Medicinal Cannabis

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. As he said, there are many hon. Members from both sides of the House representing constituents affected by the issue across the United Kingdom who would have liked to be here today. Obviously, health is a devolved matter. The hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about his constituents, and other colleagues talked about theirs. I agree with him. My words have been repeated back to me, so I do not need to say them again. This is an important issue for everyone in the Chamber and those who are listening in, as we all want to support people who are in very difficult circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman raised some key issues, which I will address. He said that landlords and the police are unaware of the legality surrounding prescribed medicinal cannabis. I encourage him to take that up with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. I understand that the Home Office has notified all police forces about the change to the law, and guidance has been issued to summarise what that means.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned electronic prescribing, which has been in operation for schedule 2 and 3 controlled drugs in NHS primary care settings since 2019. I am afraid there are no current plans to extend that to private clinics at this time.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about an observational study with a small patient cohort. I am afraid that it would not produce results as robust as a randomised control trial, which is the gold standard for clinical trials, nor would it add to the current evidence base. It would not provide results suitable to inform routine clinical or NHS commissioning decisions, because there would be no way to compare the findings with what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. I will come on to clinical trials in more detail, but let us be clear about the problem we face, the challenge faced by all of us involved in this debate and the challenge faced by children, many of whom have been mentioned today.

Of course, we listen to Members of this House, and to patients, parents and families, who say that these medicines are safe and should be available. We must ensure the safety and effectiveness of all medicines. The benefits should outweigh any potential harm and, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, clinicians must have that assurance and clarity, too.

There are currently only two cannabis-based medicines in the world with marketing authorisations or licence. They are—I hope I do not stumble over them too—Sativex, for the treatment of muscle spasms in multiple sclerosis, and Epidyolex, for treatment related to two rare forms of epilepsy and tuberous sclerosis complex. Those medicines show that it is possible to develop cannabis-based treatments that have been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy. The evidence generated on their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness can enable the National Institute for Care and Health Excellence to recommend them for use in the NHS.

The medicines we are talking about today are unlicensed, which means that they have not been assessed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Indeed, they have not been assessed or granted market authorisations by any medicines regulator anywhere in the world. However, as has been noted, in 2018 the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, enabled the prescription of unlicensed cannabis-based products for medicinal use. That provided a lawful route to these medicines for prescriptions for individual patients who were not benefiting from standard treatments and were not part of clinical trials, while limiting the ability to prescribe to specialist doctors. That came on the heels of the review by Professor Dame Sally Davies, then the chief medical officer, which found enough evidence of benefit to recommend that cannabis-based medicine should be moved out of schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

For epilepsy, that evidence was mainly in relation to cannabidiol, also known as CBD, rather than products containing the psychoactive compound tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. The review did not provide evidence to support routine prescribing or funding of those medicines on the NHS, which the previous Government should have made clear at the time. Before we see routine prescribing of these unlicensed medicines, the NHS must have greater assurance on their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at a population level. I am not a clinician—we are all here as politicians—and it is right that prescribing any medicine or treatment is a clinical decision, whether it is done on the NHS or privately. It is not for us to influence those decisions, so I cannot comment on individual cases.

We want to see more medicines approved by the MHRA and available on the NHS. We inherited a broken system, and it will take time to fix that failure, but the Chancellor has made an in-year investment in the NHS to fill the black hole that we inherited and prevent our having to cut back on services. That means that, more than ever, the NHS must account for every penny that it spends and make difficult decisions on what treatments are made available.

The NHS must get the best possible value for its investment in medicines and consider the cost-effectiveness of treatments to ensure that resources are used efficiently. For that to be fair, medicines or treatments initiated privately would not routinely be prescribed by the NHS unless the requested treatment was already approved under existing policies, which unlicensed medicinal cannabis is not, or when there are individual, exceptional circumstances. That remains the case even if privately funded treatment has been shown to have clinical benefit for an individual patient. This is the current NHS policy for all treatment initiated and prescribed privately, and it is not specific to medicinal cannabis.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. A constituent of her colleague, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), is in the Gallery today. Her young boy, Ben, is receiving Bedrolite and Bedica, which are both proven to assist him in having a 98% reduction in fits. The same thing happens to my young constituent, wee Sophia, and to many others as well, including Charlie, the constituent of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). If there is a proven evidential base, which there quite clearly is, should it not be part of the evidential base for NICE to ensure that all these medications are taken on board?

[Karin Smyth]

I will come on to the research.

As we have heard, and as I recognise, fewer than five patients have accessed these medicines on the NHS, so access is truly exceptional. The testimony of the children and families accessing these treatments privately—often at great personal cost, as we have heard this afternoon—is truly heartbreaking. I am sure we can all agree that all Government spending on health must be evidence-based, and colleagues are seeking to ensure that that is the case.

If we are to see more cannabis-based medicines routinely available on the NHS, we need more research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research, also known as the NIHR, and the MHRA are there to support manufacturers and researchers to develop new medicines and design quality studies. I strongly encourage the manufacturers of those products to invest in research to prove that they are safe and effective and meet the rigorous standards that we rightly expect for all medicines. They should engage with the NIHR and the MHRA on clinical research and medicines licensing processes. That is key in providing doctors with the confidence to prescribe cannabis-based products in the same way that they use any other licensed medicines recommended for use on the NHS, but we are not waiting for industry to respond to patient voices.

The NIHR and NHS England have recently confirmed more than £8.5 million in funding for clinical trials to investigate whether cannabis-based medicines are effective in the treatment of drug-related epilepsies. As I said when we were in opposition, and as has been highlighted today, action in this space is vital. Epilepsy is a terrible disease, and it can be life-limiting in the most serious cases.

We also know that although epilepsy is a fairly common neurological condition, affecting 1% to 2% of the population, about 30% of cases will sadly have seizures that are resistant to current treatments, so it is absolutely right that the NIHR and NHS England are pioneering truly world-first trials that will investigate the safety and effectiveness of CBD and THC in adults and children with treatment-resistant epilepsy. The trials will be co-led by experts from University College London and Great Ormond Street hospital and will look to recruit around 480 patients from across the UK. The study details are published on the NIHR website, and I understand that it will publish further details soon.

Further funding has also been awarded to the University of Edinburgh to investigate the efficacy of CBD in patients with neuropathic pain due to chemotherapy. Those are two examples of the type of research that we desperately need in this area of medicine, and a further 28 studies looking at cannabis-based medicines have been approved by the MHRA since 2018. It is an emotive and complex debate, but the clinical trials give me encouragement that there is a way forward. If the evidence supports it, we will see more cannabis-based medicines approved by the regulators and recommended by NICE. That is the only way we will see the evidence base improved and give clinicians the confidence to prescribe.

To conclude, the hon. Member for Strangford has brought this debate forward with his customary good faith and compassion.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will take another intervention.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sorry. I am not intervening just for the heck of it; I just want a wee bit of clarification. I welcome the fact that the Minister is referring to the trials, and how long they are. I ask the Minister, very quickly: how long will it be before they are complete? Also, I asked the Minister beforehand if she would agree to a meeting with the hon. Member for South Ribble and his constituent just to clarify the matter and take forward the case for a wee bairn. Those are my two asks.

[Karin Smyth]

I cannot answer the question about trials and research directly because, obviously, trials are run by the specialists at NIHR, in the usual way, and I am sure that the request for meeting has been heard. It would probably not be with me, but I am sure the officials have heard it and that the hon. Gentleman will have a response.

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for reading out my contribution and highlighting how proactive we are being, only seven months since forming the new Government. I am proud that the trials that we are looking to do are world firsts. No other country in the world is taking the same action to prove that the medicines are safe and effective. I know it will not come as much consolation to those families who are at the end of their tether with talk of processes, debates and regulations. I also know it may not feel like it, based on some of the things I have said today, but I think there is a way forward. There may be some light at the end of the tunnel, and this Government will do what we can to support NHS England and the NIHR to get the trials done.

A&E Services: Solihull Borough

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Martin McCluskey).

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing the debate, and congratulate other Members who have taken part in it. Let me start by thanking the NHS staff at Solihull Hospital for their remarkable efforts, stamina and care in the most challenging circumstances. That point was well made by the hon. Gentleman, and I know he feels passionately that he owes his own life and the lives of many others to their care.

The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to make political points and that politics was about choices, but we did inherit an NHS that was in the worst state in its history. I hope he agrees with Lord Darzi’s diagnosis; we have still not heard from his colleagues whether they agree with it. The condition of the capital estate, as well as NHS services, has shocked the country, notwithstanding the result of the election, but we are working at full scale to making that situation better. The hon. Gentleman is right that politics is about choices, and I think that the wrong choices were made in the past 14 years.

It is right to point to the increasing demand for emergency departments in Solihull and elsewhere over the past decade, part of which can be explained by the appalling neglect of GP and primary care services to manage demand, and the failure of all parties—to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—to build consensus on a long-term solution for social care and support the flow of people through those hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Solihull Borough is within the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. In December, 58.2% of people were seen within four hours.

Let me set out some of the wider context. We need to remember that we have had one of the busiest flu seasons for a number of years, and although the number of cases is coming down, the number of Norovirus cases is still 80% higher than it was in the same period last year. We want to end the treatment of people in corridors, which has become normal and which it is completely unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, this is not the level of care that staff want for their patients, and it is not the level of care that the Government will ever accept for patients. It will take time to return to the standards that patients deserve, but it can be done. We did it before in government, and we will do it again. To mitigate pressures in Solihull and elsewhere, we are reforming the NHS to shift the focus of healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, freeing up beds for emergency patients and preventing so many people from having to call an ambulance or go to A&E in the first place. In the last two months, we have announced steps to begin rebuilding general practice and immediate long-term action on social care.

I understand that in November 2024, NHS Birmingham Solihull integrated care board had an average of 6.3 full-time GPs per 10,000 patients, just above the average in England, which stands at six. A few weeks after the election, we announced an extra £82 million of funding to increase access to GPs, and it is improving. Birmingham Solihull ICB area had 30 more GPs in November than in July, and I hope that that improvement has been felt by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. In December we announced an extra £888 million in funding for GPs, the biggest funding uplift in years, alongside a package of reforms to bust bureaucracy, slash unnecessary targets, and give them more time to spend with patients as a first step towards bringing back the family doctor.

