Budget Resolutions

Debate between Calum Miller and Wes Streeting

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I absolutely endorse what she says about our local hospital, which I know very well. I genuinely thank frontline NHS staff, without whom the performance and improvements we are seeing simply would not be possible.

Let me turn to the substance of this debate. There was once a time, not long ago, when this place was bound in consensus on a number of issues addressed by this Budget. We used to be united on the need for a national health service as a publicly funded, public service, free at the point of use. The last Labour Government built a shared conviction that in 21st-century Britain, no child should grow up shackled by the scourge of poverty. We could go back as far as the Government of Benjamin Disraeli and find a Conservative Prime Minister committed to public health in a way that Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers have been in my lifetime. We did not always agree on how to get there, but there was at least agreement on the destination. However, as the opposition parties lurch to the right, consensus after consensus is breaking. [Interruption.] Admittedly, the Liberal Democrats have moved further to the left since their days in coalition; that is true. Maybe do not lead with your chins on that one, comrades.

Regardless of our friends on the centre left, old battles that were won must now be fought all over again, so it falls to Labour not just to cut waiting lists, improve the health of the nation and lift children out of poverty, but to win the argument, as well as hearts and minds. It falls to Labour to persuade people that we can and must help people lead healthier, longer lives, free from preventable disease; rebuild our national health service as a public service, free at the point of need; and give every child the best possible start in life, free from the scourge of poverty. Labour has won those fights before, and we will win them again.

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

The Secretary of State knows, because his Department shares responsibility for special educational needs and disabilities education, that that is a major challenge facing the young people whose opportunity he so rightly champions. How will the announcement that the Government will take responsibility for that from 2028 alleviate the growing deficits facing many county councils across this country, which it is estimated will grow to nearly £17 billion by the time the national Government take over?

[Wes Streeting]

That is a good question, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department is working closely with the Secretary of State for Education and colleagues right across Government to make sure that we get that right. We have growing levels of need for provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We can all see in our casework, let alone through debates in the House, the unmet need, and its impact on children’s education, health and life chances. We are committed to modernising and reforming the system so that it meets needs and sets children up to not only survive but thrive. That is the ambition of this Government.

On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition said that she would reinstate the two-child benefit limit. At the stroke of a pen, she would plunge half a million children back into destitution, shame and hunger. Gone are the days when David Cameron attempted to ape Gordon Brown on issues of inequality and poverty; in fact, the 2010 Conservative party manifesto included the word “poverty” 20 times and committed to an anti-poverty strategy. The 2024 Conservative manifesto mentioned the word once, in a chapter on foreign affairs. Was that because, after 14 years of Conservative rule, the stain of child poverty had been removed from our nation? No, of course it was not. The Conservatives plunged 900,000 children into poverty, more than a million children relied on food banks last year, and children are being admitted to hospital for malnutrition in 21st-century Britain—but now, this Conservative party does not even pretend to care.

On public health, remember it was George Osborne who introduced the sugar tax, and Boris Johnson who introduced legislation to ban certain “buy one, get one free” deals and free refills of fizzy drinks, yet today their successors dismiss these policies as nanny state. Their party is more apologetic about their record on public health than it is about Liz Truss’s catastrophic mini-Budget.

We are seeing the NHS’s founding principles contested for the first time in generations. The Leader of the Opposition says,

“we need to have a serious, cross-party national conversation”

about charging for healthcare. Well, if she wants one, she’s got it, and it will be a short conversation. The answer from this side is “No, over our dead body.” We will always defend the NHS as a publicly funded public service, free at the point of use, owned by us, and there for all of us. Of course, it is not just the Leader of the Opposition saying these things; the leader of Reform wants to replace the NHS with an insurance-style system. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] They are obviously not here to advocate for their policies. They find it increasingly hard to defend them. They want a system that checks your pockets before your pulse, and asks for your credit card before providing your care.

Where is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? He is not normally the shy, retiring type—unless, of course, he is being asked challenging questions, like whether paracetamol is safe, whether he believes in science or whether he racially abused schoolchildren. In fact, it is reported that he told a Jewish contemporary at school that “Hitler was right”. Admittedly, he was at school a lot longer ago than me, but had I grown up in the aftermath of the second world war, I think I would remember if I had supported the losing side. His politics are a disgrace. He cannot stand by his record, and that is why he is not here to defend it, and why he is regularly referred to in his constituency as “Never-here Nigel”. But as we are in a debate on these issues, let me take on the Opposition parties’ arguments, whether they are here or not.

