services, they cannot set deficit budgets.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Another issue my hon. Friend may wish to reflect on is that the council tax base differs from place to place, so councils are even more disadvantaged than the NHS on funding.

[Nesil Caliskan]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because health inequalities are determined by a multitude of factors and the work that local authorities do on public health is crucial too.

Compare the point I made about local authorities not being able to set deficit budgets with the situation in the NHS, where every year winter pressures mean that our NHS is at crumbling point and that despite the money poured in, the NHS overspends. Last year, that overspend was £1.4 billion, more than double the previous year. Those issues have not emerged in a silo; they are a result of years of mismanagement and failed leadership by former Ministers and by a Government who decided to allow the chaos of one year budget setting, hindering health leaders from being able to effectively plan for the future.

A lack of political commitment, coupled with a refusal to invest in the future, has led to awful consequences for patients. On the NHS estate, the National Audit Office report shows that since 2019, over 5,000 appointments, surgeries and other clinical incidences have had to be cancelled because of issues in buildings. That is absolutely shocking, so I take on board the points made by Members from across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I concur that I have not seen anything, which is why today’s debate is so important. My GPs tell me that more attention needs to be given to GP practices: they are the praetorian guard who can ultimately protect the NHS. Access to timely appointments is crucial, as is rebuilding the key relationship and contact between a GP and their patient.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Under the last Government, 20% of NHS doctors were thinking about moving overseas. Does the hon. Lady agree that solving GP contracts is a first step towards keeping GPs working in this country?

[Sarah Bool]

I want to encourage all our GPs to remain in the UK, giving back, so I am always fully supportive of anything we can do about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

One of the key things about the Government’s deal is that they have given in on money without asking for anything in return in terms of productivity. The Government needed to agree a pay deal that was sensible and affordable, not talk about the money that they are giving to the NHS while taking away with the other hand in taxes.

Let us hear what some healthcare providers have had to say about the implications of Labour’s NICs rises for their constituents’ healthcare. The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the NICs increase will force GP practices to choose between redundancies and closure. The hospice sector believes that the cost of national insurance rises could be £30 million a year. The Government have given that sector a capital grant worth £100 million, which is welcome and will improve facilities; however, if those facilities are empty and cannot be staffed, they will not deliver much in the way of improvement. Air ambulances are also under threat from the Chancellor’s rise in national insurance and taxes in last year’s autumn Budget, with the local service in my constituency, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance—which is entirely charitably funded—needing to find another £70,000 just to pay for those national insurance rises.

The Independent Pharmacies Association estimates that the rises in employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will cost the average pharmacy over £12,000 a year, totalling more than £125 million for the sector as a whole. Nick Kaye, chairman of the National Pharmacy Association, has warned that

“Pharmacies face a financial cliff edge at the beginning of April, with a triple whammy of rising National Insurance, National Living Wage, and business rates all arriving at once.”

What impact will this have on our constituents’ health? The Government talk a good talk about bringing healthcare closer to the community, but actions speak louder than words, and putting extra pressure on community-delivered services is not a good way of delivering their aims.

The Nuffield Trust suggests that the national insurance rise alone will add a £900 million burden to the adult social care sector. With other new costs factored in, the care sector is believed to be facing a bill of an additional £2.8 billion, dwarfing the £600 million extra allocated to the local authorities responsible for providing social care. This will have a devastating knock-on effect: the amount of care that can be bought by local authorities will fall, the cost of private care will rise—so more people will be reliant on the state, rather than the private sector—and the waiting lists that the Government claim to prioritise will also rise. The Nuffield Trust warns that many small care providers will either have to increase prices, stop accepting council-funded patients, or go bust.

That will have a knock-on effect on the hospital sector, as people are unable to be discharged because there is not adequate social care for them. The Government talk about creating a new national care service, but they have managed to damage the existing one by hiking the costs borne by care homes through national insurance rises and other tax and wage increases.

In January, the Government announced a deal with private hospitals in an attempt to cut waiting lists. The deal, which sounded good to start with, would see private hospitals being paid for each patient that they treated, incentivising them to treat as many people as possible. However, The Times reported that NHS England has recently capped the amount that each hospital can be paid. The chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network has warned that the policy will actually lengthen waiting times. Will the Minister comment on that?

The Minister is focused on prevention, but when the Government announced that they would be cutting the overseas development aid budget by 40%, the Prime Minister said that the UK would continue to play a key humanitarian role on a range of issues, including global health and challenges such as vaccination. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on whether the global health budget will be cut, or whether the cuts will be made from other aspects of the ODA budget.

Workforce is the key asset of the NHS, yet sickness levels are running at around 5.5%, which is a considerable cost to Government and drag on productivity. They vary considerably across trusts and professions, with consistently less than 2% of consultants off sick, but almost 8% of ambulance support staff. If those rates could be reduced, it would lead to improved productivity and patients being treated much faster. What is the Minister doing to look at that? Perhaps she will have another one of her reviews.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

The hon. Member has frequently been quick to criticise NHS pay rises. Will there be more or fewer sickness absences in the ambulance service if its staff are better paid?

[Dr Johnson]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that whether someone becomes ill is entirely dependent on whether they get another 2% in their pay packet? I am not sure that it is.

The Government promised a great deal when they came into power last July. Since then, they have handed out inflation-busting pay rises, raised costs and abandoned election pledges. At the centre of the Government’s approach is a classic socialist trick—a sleight of hand, taking money away from NHS providers in taxes with one hand, and expecting praise when they give some of it back with the other. The public will see straight through it.

Maternity Services

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. I should note at the start my officership in the APPG for infant feeding and the APPG on single-parent families.

Women’s health is often an already under-prioritised area of our health system, with the UK found to have the largest female health gap in the G20, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) noted earlier. Women are falling through the gaps, which have been made worse by the past 14 years of austerity and reorganisations in the health system.

The situation facing midwifery and maternity services is even more dire. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee I have met the Royal College of Midwives, which made clear its worries about the need for better investment in midwifery and maternity services, and its concerns about safe staffing levels in a workforce facing crisis.

Those real concerns are borne out by the national review of maternity services, which found that 47% of services were rated as requiring improvement on safety grounds. That is not to say there are not bright spots of positivity, and I have nothing but praise for the work of Calderdale’s maternity services, which were fantastic and supportive at the births of both my children. However, the national picture is one of services that are stretched and midwives who are working extra hours to plug the gaps. At the end of last year, figures showed that more midwives than before have left the profession after five years or less.

The story across the health service is, sadly, consistent, and that is the result of pressure in an NHS that Lord Darzi warned was on life support. That is why the NHS 10-year plan is even more vital and timely. It gives us not only a real opportunity to begin undoing 14 years of damage to our health service, but the chance to rebalance our health system and focus on different priorities that have been long neglected, be that maternity services or mental health. Women who access maternity services often do so at a time when they feel most vulnerable, and it is important that those services are there to protect them at that time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined the shocking state of some hospitals. I confirm again that we want a site-by-site report of those hospitals for exactly that purpose: to ensure that they are safe and to understand any critical issues before the schemes go forward. We expect that report in the summer.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Given that the Tory predecessor of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) failed to mention RAAC once, and mentioned Hinchingbrooke hospital only five times in 23 years, does the Minister agree that people in Huntingdon and across the country need a Labour Government committed to rebuilding the NHS, not a Tory Government who pay lip service but fail to back it up?

[Karin Smyth]

I commend my hon. Friend on his research into the previous Government, and for the hard work that he is doing on behalf of his constituents. We are committed to the rebuild of Hinchingbrooke and have put the new hospital programme on a sustainable footing, which is something that his constituents can look forward to.