As well as considering demand, we know that there is no solution for accident and emergency activity that does not include fixing our broken social care system. Today there are about 12,000 patients in hospital beds who have no criteria to reside but cannot be discharged. The main reason for the delays is to do with capacity. More than 300 patients in that category are in the Birmingham Solihull ICB. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, all Members will work with us to resolve the situation, but that is why the Government are making up to £3.7 billion of extra funding available for local authorities to provide social care, why we are delivering extra 7,800 adaptations through the disabled facilities grant this year and next year, why we have delivered the biggest increase in carer's allowance since the 1970s—worth an extra £2,300 to family carers—why we are introducing fair pay agreements to tackle the 131,000 vacancies for care workers that we inherited, and why we are appointing Louise Casey to develop a national consensus on that long-term solution for social care.

It is also clear that we can get our ambulance and A&E services working better, so before the spring we will set out the lessons learned from this winter and the improvements that we will put in place ahead of next winter. We are content to visit and hear from hon. Members from across the House about the situation in their areas.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the 2022 Act. I was on the Bill Committee and tabled a number of suggestions for better accountability of ICBs to local Members of Parliament, most of which were not accepted by the Government of the time. I agree with him that those organisations need to be more accountable to him and to other Members of Parliament representing their constituents.

We expect integrated care boards to ensure that the areas they run are safe, putting necessary care in the community, investing in technology and doing what is best for the people they are responsible for. The Government are investing an extra £26 billion in our health and care services while undertaking fundamental reform to help the ICB deliver the services that all our constituents expect. If the ICB intends to make substantial changes to the way it delivers services, it must conduct a public consultation and must meet the test to ensure that all proposals are proven to be in the interests of patients and the wider public.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will be meeting the ICB in a few weeks, and I am sure that he will continue to make his points to it; I suspect that it is watching or listening to our proceedings. I am sure that he would agree that it is for the people locally in Solihull to determine how their interests are best served. Ministers cannot impose views above the heads of the local ICB. Those decisions are best made in Solihull by people who live in Solihull and not in Westminster. Therefore, what I can do—what the Government are doing—is give ICBs the means to deliver services while undertaking fundamental reform of how those services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is therefore doing exactly what he should do as an experienced Member of Parliament and making his case to the local ICB. I am sure that it will have heard him this evening and that his voice will be important in representing his constituents.

The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to raise population growth and planning, which was also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman’s neighbour, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). We are committed to house building, unlike his Government; it is important that that goes ahead. That does put pressure on services. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, developments were not going ahead because of the issue of infrastructure. That is something that we are addressing.

The disconnect between ICBs and local authorities must change—the situation with vital infrastructure such as schools and hospitals has gone on for far too long—which is why we are committed to working with colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that planning includes basic infrastructure. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has regular meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that we are all pulling in the same direction on that.

Communities across the country, including the hon. Gentlemen’s constituents in Solihull, are struggling with poor services and crumbling estates. We are putting record capital funding into the NHS while reforming services to ensure that every penny of that money is spent well. We will return to 95% of patients being seen within four hours at A&E, we will get waiting lists back down to where they were in 2010, and we will fix the front door to the NHS with the GP services that all our constituents deserve. It will take time, but we will deliver an NHS and national care service that provide people with the care they need when they need it, and we will continue to work with all hon. Members across the House to ensure that that happens.

Rare Retinal Disease

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhan. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on such an important issue and other Members for their contributions.

Both the shadow Secretary of State and I are covering for other colleagues this afternoon, so hon. Members can imagine my joy when actual experts walked into the Chamber. The hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Torbay (Steve Darling), as has been said, bring great personal and professional expertise to this debate, so it was joyful to see them come in. It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher); the experience he brings through his wife is really valuable. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has been such a champion of this issue both in her personal experience and since she came to the House. I understand that it is her birthday today, so I hope she is having a good time. She has brought great expertise to this place.

I am going to do my best to answer the questions. I have been billed highly by the hon. Member for Strangford, and I am grateful for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), will write to hon. Members about anything that is outstanding.

I would like to take time to acknowledge the experiences of those living with rare inherited retinal diseases and their families, who I know will be paying attention to this debate. I pay tribute to all those who work tirelessly to raise awareness of rare conditions and bring about change. Although rare diseases are rare individually, their impacts are far-reaching. One in 17 people will be affected by a rare condition over their lifetime; that is around 3.5 million people in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, rare inherited retinal diseases affect around 25,000 people in the UK and collectively represent a leading cause of sight loss in working-age adults. We recognise the impact that these conditions have on patients, families and wider society and the need for innovative approaches to tackle these changes.

The Government are committed to improving the lives of people with rare conditions. The hon. Member for Torbay used that quote about providing opportunity, support and determination for people. The UK rare diseases framework outlines four priorities to achieve this aim: helping patients get a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better co-ordination of care; and improving access to specialist care treatment and drugs. In England, our annual rare diseases action plan sets out the steps we are taking to meet those priorities. We continue to make progress and are working to finalise our next England action plan for publication this year.

It is vital that NHS patients with rare diseases are able to access innovative new treatments as they become available. That includes those with progressive retinal diseases, where early intervention is crucial to preserve sight. Under England’s action plans, NICE, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England are working to understand and address the barriers to access for rare diseases treatment. The hon. Member for Strangford asked a number of questions about NICE’s approach that I hope I will cover. NICE does a difficult job well, in my view, and we think its approach is appropriate for the evaluation of treatments for rare diseases. NICE recommended 84% of medicines for rare diseases evaluated through its standard technology appraisal programme in 2023-24. That is comparable to its approval rate for medicines for more common conditions. Those treatments are now available for the treatment of NHS patients.

NICE also operates a separate, highly specialised technology programme for the evaluation of a handful of medicines for very rare diseases each year that recognises the challenges of bringing treatments for very rare diseases to market. NICE recommended the gene therapy Luxturna for a type of inherited retinal dystrophy through that route. One of the recipients of that groundbreaking therapy on the NHS has spoken of his gratitude for the positive effects of the treatment on not just his vision, but his confidence and independence.

NICE is also in the process of reviewing the criteria for routing topics to its highly specialised technologies programme, which the hon. Member for Strangford asked about. That review will ensure that future routing decisions are more transparent, consistent, efficient and predictable. As part of that process, NICE has launched a public consultation on its progress. I encourage the rare diseases community and hon. Members interested to continue to engage with that process.

Research offers a way to accelerate access to new and innovative treatments. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Government support rare diseases research. There are currently eight active research projects on rare retinal disease funded by the NIHR, with a combined value of over £6 million. The NIHR also invests in infrastructure to support and deliver research studies. The NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, which is dedicated solely to vision research, has made significant strides in the field of rare retinal diseases. By harnessing genomic data, the BRC has developed effective treatments, including gene-replacement therapies for inherited retinal disorders. The NIHR is also working closely with commercial companies to bring new medicines and technology to patients.

To connect people living with rare diseases to innovative treatments and sources of support, we need to diagnose these conditions as early as possible. The UK is a world leader in genomic diagnosis. Patients in England have access to whole genome sequencing on the NHS. Advances in genomics mean that new causes of rare retinal diseases are being found every year. As part of Genomics England’s generation study, we are harnessing the power of genomic sequencing to screen for over 200 rare genetic conditions that can be treated in the NHS in early childhood to improve outcomes for babies and their families. That includes the rare retinal disease RPE65-associated Leber congenital amaurosis, which can be treated with Luxturna.

A central mission of this Government is to build a health and care system fit for the future. The 10-year health plan will ensure a better health service for everyone, regardless of condition or service area. The plan will focus on our three shifts for a modern NHS: moving from hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention. All three offer opportunities to improve time to diagnosis and care for people living with rare retinal conditions. The shift from analogue to digital will enable innovative uses of data to improve diagnosis and measure treatment outcomes, while NHS ocular genetics services’ use of video consultations continues to widen patient access to specialist advice, in keeping with the shift from hospital to community. Although many rare diseases are not preventable, early diagnosis, as we have heard, can lead to timely interventions that improve health outcomes.

I will outline the treatment pathway for rare retinal diseases. I am thankful for the role played by high street optometrists, some of them here today, in helping to identify patients with sight-threatening conditions. There is good availability of NHS sight-testing services, with over 12 million free NHS sight tests provided to eligible groups annually, including children, individuals aged 60 and over, and those on income-related benefits. Optometrists are required to refer any patient showing signs of injury, disease or abnormality and integrated care boards have been asked to ensure that there are direct referral pathways in place between community optometry and secondary care. As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the eyes are the gateway into other health conditions. Optometry has a very important role.

As one of the busiest outpatient specialties with one of the largest waiting lists, we know that ophthalmology is facing huge challenges and we are working hard on how we can help to build capacity. NHS England is looking at how digital connectivity could improve the triage of patients referred between primary and secondary care. That would allow for images to be shared, and specialist advice and guidance could help to keep patients in the community where possible.

We recognise the importance of access to emotional and practical support, especially where treatment may not be available. A diagnosis of sight loss will have a profound impact on any individual, who will be at increased risk of stress, anxiety and depression. NHS England’s patient support toolkit for eye care commissioners and providers aims to ensure that patients with ophthalmic conditions or sight loss are supported throughout their care journeys. The RNIB patient support pathway aims to strengthen that and ensure that support and guidance are available to patients from their first eye care appointment through to having a confirmed diagnosis, and then right the way through to living well with their condition. I know that the work of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment and of other hon. Members will help in giving those people a powerful voice.

As we work towards building a health care service fit for the future, it is vital that people living with rare diseases are not left behind. With the UK rare diseases framework coming to an end in 2026, we will look to build on the progress made over the past five years, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned. We will work with colleagues in the devolved Administrations, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford.

We have commissioned an evaluation of England’s rare diseases action plans through NIHR and will also be undertaking engagement this year to inform future policy decisions. The Government are deeply committed to working across the health and social care system and with the rare diseases community to improve the lives of those with rare conditions.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for raising this important matter. It is good to have high interest, expertise and experience in this place. We want to work with colleagues here and we thank the rare disease community for their valuable ongoing engagement with us to bring about meaningful change.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I will now put—[Interruption.]

New Hospital Programme

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) on securing a debate on this important matter. I commend his timing in getting this debate two days after an announcement that nobody else knew about. If he were a Labour MP, there would be howls of “Fix!”

There has been a lot of back and forth, but I want to confirm that we pledged to support this programme, and we are supporting it. That is what Monday was about—let us be in no doubt about that. I was part of the largest capital programme in the NHS when I served as a non-executive director under the last Labour Government; this will be the next largest capital programme, delivered under this Labour Government.