The Conservatives say that the route out of poverty is work, not welfare. I do not disagree that those who can work should work, but six in 10 households impacted by the two-child limit have at least one parent in work, and they are still in poverty because of low wages and a high cost of living. The Conservatives say that it is the responsibility of families, not the state, to ensure that children are well fed. I agree that parents have a responsibility to look after their own children, but life is a bit more complicated than that. It is far too easy for others who have never walked in the shoes of parents like mine to pass judgment on people whose lives they will never understand.

The Conservatives sneer about “Benefits Street”. They have never been there. They have not got the first clue what life is like for people living on welfare. They say that lifting the two-child limit helps only the feckless and irresponsible, so let me tell them about the mum who came to see me at my advice surgery one Friday afternoon with her three children in tow. She had fled domestic violence and had been rehoused on the other side of London in a bed and breakfast. That remarkable woman was hand-washing her girls’ uniforms, doing a three-hour round trip every day to get her kids to school and holding down three separate jobs. Please do not tell me that women like her are feckless or irresponsible, or on the take. She is facing down hardships and challenges that would break many of us. I will tell Conservative Members who is feckless and irresponsible. It is the people who exploited the covid pandemic, ripped off Britain and lined the pockets of the Conservative party.

Conservative Members say that abolishing the two-child limit is not affordable, but the policy is fully funded. It is paid for by cracking down on tax avoidance and evasion, and a tax on online gambling. What they really mean is that they would make different choices. They would put the interests of gambling firms over the wellbeing of children. By labelling it as unaffordable, they betray their view that the prosperity of our country has nothing to do with the talent of its people, but we know that by investing in our people, we are investing in a more prosperous future. Growing up in poverty is not an inconvenience; it is a trap. On average, the poorest children start school already behind, get worse exam results, are less likely to make it to university, earn less, are more likely to develop long-term illness, end up paying less tax, and are more likely to need welfare support and the NHS.

Investing in our children is a moral mission; morally, we do not believe it is right to punish children for the circumstances of their birth, or the choices of their parents. This is also a down payment on a better future. It is far better and more cost-effective to invest in children now than pay the price for social failure later. I stand here today as the product of the wise investment of the British taxpayer. It was taxpayers’ contributions that clothed me, housed me, fed me and educated me when I was growing up. As a result, I am now in a position to pay back that debt to society—and to pay it forward to the next generation, too.

We should all be proud that this Budget funds the biggest reduction of child poverty of any Budget this century. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor takes that prize from Gordon Brown, who took it from Denis Healey, because lifting children out of poverty is what Labour Governments do. And why is it that every time Labour enters office, there is the moral emergency of child poverty? It is because, since records began, every single Tory Government left child poverty higher than they found it. That is why they must never be allowed back in power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Calum Miller and Wes Streeting

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department will look into the provider that he raises. One reason I was proud that this Government increased the disabled facilities grant is that it means not just more ramps, handrails and accessible kitchens and bathrooms, but dignity, independence, freedom and quality of life. That is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents are being deprived of if they do not have wheelchairs that meet their needs. I would be delighted to look into this, and I am extremely angry that the failures he raises require me to do so.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that public health is at the heart of addressing the long list of inequalities he has just highlighted? I am deeply concerned that a major reorganisation of local government and the cutting of budgets to the integrated care board will undermine the co-ordination that currently exists in Oxfordshire to deliver public health. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that public health will continue to be a priority at the heart of the prevention strategy, and that funding for public health will rise in future years to make that possible?

[Wes Streeting]

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman reassurance that the work we are doing to streamline and rationalise the amount of money we are spending on NHS bureaucracy means that we will free up resources that can be spent on the frontline, improving patient care and public health. Thanks to the decisions taken by my Department, the Deputy Prime Minister and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, investment in public health is rising and the spending power of local authorities is improving. That is all good news for public health.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Debate between Calum Miller and Wes Streeting

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing such personal lived experience of the issues we are debating this afternoon. I encourage her to take every opportunity to share those experiences directly with Ministers or through the passage of this Bill, which others in a similar situation will also have had, so that we can provide the best possible support for people experiencing a mental health crisis and for their loved ones, who also experience an enormous amount of pain and anxiety in supporting someone going through acute mental illness.

