Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Wes Streeting and Danny Kruger

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Given the state of the NHS in Scotland, I suspect my counterpart needed to go and drown his sorrows. The truth is that the longer the SNP is in government, the longer the NHS in Scotland is on the road to nowhere. The SNP is now on its fifth health plan in four years. Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor, it is not just the NHS in England that is receiving record investment, but the Scottish Government. I have used that investment to cut waiting lists by almost a quarter of a million people; the same could be true in Scotland, if the Scottish people boot out the SNP and elect Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie to deliver the change that Scotland’s NHS needs.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

A good way to save money in the NHS is to invest in palliative and end-of-life care, because it averts costs that would otherwise go into the acute sector, including into ambulances. However, this Government are taking money from that sector through their national insurance rises. Given that integrated care boards are supposed to commission palliative care, will the Secretary of State commit in the 10-year health plan to a proper revenue funding model for hospices, and for a minimum service specification for palliative care?

[Wes Streeting]

I can reassure the hon. Member that end-of-life care is featured in the 10-year plan for health. I also recognise the pressure on our hospice sector, which is why this Government, as well as delivering £26 million through the children’s hospice grant, committed £100 million of capital investment— the biggest in a generation for our hospices. None the less, hospices do rely on the generosity of donors and I am keen to work in partnership with the sector to look at what more we can do to encourage investment. The final thing I would say is that the Opposition parties welcomed the investment in the national health service while opposing the means of raising it. They cannot have it both ways; either they support the investment and the revenue raisers or they have to be honest with the public that they would be cutting the NHS.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Debate between Wes Streeting and Danny Kruger

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 25th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

That is so important for victims. Most people would not like the experience of going before a court, even if it is to testify against someone whose wrongdoing consists of fairly minor infractions, because there is a time cost and inconvenience. In really serious cases—for example, if someone is the victim of a serious sexual assault or serious violent crime—the knowledge that the ordeal of having to appear before the court and recount the story may well not need to happen because the forensics arrive and the offender knows they have no chance of getting off, can not only deliver the justice that victims deserve but prevent victims from enduring further pain as a result of a lengthy trial at which they have to relive their experiences in a court room of strangers. That is one of many reasons why the Bill and a forensics system that works well is really important.

Police services consistently remain far behind schedule in respect of gaining accreditation for the quality standard for crime-scene investigation. Significant improvements —for example, to reduce the potential for DNA contamination—can be made during preparation for accreditation, but without full compliance the risks remain. Without enforcement powers, it is difficult for the regulator to ensure that, among all the other policing pressures, sufficient priority is given to attaining compliance. Forensic collision investigators have discovered, in the process of adopting quality standards, that some of their methods gave results with a large amount of uncertainty. They have been able to get small and innovative companies to develop new equipment that can make a significant improvement, but there is further to go. That momentum will only be supported by a regulatory framework with sufficient incentives and enforcement powers.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman unpack that a little? We have heard that one problem at the moment is that there are too few providers of forensic services and they are too large. As I understand it, the intention of having more statutory power for the regulator is to broaden the market and ensure that we have a wider range of forensic services providers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that? Does he think the Bill will achieve that—and how?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West made the point about the risk of the forensics market not being competitive enough and that having the same sorts of consequences that monopoly provision has in other areas. My hon. Friend would be best placed to respond to the hon. Gentleman on questions about whether the Bill goes far enough and about the framework set up in the Bill.

As ever with private Members’ Bills, there is always a certain degree of negotiation to be had with the Government—particularly for Opposition Members negotiating with the governing party—to make sure that the Bill achieves a smooth passage through the parliamentary process. If this Bill makes it onto the statute books, it will be not only to the enormous credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West, who always approaches such issues in a constructive and thoughtful way, but to the credit of the Government in taking forward this important issue and seizing the opportunity that the Bill provides to act in a policy area that, as we have heard, is long overdue for reform.

We have heard Government and Opposition Members set out powerfully the case for the Bill. Giving the regulator statutory power is a matter of broad political and expert consensus to which successive Governments have been notionally committed for more than seven years. In a packed schedule, when there are often pressures on legislative time, I am sure the Government will be grateful to my hon. Friend for providing this rare, once-in-a-Parliament opportunity for Ministers to see this issue through with a good degree of cross-party consensus. I commend the Bill to the House.