As Lord Darzi noted in his investigation, the hospitals that we rely on are deteriorating after the NHS suffered years of under-investment. This Government inherited a programme to deliver new hospitals that was unfunded beyond March 2025 and was repeatedly delayed, with no credible delivery plan.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for the Secretary of State’s statement on Monday, in which £1.5 billion of Government funding was dedicated to Princess Alexandra hospital. At my local hospital in Harlow, it is not just an issue of funding: in fact, the land was not purchased and the business plan was not completed. The idea that the hospital would be completed by 2030 was a pipe dream, was it not?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend; I am happy to take interventions, but I need to finish by half-past 4, so I am conscious of time. He is absolutely right, and I will come on to his point.

We need to be very clear and honest with people about what was ready and about the different stages of these programmes, which we are very keen to do. Staff and patients deserve better. That is why the Secretary of State asked officials to review the programme and put it on a firm footing with sustainable funding so that all the projects can be delivered.

I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for his service to the NHS and his experience. I agree that it is appalling for staff. We all understand that he and I disagree in our political analysis, but he made some really well-informed points about models of care and future models of care, all of which we need to take into account in the delivery of this programme and other parts of the capital programme—and we will.

As the Secretary of State announced to the House on Monday, we now have a realistic plan to deliver the programme. I am pleased that we can be honest with people as we start a new chapter setting out a new commitment to deliver these hospitals, which are so important to all our constituents, that is realistic and backed with funding. We have worked closely with the Treasury to secure five-year waves of investment, backed by £15 billion of investment over consecutive waves, averaging £3 billion a year. This will ensure a balanced portfolio of schemes at different development stages being delivered now and into the future.

The new delivery plan sets out the order and the waves of investment in which each new hospital will be constructed. Hospitals included in a wave will begin construction, while forthcoming schemes will be undertaking pre-construction work to prepare planning permission and secure business cases. With this approach, we can ensure that schemes are ready to be built as soon as possible. A list of the schemes in each wave has been published on gov.uk and in the plan for implementation.

For reference, I will briefly outline the timeline for delivery. [Interruption.] Actually, I think we have seen all the waves, and the hon. Gentleman wants us to move on to Bexhill and East Sussex.

[Mr Mohindra]

For Watford general hospital, we have a window between 2032 and 2034. Given the certainty that the Minister is trying to give to the programme and to the rest of the country, what assurances and assumptions has she made for that two-year window? How can she assure me and my constituents that there will be no further delays?

[Karin Smyth]

I will pick up that point. Wave 3, which is what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle has secured this debate on, includes schemes that were always part of a post-2030 plan. We now have the confirmed dates. The East Sussex new hospital scheme for East Sussex healthcare trust includes, as the hon. Gentleman says, new buildings and refurbishments at Eastbourne district general hospital, Conquest hospital and Bexhill community hospital. The scheme is in wave 3 of the delivery plan, and construction will commence between 2037 and 2039. We understand that this is disappointing news to some people who were expecting and were told that their hospital would be built earlier, but we can assure them that there is now a credible and funded plan for delivery—no more false promises. Our priority now is to get on and deliver these new hospitals for the benefit of the staff and patients who so vitally need them.

We understand the importance of these schemes to local communities and the need to invest in health infrastructure. We will continue to engage with trusts—including Watford, which the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned—over the next few years to establish whether there are any other activities that can be progressed during the spending review. We will be in discussions with all those trusts to understand mitigations in the meantime. That was the source of many questions that came up in the many meetings that I held with hon. Members yesterday. I understand that all these hospitals are critical—they would not be on the list if there were not a major problem with them—so we need to talk to the trusts about how we manage the process in the meantime.

I acknowledge that this will be a difficult time for the core teams and all the people who have been working on these schemes, many of which will be stood down. Their expertise and knowledge is extraordinarily valuable. I know that the programme teams will make efforts to ensure that expertise is retained where possible and used to develop the wider programme.

The trust is currently developing its strategic outline case, as per the business case process set out in His Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book. Following the review and approval of the SOC, the next step will be the development, review and agreement of the outline and full business case. I understand that many areas, including Bexhill, have plans for housing to accommodate a growing population. My Department will work closely with integrated care boards and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those communities have the health provision that they need.

Beyond establishing a credible programme, we are taking steps to restore people’s trust through honesty and transparency. We will be setting out further information for each scheme shortly, to ensure a more open way of working and collaborative programme delivery.

Yesterday, I held meetings with Members of Parliament from all waves of the process to give them the opportunity to ask more detailed questions about their individual schemes, and to give them the clarity that their constituents deserve. Letters have also been issued to the trusts. That was a very successful way of working; I certainly learned a lot about the individual schemes. Members of Parliament of all parties came to talk about their schemes. I gave a commitment that I would continue to talk to colleagues about them. I absolutely offer the same to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I will work with Members’ trusts to understand the detail on the ground.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the news, on which I congratulate the Minister, that the women and children’s hospital at Treliske and the emergency care hospital at Derriford are in wave 1. However, some of my North Cornwall constituents rely on the crumbling North Devon district hospital, which is potentially 15 years from a rebuild. We are talking about mitigations, so please will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can expand care at the community hospitals in Bodmin, Launceston and Bude, which are all at least one hour from their closest district hospitals?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We had a good discussion yesterday about North Devon; I understand the rurality of that location, as it is fairly close to my Bristol constituency. Obviously, however we manage it, there are a lot of schemes represented by a lot of MPs. I am open to suggestions about how we go forward. I hope hon. Members feel that we have tried to give as much information as we can to them and the trusts in the announcement and the meetings yesterday. That is the spirit in which we will continue.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I welcome the spirit of openness and transparency that the new leadership of the programme has demonstrated. Previously, and frustratingly, residents in Hillingdon were—to be frank—led up the garden path. We were left with all but an IOU note for £750 million for a new hospital. The revenue funding for the new hospital ran out this year. We were pleased to see it renewed, and to be in wave 1; a significant capital investment of more than £1 billion has been committed to.

This is complicated: it is hard to deliver projects at this scale. With the best will in the world, if another £20 billion were to appear, despite the Conservative party opposing any methods that would raise money, the construction sector would struggle to build all these hospitals at once. Is it not the case that it is challenging to deliver this project at scale? Will the spirit of openness and transparency continue?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued campaigning on behalf of the residents of Hillingdon; I used to be one of them. Talking to people is really important, and we have learned a lot from it. In case I have not outlined this enough, let me be clear that all our constituents who are on the programme are in severe need. The programme has looked at clinical need and deliverability. We understand how difficult these choices are, so I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Helena Dollimore]

I welcome the Labour Government’s confirmation of funding, which will help the Conquest hospital in Hastings, part of the East Sussex Healthcare trust, and other hospitals that my constituents use. It comes alongside the Chancellor’s announcement of a big package of support in the Budget, with record investment in our NHS to provide more appointments to clear the backlog left by the Conservatives.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which highlights the point that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised about other capital plans and programmes to help his constituents and others over the coming years.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue.

[Clive Jones]

rose—

[Dr Mullan]

rose—

[Karin Smyth]

If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, whose timing is superb, wants to make an extra point, I will give him the courtesy of a chance to come back in.

[Dr Mullan]

In the last hour, I have had a communication from the trust explaining that, with the delay, the extra cost may be in the hundreds of millions. I would be grateful to take up the Minister’s offer of some time, as well as to talk to MPs who use those services, to see how we can help the trust to access that funding.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We learned a lot yesterday from the expert team from the new hospital programme; I thank them for their incredible work in getting to this point. Those colleagues who could make the meetings yesterday found that the team’s knowledge about every single programme was phenomenal. I have yet to ask the team a question about any scheme to which they do not know the answer—I give hon. Members that confident assurance. The team includes colleagues from both NHS England and the Department.

When I went to an assurance meeting a few weeks ago, I learned that the relationship between the central control of the programme and the trusts, how we get the schemes delivered for everyone’s constituents, and the value of parliamentarians talking to me—everyone has stopped me in the corridors to raise these issues—are all very valuable. That is a good function of parliamentarians. That is the spirit in which we want to continue.

Our commitment is to deliver these hospitals, including the Eastbourne district general, Conquest hospital and Bexhill community hospital schemes, and I am pleased to say that we have an affordable, deliverable plan to do so. It will be difficult, but I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and other colleagues.

[Mr Mohindra]

It is very gracious of the Minister to allow me to intervene again. In the interests of full transparency, can she assure us that if the development of the new hospitals gets delayed, all MPs will be informed, not just those in the relevant constituency? Work on Watford general is meant to begin between 2032 and 2034. Will the Government communicate any further delays as quickly as possible? That will certainly be critical to our constituents.

[Karin Smyth]

We absolutely will. This is one of the advantages of the waves: we recognise, and everybody knows, that there are sometimes unavoidable delays to schemes, perhaps to do with the sites, but the advantage of the pre-construction work and our knowledge of the sites is that most of that should be built into the programme and the timing. But life happens.

One of the central issues for the programme is capacity in the construction arena, as well as across the country, in terms of developing primary estate to get these things done. The advantage of the waves is that they give us flexibility if things move, as they inevitably will—that is life. We very much want to keep up relationships with local trusts and inform them. That will be difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) says, but that is the spirit in which we want to continue. I give him and other colleagues that absolute commitment.

Question put and agreed to.

Welfare of Doctors

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I will of course adhere to your instruction, Sir John.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for bringing this important topic to the House. I know it is close to his heart, as a working doctor. I thank him for his continued dedication to the NHS, as a surgeon and an MP, and I thank his family, too, for their dedication to it. We welcome the knowledge and expertise that he has already brought us, and he has done so again powerfully today. What a lovely memento he has of his own father’s service.

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the incredible role that resident doctors play in our NHS. We absolutely recognise the challenges that they face as they progress through postgraduate training. We are committed to giving them the support that they need to develop and thrive in the NHS. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the welfare of doctors. Let me acknowledge, as I know he would, the tireless professionalism and dedication that all health professionals show across the NHS daily.

The NHS is broken, but we have a plan to fix it. In his investigation into the state of the NHS last year, Lord Darzi identified that this Government have inherited an NHS that is in serious trouble, with record waiting lists, people struggling to see their GP, and quality of care often lagging behind other countries. He found that too many staff are disengaged, that levels of sickness absence are worryingly high, and that many people working in the system are still exhausted from the pandemic and its aftermath, which has resulted in

“a marked reduction in discretionary effort across all staff groups.”

The Government completely agree with that assessment. We are on a mission to fix our broken NHS by driving fundamental reform to bring our analogue health service to the digital age. Through our 10-year health plan, we will cut waiting lists, reduce waiting times and get the health service delivering for patients and staff once again. Those ambitions will be possible only thanks to the hard-working staff, so it is essential that doctors and others are properly valued, supported and looked after at work.

Employers across the NHS play a pivotal role in looking after doctors. Strong and effective leadership is fundamental to building a healthy organisational culture and too many NHS organisations are falling short in that regard. I have been shocked to hear stories, some of which we have heard again today, about the lack of support received by resident doctors, whether on shift patterns and rota changes, access to rest breaks while on duty, or really basic things that we should expect from any employer, such as hydration and the provision of decent food. We have heard about people sleeping in cars and not being able to go to a close relative’s wedding or to be the best person at their best friend’s wedding. It is unbelievable, really, and it cannot continue. It has to improve. We expect better from trusts and employers and we will make sure that that happens.

We brought an end to the industrial action by resident doctors that was impacting the NHS’s ability to deliver a good-quality service and having such a corrosive effect on the morale of the workforce. As part of that deal, resident doctors and dentists in training received an average uplift of just over 4% into the 2023-24 pay scales, on top of the average 8.8% uplift they received for 2023-24. The Government have committed to improve the current exception reporting process, and to work in partnership with the BMA and other health organisations to review the current system of training, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket highlighted, and rotational placements. That is in addition to the work being undertaken by NHS England to improve working lives.

We want to work with the unions on the key issues that doctors face on the frontline, and improve their working lives. That applies to all NHS staff. For example, we are working at the moment with the BMA resident doctors committee to improve the exception reporting process. We know that is important to residents, and we agreed to address it as part of their pay deal.

It is vital that we look after the health and wellbeing of the whole NHS workforce. High-quality care and support for patients cannot be effectively provided without a compassionate and inclusive working environment. My hon. Friend listed a number of actions, some of which are more easily addressed than others. We would expect many of them to be included as part of a supportive culture in trusts. I accept that some are more challenging and involve discussions with NHS England, the Government and trusts, but I do not think that many are beyond local trusts and systems, working with the profession, to resolve.

The mental health of doctors and all NHS staff is incredibly important. We saw the strain and trauma placed on staff during the pandemic. They do so much for patients, and we owe it to them to ensure that they are properly supported in return. The NHS offers occupational health and wellbeing services for staff when they need them, but provision can be patchy. There is a drive to improve the quality of those services across the NHS. Not only can that reduce sickness absence and improve retention, but proactive and preventive occupational health can lead to improvements in productivity and, in the long run, save taxpayers money.

Access to specialist mental health support is important. I know that services such as the practitioner health programme, which we have heard about this afternoon, are highly valued by many doctors. NHS England is currently reviewing the mental health and wellbeing support available across the NHS, and looking at how it can be made more equitable and sustainable. There is no doubt that we need to continue to improve the mental health support available to NHS staff, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that review. NHS England is also moving forward with a joint initiative with NHS charities to invest £10 million in health and wellbeing initiatives for staff. That will provide grants for better facilities and invest in improved wellbeing support.

I want to make a point about violence, which I do not think my hon. Friend particularly highlighted in his speech. Sadly, the threat of violence in the workplace is another thing that NHS staff are dealing with, as we saw in last week’s horrific assault in Oldham—I extend my wishes to the nurse and her family for a speedy recovery, as I know we all do. I reiterate that the Government take a zero-tolerance approach to that type of behaviour. Doctors, nurses and all healthcare workers are the backbone of our NHS and should be able to care for patients without any fear of violence or abuse.

At a national level, NHS England is focused on improving workplace experience, with the NHS people promise and the NHS retention programme addressing the issues that matter to staff, whether that be improving opportunities for flexible working, tackling racism and discrimination, preventing and reducing violence in the workplace, or improving facilities so that staff have the basic opportunity to rest and recover. Resident doctors face many challenges as they progress through postgraduate medical training, as my hon. Friend outlined. Expanding access to less than full-time training, rationalising and reforming statutory and mandatory training, and increasing choice and flexibility in rota management are just some of the things we are looking to do to improve their working lives.

We are also working with NHS England to support the GP workforce, including with measures to boost recruitment, to address the reasons why doctors are leaving the profession and to encourage them to return to practise. The NHS is working to address training bottlenecks, so that there are enough GPs for the future and patients can get the care they need. We have provided £82 million of additional funding for 2024-25 to address GP unemployment and support the recruitment of more than 1,000 new GPs.

In conclusion, through the 10-year plan, we are engaging widely with staff, patients and the public and listening to their views on how we need to reform and modernise the NHS. That applies equally to the NHS as an employer. Our ambition is for the NHS to become a modern, innovative and supportive employer. That is a necessity if we are to continue to attract and retain skilled and experienced professionals, give them the support they deserve as they care for the nation, and build a robust and resilient NHS. I look forward to working with NHS England. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will bring great expertise to this work in the House, as will Members more broadly, to make it a reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this debate and thank her and all those who have spoken for their contributions. We have heard some powerful stories of failure as well as some useful experiences. I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the shadow Minister for sharing their expertise. I have heard many of these stories before in my 10 years in this place. Sadly, I have also had a constituent who shared her experiences with me, for which I am grateful. Frankly, those experiences shocked me and my staff.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and many others who have brought their experiences to this place, shining a light on the issues. It is right for us to debate this matter. Six months into the job and I am still learning, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am grateful for being able to take part in this debate.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) that I cannot answer everything, and I am glad that he recognised that. The right hon. Member for Tatton has focused my mind, for which I am very grateful. If I do not do justice to the points that have been raised, I will write to Members about specific things. I am meeting representatives from the MHRA and will be very clear about our expectations. It is absolutely the role of Parliament to be the ultimate monitor of its work.

The MHRA plays a vital role in fulfilling the Government’s health mission: balancing its responsibilities to maintain product safety and championing innovation. I will, if I may, be clear about the role of an enabler. It is about enabling innovative products to reach patients without compromising patient safety and without unnecessary delay.

It is thanks to vaccines and medicines such as antibiotics and modern surgical procedures that we are living longer, healthier, and more active lives. No medical product is completely free of risk; the main objective of the safety monitoring process is to identify any new risks that may emerge. When that happens, the MHRA must take its responsibility seriously, rigorously and transparently when balancing population risks and benefits of each medical product, taking prompt and decisive action whenever that is needed.

On supporting safety, the MHRA recognises the need constantly to seek to improve its safety monitoring systems to deliver better results for people. Recent improvements include implementing the new Safety Connect IT system, following recommendations from the Cumberlege Review. This IT system will improve the efficiency of reporting and processing of yellow card reports, much of which we have heard about today, supporting the prompt identification and assessment of new safety concerns.

In addition, the MHRA makes use of real-world data via the clinical practice research datalink, which collects anonymised patient data from a network of GP practices, across the UK, encompassing data from 60 million patients, including 18 million currently registered patients.

The MHRA has recently launched a pilot, in partnership with Genomics England, to create a rich source of genetic information to investigate the role of genetic pre-disposition in the development of serious adverse drug reactions. The aim is to establish a yellow card biobank to reduce the number of harmful side effects caused by medicines—a step towards personalised prescribing.

The Cumberlege review also highlighted the need to improve the regulation of implantable medical devices. In November last year, the Government introduced new regulations to strengthen the requirements for manufacturers to proactively monitor and report on medical devices once they are on the market, which was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South.

We plan to lay further reforms before Parliament this year, including unique device identifiers and implant cards to improve the traceability of implanted devices, as well as increasing the classification of devices to ensure that they receive the highest scrutiny throughout their lifetime. Finally, the MHRA has made some progress in response to the wider set of recommendations set out in Baroness Cumberlege’s report. It listened carefully to the people who gave evidence and to the review’s findings, and is committed to bring about those changes. It is our job to ensure that that happens.

The yellow card scheme provides the backbone of our safety monitoring system. The scheme relies on voluntarily reporting from patients, parents, caregivers and healthcare professionals. The MHRA also collects reports of suspected safety concerns involving defective, falsified or fake healthcare products. Last year, it assessed more than 118,000 reports, and identified 134 safety signals, but I take onboard the comments made today. When safety signals lead to confirmed risks, the MHRA can introduce specific risk minimisation measures, such as introducing particular warnings about the risk of side effects in the product information, restricting the use of the medicine or medical device, or suspending or removing the medicine or device from the market. The MHRA will continue to proactively encourage the reporting of adverse effects through improvements such as those within the new Safety Connect system, and will ensure that there are better connections between clinical systems, working with the wider healthcare system.

The MHRA recognises that there have been delays in some of the regulatory services that it provides, including licence applications for innovative and generic medicines, variations to licences, and inspections of manufacturing and laboratory premises. Since September 2024, all new applications for marketing authorisations of established medicines are being assessed within expected timescales. That element is therefore improving, but we will keep a close eye on it.

I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Member for Tatton. This has been an informative and, bizarrely, a wide-ranging but focused debate. Trust is really important. Patients have to be at the heart of our work, and that of the MHRA. Patient safety is the foremost priority. The MHRA is continuing to work on improving engagement and involving patients in decision making throughout the life cycle of the products that it regulates. It will continue to work to facilitate patient access to new medicines and medical devices, in collaboration with health system partners across the UK. The regulator maintains its focus on continuous improvement, and has implemented new ways of working to maximise productivity in ways that put patients and public health outcomes first. I take the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), that communication around that is key.

The MHRA has turned around performance on clinical trials and is on track to deliver all regulatory services within statutory timelines by the end of March 2025. Later this year, as part of its programme of reform, we will introduce new point of care manufacturing legislation that will make the MHRA the first regulator in the world to introduce a tailored framework for innovative manufacturing methods, taking the manufacture and supply of medicines to patients. It is truly an exciting development, and I pay tribute to those involved.

The process for recruiting the new chief executive is well under way. We welcome Professor Anthony Harnden. His strategic focus is on helping the organisation to protect patient safety through robust surveillance systems, embracing risk-proportionate regulation and fostering an inclusive workplace where people flourish. Without putting him on the spot, we should think about organising a parliamentary event of some sort to bring people together to discuss matters with the MHRA and build that trust. I am pleased to support its work. It is internationally recognised as a regulator. We want to do better. The Government will ensure that the MHRA is better.

Endometriosis: Women in the Workplace

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing this important debate on the impact of endometriosis on women in the workplace. In opposition I supported the work of the APPG. I echo the praise for the campaigning work of Endometriosis UK and the support that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and others in the Chamber have given to the APPG. I also remember the work of our friend David Amess. I echo the recognition of the recent report by the Women and Equalities Committee on reproductive health conditions. My Department is working across Government on our response, which will be published in due course.

I welcome the progress made on raising awareness—we are moving very fast on this—and on providing better support for women’s health conditions, including endometriosis. Nevertheless, this Government recognise that women with endometriosis have been failed for far too long, and we acknowledge the impact that it has on women’s lives, relationships and participation in education and the workforce. There is still much more work to be done. We are committed to improving support for any women and girls whose periods or women’s conditions disrupt their normal life, work or education.

In addition to receiving support in the workplace, all women should have access to healthcare support to help diagnose and manage this condition. We are making progress to ensure that those with endometriosis receive a timely diagnosis and effective treatment.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

There has been a lot of cross-party work on this issue. I led a debate—the last one before the general election was called, I think—on endometriosis education. It is not prescribed that schools should educate about what a bad period is—I still meet women born in this century who do not know. If someone does not know what a disease is, how do they know that they have it? I urge the Minister to ensure that those messages are pushed in the Department for Education, as we need to ensure that people know what diseases they could have.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point, which I will talk about later.

On the Employment Rights Bill, our plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empowering working people and contributing to economic growth. On 10 October, the Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to introduce legislation within 100 days of entering office, by introducing the Employment Rights Bill. As part of the Bill, we are taking the first steps towards requiring employers to publish action plans alongside their gender pay gap figures. The relevant clause sets out that regulations may require employers to develop and publish action plans relating to gender equality, which include measures to address the gender pay gap and support employees going through the menopause. It deliberately does not provide an exhaustive list of matters related to gender equality, giving us the scope to be led by the actions themselves. This reflects the fact that many of the actions employers take will be beneficial for people in a lot of different circumstances; for example, improved provision of flexible working can be valuable for an employee balancing childcare as well as someone managing a health condition such as endometriosis.

In the same way, ensuring that employers support staff going through the menopause will necessitate them taking steps that are positive for supporting women’s health in the workplace more broadly. For example, menopause best practice includes greater discussion around women’s health and awareness of potential workplace adjustments—things that have a much wider potential benefit. As my hon. Friend said, we need to start to reduce the stigma and taboos and remove them from the debate.

Through the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are also making statutory sick pay payable from the first day of sickness absence. This will particularly benefit those who suffer from conditions such as endometriosis, who may need to take time off to manage a flare up. We are also removing the lower earnings limit and extending statutory sick pay to up to 1.3 million additional low-paid employees, particularly benefiting women, young people and those in part-time work.

The Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), leads for the Government on the Bill from the equalities team, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough that we are working with her and talking about this issue throughout the Government. For example, I regularly join Women and Equalities questions here in the Chamber to make sure we work closely together, and I will continue to work closely with colleagues on these issues.

The new measures we are seeking to introduce build on existing Government support for employers, which recognises their key role in increasing employment opportunities and supporting disabled people and those with health conditions to thrive as part of the workforce. The Government’s current offer to employers includes a digital information service that provides tailored guidance to businesses to support employees to remain in work. That includes guidance on health disclosures and having conversations about health, as well as guidance on legal obligations including statutory sick pay and reasonable adjustments. The service is available across Britain and can currently be accessed from a range of trusted locations, including both the Health and Safety Executive and ACAS websites. We are also taking steps to better understand the challenges faced by women with endometriosis in the workplace and to improve workplace support for those with the condition.

The Government health and wellbeing fund has awarded almost £2 million to 16 voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations leading projects focused on supporting women who experience reproductive health issues to remain in or return to the workplace, including a project on endometriosis delivered by Endometriosis UK.

An Office for National Statistics study is investigating the impact of endometriosis on women’s labour market outcomes. This important study will be a vital step to improving our understanding and will inform future actions policy work. The first publication in this research project, on the characteristics of women diagnosed with endometriosis in England between 2011 and 2021, was published in December.

In addition to providing workplace support for endometriosis, the Government are committed to improving healthcare support and ensuring that women with endometriosis can receive timely diagnosis and treatment. We recognise that patients have been let down for too long while they wait for the care they need. Nearly 600,000 women are on gynaecology waiting lists. It is unacceptable that patients are waiting too long to get the care they need. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough for her sympathy with the task of reducing those lists, but that is our priority. Cutting waiting lists, including for gynaecology, is a key part of our health mission and a top priority for this Government. We have committed to achieving the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment by the end of this Parliament, and that absolutely includes those waiting for gynaecology treatment.

My noble Friend Baroness Merron, the Minister responsible for patient safety, women’s health and mental health, and I recently met with the Government’s women’s health ambassador, Professor Dame Lesley Regan, and NHS England to discuss progress on women’s health and current issues including gynaecology waiting lists. Following that meeting I am pleased that our recently published plan for reforming elective care sets out commitments to support the delivery of innovative models in gynaecology offering patients care closer to home and piloting gynaecology pathways in community diagnostic centres for patients with post-menopausal bleeding.

Enabling access to adequate healthcare support begins with providing high-quality education and information on menstrual health, as the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) highlighted, so that women and girls know when and how to seek help for symptoms such as heavy or painful periods. The compulsory aspects of the curriculum on relationships, sex and health education means all pupils are taught about several areas of women’s health, including menstruation, contraception, fertility, pregnancy and menopause.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has committed to providing teachers with clear guidance that focuses on the wellbeing of children. Her Department will look carefully at all relevant evidence and engage with stakeholders, including young people and parents, ahead of publishing a consultation response and the revised guidance later this year. I am pleased that Dame Lesley Regan, in her role as women’s health ambassador, has been feeding women’s health perspectives into this work.

My Department has worked with NHS England to improve and create new content on endometriosis symptoms, diagnosis and treatment options on the NHS website and YouTube channel. NHS England has also published a decision support tool for managing heavy periods to support women’s understanding of their symptoms and appropriate treatment options to discuss with clinicians. Education and clinical guidelines support healthcare professionals to provide care for women with endometriosis.

The General Medical Council has introduced the medical licensing assessment for most incoming doctors, including all medical students graduating in the academic year 2024-25 and onwards. The content for the assessment includes several topics relating to women’s health, including menstrual problems and endometriosis, and will encourage a better understanding of common women’s health problems in all doctors as they start their careers in the UK, which we all want to see. Endometriosis is also already in the core curriculum for trainee GPs, obstetricians and gynaecologists.

Last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published updated guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis, and the new and updated recommendations on referral and investigation should help women receive a diagnosis more quickly. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department has also commissioned a number of studies focused on endometriosis diagnosis and treatment and patient experience.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough for tabling this debate and for her continued long-standing advocacy for women’s health. Let me affirm the Government’s commitment to supporting the many women who live with endometriosis in the workplace and beyond. This Government are committed to prioritising women’s health as we build an NHS fit for the future. My noble friend Baroness Merron is carefully considering how we take forward the women’s health strategy by aligning it to the Government’s missions and forthcoming 10-year health plan, and women’s equality will be at the heart of our missions. It is vital that we work with women to better understand their experiences and address their concerns, which have been ignored for far too long.

Question put and agreed to.

7.27 pm

House adjourned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve mental health services for children.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

The delivery of mental health services for children in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I hope that they will make the best use of the boost from the recent Budget to invest in mental health services. In England, we will support children and young people earlier by providing access to a specialist mental health professional in every school and rolling out Young Futures hubs in every community. We will also cut waiting times by recruiting 8,500 more workers across children and adult mental health services.

[Graeme Downie]

The long-term impact of the covid-19 pandemic on young people is often forgotten, with isolation leading to missed opportunities, lost life experiences and still unknown impacts on mental health. Child and adolescent mental health services referrals in Fife and across Scotland have skyrocketed, and despite a record Budget settlement from the UK Government, the SNP Scottish Government have told NHS Fife not even to bother asking for more funding to tackle this massive problem. I and colleagues will write to the Scottish Government about that. Will the Minister join me in urging the Scottish Government to reverse course and ensure that young people have the support that they deserve and need?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on behalf of young people. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government do not seem to be allocating the funding as they could. He raises a powerful case, and I know that he will work hard with the Government in Edinburgh to make the situation better for his constituents.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Is the mental health support in schools that the Minister just mentioned the same as or different from the plan for mental health support teams in schools that was already being rolled out by the previous Government?

[Karin Smyth]

Our plan is to have universal coverage in every school. That was not achieved by the previous Government, and we hope to ensure that it happens.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the increase to employer national insurance contributions on social care.

--- Later in debate ---

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

7. Whether he has made an assessment of the effectiveness of improvements made to the Care Quality Commission.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

In response to the report by Dr Penny Dash, we have made it clear that the CQC is not fit for purpose and requires significant reform. We have increased our oversight of the CQC to ensure implementation of the recommendations in Dr Dash’s review, and we will continue to monitor the CQC’s progress through this period of improvement. We are also supporting the swift and efficient recruitment of CQC leadership roles, including the new chief executive Julian Hartley, who started in December.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

It is inarguable that the CQC needs improvement. Many who run care services in local authorities have little confidence in its performance. Does my hon. Friend agree that we could go some way to improving how it is viewed by looking at the use of single-word assessments, which create undue stress for social services leads? They were raised by the Dash review as insufficient to support local authorities to improve, promoting box-ticking over real improvement and giving little information to members of the public on the quality of social services provision.

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is right that confidence is the key word in the huge agenda that the CQC has to deliver. Dr Dash and Professor Mike Richards highlighted serious failings that need to be re-addressed. As one of our predecessors said, priorities are our language. Currently, a review of one or two-word ratings is not a priority, but it will be kept under review.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Is the Minister indicating today that there will be a new start in the Care Quality Commission, and that things will change for both staff and the recipients of care?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, particularly with regard to staff, who need support to continue their important work. A new start with new leadership is what they need, as well as implementation of the recommendations.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to improve access to mental health services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

13. How many and what proportion of NHS employees have received enhanced maternity leave entitlements under Agenda for Change contracts.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I thank my new Dame Friend for her question. The Department does not collect data on the number of people who have specifically received enhanced maternity leave entitlements. Access to an enhanced maternity leave benefit forms part of the total reward package for Agenda for Change staff, which we believe is critical for retaining our much-valued and needed NHS workforce.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Doctors throughout the NHS, no matter who employs them, have blanket maternity agreements, but nurses do not. When I visited the River Place health centre, I found that nurses employed by Whittington Health were working alongside nurses employed by the GP practice who got completely different maternity leave and pay. As we turn out our hospitals into the community and do much more work in that way, such anomalies will get worse. It is not fair and I wonder what my hon. Friend is going to do about it.

[Karin Smyth]

My right hon. Friend highlights a problem throughout the system, not just in her area. Self-employed contractors to NHS GP surgeries are not bound by national terms and conditions; they can develop their terms and conditions as they see fit. They have the flexibility to set terms and conditions to aid recruitment and retention. We anticipate that good employers will set wage rates and terms and conditions that reflect the skills and experience of their staff. That is better for staff and for patients, and I know that she will continue to highlight that with her local employer. It is certainly something that we need to keep an eye on as we develop services further.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

14. What steps he is taking to extend Start for Life services to South Cambridgeshire constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

T8. The East of England ambulance service NHS trust remains at the highest escalation level—level 4—as call handlers in Bedford remain under immense pressure after responding to 39,000 calls between Christmas and new year. Despite the unprecedented demand, the trust is considering closing the Bedford emergency operation centre, putting nearly 200 jobs at risk. Given that resources are already stretched to the limit in Bedford, does the Secretary of State agree that we must keep experienced staff who have helped to save countless lives in the region?

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the particular problems in his constituency. Decisions on the configuration of call centres are a matter for local trusts in consultation with staff and representatives, and I encourage him to continue to engage with the trust in the interests of his constituents.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Will the additional money announced for hospices before Christmas cover the full cost of the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions or not?

NHS Backlog

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members a happy new year. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this debate. I am delighted to be able to respond. It has been a passionate and well-informed debate, and I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to build on what the Secretary of State said in his oral statement today, because we have a great deal to say about our plans to build more capacity and give patients more power over their care.

Colleagues across the House have set out how 14 years of failure have damaged their constituents, letting down the people we represent and breaking the NHS. That was starkly illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who should have been doing something else this morning but was not. That is a loss to his patients. It was also highlighted by the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones). The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), outlined how it impacts on her own father as well as her constituents.

Years of neglect, lack of funding and unresolved industrial action meant that this Government inherited an appalling backlog of people waiting for treatment—the 7.5 million-strong waiting list. I gently remind the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), that that waiting list stood at 4 million people before the start of the pandemic. The Darzi investigation described how these waits were becoming the new normal, with patients waiting far too long for treatment. As a result, public satisfaction with one of our most beloved institutions is at an all-time low. That was eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), who highlighted the figures from 2010 and now, as they affect her constituents.

On average, 58% of people do not receive treatment within 18 weeks of referral. The NHS constitutional standard sets out that 92% of patients should receive treatment within this timeframe, but that has not been met consistently for almost a decade. In other words, there are people today younger than me who would have no memory of the NHS working efficiently and delivering a timely service.

Colleagues are right to point out the impact on our constituents, with people putting their lives on hold while they wait for a diagnosis, for a new hip or for eye surgery. If the human tragedy were not enough, the economic and social effects of waiting times are almost incalculable. That is why today the Prime Minister set out our plans to tackle hospital backlogs and finally meet the NHS standard of 92% of patients in England waiting no longer than 18 weeks for elective treatment. I confirm for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) that that is an average. I also wish his grandmother well—that is unfortunate for her time of life, and I hope she is getting good care.

Our elective reform plan sets out a bold package of productivity measures and reforms to deliver fundamental change for patients by building a health service defined by patient choice and patient control. I agree with the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Farnham and Bordon about local accountability. My own comments on the 2022 Act, which I think the Government at the time should have done more on, are well-made. I regularly encourage all hon. Members to engage proactively with their ICBs. It is incumbent on ICBs to engage with elected representatives on behalf of all our constituents. I certainly have always done with mine, and I commend everybody else to do the same.

Under our plan, NHS care will be increasingly personalised and digital. We will focus on improving experiences and convenience, empowering people with choice and control over when and where they will be treated. Different models of care will be more widely and consistently adopted, following on from the work by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon on Getting It Right First Time, which I also commend. We will roll out artificial intelligence and other technology to boost capacity and deliver excellent care consistently across the country.

I will not have time to go into the details of all the drivers of the backlog, but we recognise the pressures on primary and community care and social care. That is why last month we were able to put forward proper proposals for a new GP contract, with extra money to slash red tape and bring back the family doctor—the biggest funding boost to primary care that we have seen. I have been really impressed by some of the fantastic work going on in women’s health hubs. We continue to welcome the cross-party support for our proposals on social care, and I hope we build that cross-party support for Baroness Casey’s work. Social care was highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), among others.

On the key drivers, in diagnostics we will reduce the waits for scanners by extending the work of community diagnostic centres to seven days a week. Patients will be able to receive same-day tests and consultations, direct referrals from primary and community care, new consulting rooms and at least 10 straight-to-test pathways by March 2026. Pathway improvements will get us only so far, though. We are also setting clear expectations that funding must be used responsibly to provide the best value for money for both patients and the taxpayer. That is why, under our plans, money will follow the patient and the organisations that do the best will get the most reward, so that incentives drive improvement.

I will just say gently to the Opposition spokesperson that many places do offer online access—I get texts regularly from my hospital, because I, too, am a patient. However, it is not universal, and that was the Conservatives’ failure in government. We want to take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS.

On cancer, the 62 and 31-day cancer waiting time standards were last met in 2015 and 2020 respectively. Cancer is a priority for this Government: cancer patients are waiting too long for a diagnosis and for treatment, and we are determined to change that. We will get the NHS diagnosing cancer earlier and treating it faster so that more patients survive. I assure the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, that we remain committed to all three targets. We know that swift diagnosis is key to improving outcomes and ensuring that patients get a diagnosis and treatment quickly, which is why expanding CDCs is a core plank of achieving those standards. We recognise that a cancer-specific approach is needed to meet the challenges in cancer care, which is why, after the 10-year plan, we will follow up with a dedicated national cancer plan, which will help us to go further for cancer patients.

This Government are tackling challenges beyond routine elective care, such as the crisis in emergency care. Last month, a quarter of the 2.3 million people who attended A&E waited for more than four hours; in November, the average ambulance response time stood at 42 minutes, which is more than double the NHS constitutional standard. These figures do not come close to the safe operational standards set out in the constitution. It will take time to turn things around, but our action to quickly end the junior doctors strike means that, for the first time in three years, NHS leaders are focused on winter preparedness and not planning for strikes. NHS England has set out a national approach to winter planning and is managing extra demand, with upgraded 24-hour live data centres, strengthening same-day emergency care and offering more services for older people.

As we have heard, mental health waiting lists are far too long. We want to build on our mission and ensure that we recruit 8,500 additional mental health workers to reduce delays. We will also provide access to specialist mental health professionals at every school in England, roll out young futures hubs in every community and modernise the Mental Health Act 1983. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) highlighted, young children and young families are being particularly badly affected. The Chancellor backed our plans in the Budget with an extra £5.6 million over the next two years to open new mental health crisis centres and help reduce pressure on A&E services.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I would like to, but I am afraid I need to adhere to the time limit.

In closing, on Second Reading of the National Health Service Act 1946, Nye Bevan warned us against following abstract principles that work on paper but not in the real world. This Government are interested only in what works, and we know we must do things differently, because the backlog began to build before the pandemic. NHS constitutional standards have not been met for more than a decade. Whatever the last Government were doing, it was not working. That is why our elective reform plans will do things differently, giving patients more choice and more control over their treatment, making greater use of technology—including the NHS app—to give patients the convenience of a seven-day diagnostic service.

In response to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), we will use private sector capacity to help—supporting patients is what matters. As the party that founded the NHS, we will always be committed to a publicly funded NHS that is free at the point of use. We are going hell for leather to get waiting lists down, rebuild our NHS and ensure that it is there for us when we need it once again. None of this will happen overnight, but we are not asking to be judged by our promises; we will be judged by our results, and we are determined to succeed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Helen Morgan to wind up quickly.

Hospice Funding

Karin Smyth Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on hospice funding.

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for asking that important question. This Government want a society where every person receives high-quality, compassionate care from diagnosis through to the end of life. We will shift care out of hospitals into the community to ensure that patients and their families receive personalised care in the most appropriate settings. Palliative end of life care services, including hospices, will have a big role to play in that shift. Most hospices are charitable, independent organisations that receive some statutory funding for providing NHS services. The amount of funding that each charitable hospice receives varies both within and between integrated care board areas.

On children and young people’s hospice funding, the Minister for Care met representatives from NHS England and Together for Short Lives and one of the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care to discuss children’s palliative and end of life care, and that funding stream was discussed at length at that meeting.

This Government recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospice sector has been facing over a number of years, so today I am delighted to announce the biggest investment in hospices and end of life care in a generation. We are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that those hospices have the best physical environment for care, and with £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. The funding will support hospices and deliver much needed funding for improvements, including refurbishment, overhaul of IT systems and improved security for patients and visitors. It will help hospices in this year and next year in providing the best end of life care for patients and their families in a supportive and dignified physical environment.

Hospices for children and young people will receive that further £26 million in funding for 2025-26 through what was, until recently, known as the children’s hospice grant. We will set out the details of the funding allocation and dissemination in the new year.

We completely understand the pressures that people are under. To govern is to choose, and the Chancellor chose to support health and social care in the Budget. The alternative is not to fund. The sector has suffered from 14 years of underfunding, and we are righting that historic wrong. This Government are committed to ensuring that every person has access to high-quality palliative and end of life care as part of our plan for change. We are taking immediate action to make our healthcare fit for the future. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and everyone in the House will welcome this announcement. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to give the House an early Christmas present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

After the confusion of yesterday, I welcome the fact that further details on hospice funding have been announced, albeit by our dragging them out of the Government on the very last day of Parliament before the recess.

On 30 October, the Chancellor decided to break her election promise by increasing employers national insurance contributions and reducing the threshold at which employer contributions are payable. It was later confirmed that hospices would not be exempt from the increase in costs. Now the Government have announced new funding for the sector, which they have the audacity to call

“the biggest investment in a generation”.

Let us be clear about what is going on: the Government are taking millions of pounds off hospices and palliative care charities, and then think those hospices and palliative care charities should be grateful when the Government give them some of that back. That is socialism at its finest.

We will look more closely at the funding announced today, but despite many questions from right hon. and hon. Members, to date the Government have refused to give any clear answers on how much their tax rises will cost hospices. I will try again: will the Minister please tell us how much the Government estimate they will raise from taxing hospices more? Was an impact assessment ever produced on how hospices will be hit, and how that will affect the care that they provide? Do the Government expect the funding that they have announced today to cover the additional costs in their entirety?

At the heart of this discussion are charities that provide compassionate care to terminally ill people in their final days, weeks and months. While hospices were left without information, Hospice UK reported that 300 beds have already closed, with many more closures to come. Does the Minister accept any responsibility for that? Ultimately, it is patients who will pay the price.

While we welcome this update for hospices, when will the Health Secretary come forward with more details on the many other health providers who have been hit by Labour’s tax increases, including GPs, community pharmacies and dentists? Will they be expected to be similarly grateful for getting back some of the money that the Government have taken from them?

[Karin Smyth]

To govern is, indeed, to choose. The Conservative party chose neither this sector nor any other health sector and it refused to govern. Within five months, we have not only increased the funding to the health sector to stabilise it but made today’s announcement.

Beneath all that, there might have been a welcome for the announcement—I am not entirely sure—whereas the sector is pleased to have the money. The chief executive of Hospice UK said:

“This funding will allow hospices to continue to reach hundreds of thousands of people every year with high-quality, compassionate care. We look forward to working with the government to make sure everyone approaching the end of life gets the care and support they need”.

The chief executive of Haven House children’s hospice said that it is

“very positive to hear about the government’s plan to invest significantly in the wider hospice sector; we hope that there will be as much flexibility as possible to determine locally how this new money is spent.”

This is an important issue for many hon. Members, and we look forward to working with the sector in the new year on the specifics of the announcement.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

This is a very welcome announcement and I am sure the hospices are breathing a sigh of relief after the level of funding they endured for 14 years under the Tories. If we are to move palliative care out of hospitals and into care situations or people’s homes, the money needs to be passported to the hospice sector for it to play its part. Integrated care boards have been charged under the Health and Care Act 2022 to provide that funding. Will the money go through ICBs or will it be passported straight to the hospice sector?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for more people to be treated at home. That is absolutely the direction of travel that we want to see. This money will help, for example, with technology to support more people to be treated at home. ICBs are responsible for commissioning and allocating funding, so that will be done in the normal way.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I wish you and the whole team a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

Last week, I visited Hope House in my constituency, where I met beautiful young Esmay, one of hundreds of children cared for by the hospice every single year. She is nearly three and has a life-threatening heart condition. Esmay’s family do not know what the future holds for her, but they know that Hope House will be there to support them, as it has since before she was born.

There are 300,000 people like Esmay treated in hospices every year, and just one third of their funding comes from the NHS. That leaves institutions such as Hope House and nearby Severn hospice reliant on generosity and unable to plan as they wait for confirmation of the funding they will receive from the NHS. That situation has been made more difficult this year because of the increase to national insurance contributions, which Hope House estimates will cost £177,000.

Funding is welcome, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment today. Will she explain whether the increase that she has announced today will cover the NIC hike for hospices and the increase in the living wage that was announced at the Budget? Will she also commit to providing future settlements in a timely manner so that hospice managers can budget effectively for the coming year?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and for welcoming the announcement. She will know that, in the past 14 years, the sector has been neglected, like the rest of the NHS and social care system. As we have repeatedly said, to govern is to choose. We have improved the settlement for the sector this year. Today’s welcome announcement can be used by the sector to manage some of those pressures and deliver the sorts of services it wants for the future.

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

Does the Minister agree that the amazing staff at Overgate hospice in my constituency should be focused this Christmas on caring for their patients and not on funding? Will she confirm that this funding allows them to do so? Also, in April I will be running the London marathon for the Overgate hospice’s big build appeal. Will the Minister sponsor me?

[Karin Smyth]

That is possibly one of the cheekiest questions I have ever heard asked here, and I am obviously going to have to say yes. Frankly, rather him than me, but good luck to my hon. Friend on doing that. I know that many hon. Members raise money for their local constituencies and that the marathon is an important part of that.

We understand how different hospices are funded differently throughout the country. We want to make sure that end of life care, with all the different options that people have in their local systems, is well supported. It is really important for people to have some of that security, and I know that this announcement will be welcomed by my hon. Friend’s local hospice, as it is by the sector today.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

The St Helena Hospice in Colchester, which serves my constituency and that of the Labour hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), estimates that the national insurance increase will cost it £300,000 in a full year. Can the Minister now give a guarantee that the hospice will be compensated by the Government in full?

[Karin Smyth]

It is good to hear the hon. Gentleman supporting his local hospice with his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox). We will announce allocations for the whole sector and the NHS in the usual way in the new year.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

St Giles Hospice in my constituency has funding challenges like any other. One thing that staff mentioned to me was the sustainability of when they are contracted to do things. Is the Department considering the timing and not just the funding, to enable better planning and better staff planning?

[Karin Smyth]

Yes, stability and understanding longer-term planning is important for this sector as well as for many others. Certainly, we want to make sure that we work with the sector and the wider NHS, so that we deliver our longer-term 10-year plan, but get to that process in the next few years.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

St Luke’s Hospice in my constituency covers the whole of Brent and Harrow. I helped to form it back in the 1980s. The staff tell me that the biggest problem they face is that, every time there is an increase in nurses or doctors’ pay, it is never passed on to them, so they have to find the money from charitable giving. The Minister’s announcement of extra money is of course welcome, but she has failed to answer the question: will it cover the national insurance increase, or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

All hon. Members support their local hospices, which I know is important, but I have to remind the House of the parlous state of the sector that we inherited after 14 years of the previous Government. If Conservative Members, many of whom were part of that Government, had wanted to rectify the way in which hospice funding was allocated, or indeed that end of life care was managed, they had plenty of opportunity to do so. This Government have hit the ground running. We have fast-tracked these measures, and this announcement today is clearly a part of that. I hope that they all welcome it; it is just a shame that they did not do it themselves.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

May I welcome this record investment in our hospices from the Labour Government? The Conservative Government had 14 years to do that, but they shirked that responsibility. Will the Minister join me in thanking the amazing staff and volunteers at Saint Michael’s Hospice and Demelza hospice in my constituency who do such amazing work all year round to support families and children who need amazing care?

[Karin Smyth]

I am delighted to support my hon. Friend in the work that she has been doing with St Michael’s and Demelza hospices. She is absolutely right to highlight that, and I hope that she will be able to meet the staff in the new year and discuss how they can best use some of this funding.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the House staff, a very merry Christmas.

Following on from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), next year I will be taking part in a strictly dancing competition for my local Rowcroft Hospice. However, I am pretty sure that, even if all the Members in this House sponsored me, I would not be able to raise the £225,000 needed by Rowcroft to cover the additional national insurance contribution payments that it will have to make. Will this extra funding, which is very welcome, be additional funding, or will it be just enough to cover the extra costs that have been imposed on the hospice sector through the increase in national insurance contributions in the recent Budget?

[Karin Smyth]

I have to say that dancing is more my style than marathon running, so I wish the hon. Lady luck with that. At least she did not ask me for any money. I refer her to my earlier answer: this is additional money to support the hospice sector. It is a £100 million boost for adult and children’s hospices to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. We look forward to working with the sector in order to best deploy that in the New Year.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

Our hospices do an amazing job, and I look forward to visiting my local hospice in the next few days, but Scottish hospices have warned that they might have to turn patients away because of the funding crisis that they face under the SNP. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government must at least match the level of investment that she has announced today? They must have a similar level of ambition for Scottish hospices, and provide fresh investment for our hospices, which do an amazing job in Scotland.

[Karin Smyth]

As my hon. Friend highlights, this is a devolved issue for the Scottish Government. We hope that they match our ambition, as she rightly puts it. I wish her well with her local hospice, and I hope that the Scottish Government take note of what we are doing here in England.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Over 7,000 charities and voluntary groups have written an open letter to the Chancellor warning that the national insurance increase will cost them £1.4 billion and have a devastating impact. At this time of the year, ahead of Christmas, many charities, including hospices, are trying to raise funds. I know that the Chancellor did not go into politics to be the Grinch who stole Christmas for charities, so will the Minister please look at this again, and exempt charities and voluntary groups, including hospices, from this cruel tax increase, which is sucking up good will and donations and really hurting valuable charities?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman was a Government Minister, so he had plenty of opportunities to change the system, had he wanted to do so at the time.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her announcement of a huge funding boost for the hospice sector. Will she join me in thanking all the brilliant staff at Keech hospice, which serves Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and especially all the volunteers who are out fundraising with Smiley Sam and Santa’s train across the streets of Luton, including Farley Hill tomorrow and Wardown Crescent on Saturday?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and wish the volunteers well in their weekend activities. She is right to highlight not only staff but the hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the country who work to support the hospice sector and others with end of life care. That support is so important for people receiving end of life care and their families. It is something that I have experienced; my father died over the Christmas period a number of years ago. It is a hard time of the year to have a death, and I warmly support what those volunteers are doing this weekend.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The fact that the Minister has come here expecting us to welcome her announcement and congratulate her on giving money that her Government took away in the first place really beggars belief. Mountbatten hospice in my constituency needs an extra £1 million because of the NICs increase that her Government have brought forward. Will she guarantee to Mountbatten and the charitable sector, including hospices—which the last Government increased funding for, before she comes back to me with that answer —that today’s announcement will cover the £1 million that her Government have taken away in NICs?

[Karin Smyth]

What beggars belief is that person after person—man after man—on the Opposition Benches still feels able to get up and defend their record in government. Not once have we heard that they agree with Lord Darzi’s diagnosis, or that they welcome the extra investment that the Chancellor found by choosing to support the health sector in the Budget. I am afraid that, until they reach that conclusion, they are destined to be on the Opposition Benches for a very long time.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

Compton Care hospice in my constituency provides specialist palliative and bereavement care, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Having previously discussed the lack of funding with the hospice, I am sure that it will welcome the extra funding that has been announced today. Will the Minister please join me in thanking Compton Care hospice and its incredible staff for the care that they will continue to provide throughout the Christmas period?

[Karin Smyth]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments, and I am very pleased to thank Compton Care hospice for all its work. He is right to highlight that the care is 365 days a year, around the clock.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Hospices such as St Ann’s in Stockport provide really high-quality care to my constituents and others at what is often the toughest point in their lives, but they are struggling in a system that is no longer fit for purpose. It is of course welcome that the Government are providing additional funding for them. One of the challenges that the hospice sector faces is a really high rate of staff vacancies, so I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether the 10-year plan for the NHS includes a specific workforce plan for our hospice sector, so that it continues to care for our constituents at the toughest point in their lives.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the stability of the workforce across the piece, from diagnosis to the end of life. We absolutely need to consider support for all parts of that through the 10-year plan. I encourage hon. Members and others to ensure that they keep making those points. We are getting excellent contributions from the public, patients and staff, and we look forward to developing the plan over the next few months and years.

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I welcome the largest funding increase for hospices in a generation. If that cannot bring some Christmas cheer to the Conservative Benches, it will in my constituency of Wirral West where Claire House hospice does such important work all year round. I was there just last week for their Christmas carols. Will the Minister take the opportunity to thank them for the important work they do in my constituency of Wirral West?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and, indeed, for his singing. Those events bring joy to people at a particularly difficult point in their life, and they are very welcome.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Any increase in funding for the hospice movement is of course welcome, but let us be honest: it is giving with one hand and taking with the other. The two excellent hospices that serve my constituency—St Andrew’s in Grimsby and Lindsey Lodge in Scunthorpe—tell me they want certainty. The Minister says they will be told early in the new year. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that in the first half of January hospices will be told how much extra they are getting from the £100 million she mentioned?

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the announcement. As I said, we will be working with the sector in the new year and then we will make allocations accordingly.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Stoke-on-Trent is wonderfully served by the Dougie Mac and Donna Louise hospices. They are part of a healthcare system in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent that the Minister knows has a £90 million projected deficit. What oversight will there be to ensure that the money that goes to the ICBs reaches the hospices and that the team in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent do not try to use some of this welcome new money to fill holes elsewhere?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point —one that was raised earlier. It is vital that ICBs work with all providers to understand the needs and how they are best met. I know he will be diligent, as he already has been, in pursuing what is happening with the funding with his local ICB. We will work with Hospice UK to ensure that that happens across the piece.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) calls for a fresh approach by the SNP Government in Holyrood, but she clearly expects us to do that with fresh air, because part of the £750 million additional cost from the national insurance contributions will fall on hospices. On Tuesday, she had the opportunity to vote against that cost. Will the Minister confirm that there will be Barnett consequentials for Scotland? How will she address the problems that Marie Curie in Scotland faces?

[Karin Smyth]

I admire the hon. Gentleman for keeping on the same wicket. In the Budget, this Government made the greatest allocation to the health sector. What the Scottish Government do with their consequentials and how they manage that is entirely a matter for them, and if they are not doing a good job, the public need to vote for someone else.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I wish you, the team and all the wonderful staff on the parliamentary estate a merry Christmas. I very much welcome this big investment into local hospices, and I know it will be welcomed by my local children’s hospice Forget Me Not and Kirkwood hospice, which do invaluable work in my constituency. What assessment has the Minister carried out on long-term sustainable funding for the sector, particularly in relation to statutory funding and the increasing role that hospices play in the community and in people’s homes?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that need. As I said earlier, end of life care and its stability as part of the wider system, which is a commissioning role for ICBs, was not addressed by the last Government over 14 years. As part of our 10-year plan, that will be important to do.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

We can all agree that hospices, such as St Barnabas in Lincolnshire, do vital and valued work. I hope we can also all agree that every Government—Labour and Tory—have increased national health spending, for that is simply a matter of fact. I ask the Minister to show a little wisdom in contrition in acknowledging that the national insurance increase that was imposed on charities and hospices has done immense damage. We welcome the funding today—of course we do—but she needs to be straightforward: was she, or any of the Health team, consulted before the Budget about the impact of the NI increase on hospices, health charities, pharmacies and so on? May I advise her to put down the folder and tell us what she really thinks?

[Karin Smyth]

I have scribbled my own note—the right hon. Gentleman says that he “agrees”— but the issue is that his Government did nothing over 14 years to support or make a change. That is why the announcement we are making is so important. I reiterate my earlier point, which I will repeat every time I am at the Dispatch Box: the Conservatives have not read the Darzi report; if they do not agree with the diagnosis, they cannot agree with the solution. That is their fundamental problem.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement of additional funding, as will many families across the country. Although it is not in my constituency, Rowans Hospice is used by people in Pompey. Indeed, my nan Pearl and my very dear friend Fiona spent their last few weeks in the hospice’s care, and what a wonderful place it is. At a city council meeting this week, concerns were raised about the future of that amazing service. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that every person has access to high-quality end of life care?

[Karin Smyth]

That is absolutely what we want to do, and today’s announcement is a step towards it. As my hon. Friend highlights, hospices are very special places, but most people want to die at home with their loved ones, in the place they know well, and many parts of the sector will be able to use this money to help more people to die peacefully at home.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

This additional funding will benefit hospices serving Westmorland communities—St Mary’s, St John’s, Eden Valley and the children’s hospice, Jigsaw—only if two things happen. First, the Government must provide additional funding to match the national insurance increases that those hospices will have to bear, and secondly, the Government must ensure that the integrated care boards in south Cumbria and north Cumbria pass on that money in full and on time. Will the Minister press them to do so? On the Morecambe bay end, will she press them on the closure of the Abbey View ward at Barrow hospital? The trust is planning to close that end of life ward, which will put additional pressure on our local hospices but without any additional funding to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

The commissioning of those services is the responsibility of the ICBs, and we expect them to do that. They are responsible from diagnosis to end of life. In the past few months, I have met many hon. Members from across political parties to discuss issues in their ICBs. I know that he will, like others, be assiduous in pursuing the ICB to ensure that funding goes to the right place.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the fantastic staff across the estate a happy Christmas.

I thank the Minister for the way in which she and her team have listened to me and colleagues, who arrived in this place with real concern about the state of palliative care after years of under-investment by the previous Government. The funding announced today will be welcomed by Keech hospice and Garden House hospice, which provide fantastic palliative care for constituents in and around my area. Will she join me in thanking them for the fantastic work that their staff and volunteers do all year round to support people in incredibly difficult moments in their lives? Will she also assure them that palliative care will remain at the front and centre of the Government’s mind in the difficult work of getting health services working again?

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to support my hon. Friend, who makes an excellent point, in his work with local providers. He congratulates me, but the work has been done mainly by the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), and by the Secretary of State, who have personally taken on this issue. They are visiting hospices today, so they could not be here even though they wanted to. We are committed to supporting people throughout their life, from diagnosis to end of life.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I have been contacted by vast numbers of families and relatives of those who have been wonderfully cared for by Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in Oxenhope in the Worth valley. They are all concerned about the impact that the rise in employer national insurance will have on them. Those at Manorlands are deeply concerned that it will cost them hundreds of thousands of pounds. In answering the urgent question, the Minister has announced additional funding, but can she confirm whether it will cover the cost of those rises to Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in my constituency? Did the Government carry out an impact assessment of the negative impacts that the Budget would have on those in the charitable and hospice sectors?

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Gentleman asks the same question again. Through the Budget, this Government have allocated more money to the health service than the previous Government—a record announcement—and we have announced money again this morning. To govern is to choose. The last Government neither governed well nor chose to support the health sector from diagnosis to end of life; this Government have, and will continue to do so.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Some weeks before the Budget, I visited both St Catherine’s hospice and St Peter and St James hospice, which serve my constituents. I had not expected how quiet and empty those hospices were, because of the empty beds and mothballed wings that had been closed due to a lack of funding. Evidently, the funding crisis in the hospice sector was very deep before the Budget, but the Budget has only made it worse through the NIC increases. As such, I will try again: will the welcome funding announced today cover the cost of those NIC increases?

[Karin Smyth]

As Lord Darzi’s report announced, the entire sector has been under pressure and struggling since the disastrous Lansley reforms—they were part of the coalition Government—through to when we took over in July. We will fix the NHS and rebuild it to make it more sustainable and fit for the future. That includes everything from diagnosis to end of life care.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

For my sins, I too will be running the London marathon next year. I will be running to raise money for Keech hospice; I know, as do other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Bedfordshire, what fantastic work that hospice does and the care it provides to our county. The Minister has been asked lots of times to comment on the impact of the NIC increases, which are going to hurt hospices in constituencies all around the country, so may I ask the question in a slightly different way? Does the Minister think that Keech hospice, taken in the round, will be financially better off or worse off next year as a result of both the Budget and this announcement that she has been dragged to the House to make?

[Karin Smyth]

I have not been dragged—I am very happy to be here. The reality is that the health sector in its entirety, from diagnosis to end of life care, will be better off this year than it was last year or the year before under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I place on record my thanks to all those in my constituency who will be caring for others over Christmas, whether they are unpaid family carers or paid care providers. That includes the registered nurses and registered care providers who have written to me to say that there will be an extra cost of £615 per employee as a result of the changes in the Budget. I will not attempt to ask whether the money announced today will cover national insurance contributions, but I will ask what the Government will do to help registered care providers. Where will the money come from to enable them to meet their increased national insurance contributions?

[Karin Smyth]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Government have allocated an extra £12 billion in this year for the health and care sector. The full allocation to cover the entire area of health and social care will be announced in the new year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It would be churlish of anybody in this Chamber not to welcome the money that the Government are setting aside. I thank the Minister and the Government for that announcement, but what discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues to secure exemptions from national insurance contribution hikes for hospice workers? I think of Marie Curie—I spoke about that charity yesterday in Westminster Hall, and the Minister probably has a Marie Curie in her constituency. We know what that charity does. Unlike the mainstream NHS, it will not be exempted, yet it carries out the end of life care that the NHS simply cannot provide. Further, what help will be provided to carers in the community? The withdrawal of their service would leave the care system decimated.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point about carers and their support. We made announcements about that in the Budget, and we will make more general announcements about allocations in the new year.

[Mr Speaker]

May I gently say that I know you welcome being here, Minister, but it would have been easier if the announcement had come as a statement rather than through having to grant an urgent question? When Ministers are going out—quite rightly—to visit hospices, we should be told at the same time. It would be nicer and easier for us all to do it that way, but I thank the Minister for coming.

I would also say to all of us that our hospices matter. In the case of those hospices that serve my constituency—the children’s hospice of Derian House and St Catherine’s— I wish them all the best for Christmas. I thank all hospices for the duty they carry out on behalf of our constituents.