We are also updating the outdated nearest relative provisions to allow patients to choose someone to be their nominated person, which gives that individual important powers to represent the patient’s interests when they cannot represent themselves. One patient explained:

“My mother used to perform this role, but she now has Alzheimer’s and she lacks capacity. Under the current system, I cannot specify who I wish to serve as my nearest relative. The responsibility would automatically go to my oldest sister—a sister I do not get on with”.

Our reforms will ensure that this statutory role is not chosen for the patient, but is rather the choice of the patient.

Advocacy services are often a lifeline for those who find themselves in the vulnerable position of being detained, giving a voice to those who may otherwise feel voiceless. Patients have reported that an advocate can ensure that

“their voice and opinion is valued and listened to. They came to my meetings, valued my opinion and put my views across to other people. People listened to my advocate.”

We are also extending advocacy services to patients who come to hospital voluntarily and making changes to improve advocacy uptake among those who are detained, as well as working to change the culture of our health and care services so that everyone is listened to and so that patients do not have to rely on an advocacy service to get their voice heard.

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

I am grateful to the youthful Secretary of State for giving way. In the past few months, I have had a number of constituents describe the difficulties they have had in transitioning from care provided by child and adolescent mental health services to adult mental health services—a critical transition. They specifically faced difficulties in accessing the same medication when they turned 18 that they had previously been reliant on as young people. Can the Secretary of State describe to me how either the Bill or the change in culture for which he is advocating will improve the situation for people like my constituents?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman raises what is, frankly, the depressingly familiar issue of the transition from youth and adolescent services to adult services, which applies across such a wide range of public services. It is so frustrating that we are still, in this decade of the 21st century, describing a problem that was prevalent in the ’90s and noughties.

None the less, we are working to improve not just the law, but the performance in this space. Many of the changes we will be looking to make under the auspices of our 10-year plan are about better joining up of data, information and patient records, better care planning for patients and designing services around patients so that everyone—whatever their age or stage of treatment—receives joined-up services, with clinicians having a full picture of that patient’s experience. Hopefully, that will also help to deal with some of the cliff edges and bumps in the road that people can often experience when transitioning from one part of the NHS to another, whether that is from youth and adolescent services to adult services or the interface between primary and secondary care.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Calum Miller and Wes Streeting

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome today’s announcement of new money for GPs’ surgeries, but GPs in my constituency tell me that they cannot get capital out of the integrated care board and that the Valuation Office Agency consistently undervalues the cost of rents, making future building impossible. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, and GPs from my constituency, in order to understand the problem better?

[Wes Streeting]

Thanks to the investment that we have announced, those practices will be upgraded. I advise the hon. Gentleman to engage with his local ICB. We are happy to receive representations if we can help, but let me gently point out that the investment is only possible thanks to the decisions made by the Chancellor, which he opposed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Calum Miller and Wes Streeting

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

10. What recent steps he has taken to increase access to GP appointments.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

Today there are 1,399 fewer full-time equivalent GPs than in 2015, and NHS dentistry is at death’s door. This Government will fix the front door to the NHS. We have announced an additional £889 million in funding for general practice in 2025-26—the biggest boost in years—and we have already started hiring an extra 1,000 GPs on the frontline. Our 10-year health plan will shift the focus of healthcare out of hospital and into the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend has been raising these issues with me since before he was elected to this place on behalf of the communities he represents. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), we must make sure that additional housing—which is desperately needed—is accompanied by health and care services. The Deputy Prime Minister and I are working together to achieve just that, and thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget, we are able to invest in the health and care services that this country needs and deserves.

[Calum Miller]

Woodstock surgery in my constituency is not fit for purpose. In September, heavy rain fell and caused the roof to collapse, causing the surgery to close. The nurse literally sees patients in a broom cupboard. The GPs want to increase their capacity to see more patients, but have been unable to access sufficient capital from the integrated care board. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the Woodstock GPs to discuss how the reforms announced yesterday will help them build a new surgery, so that they can see patients faster?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question. I am incredibly sorry about the awful conditions in which staff in that practice are having to see patients and in which the patients it serves are having to be seen—that is the epitome of the broken general practice system that we inherited. Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor in the Budget, we are able to invest in the capital estate need in the NHS. That will take time, and we would be delighted to hear more about that individual case to see how the ICB and the NHS can assist.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

We have been busy announcing investment in hospices, an uplift in funding for general practice, action through disabled facilities grants and a new independent commission on adult social care, and yesterday the Prime Minister announced the elective care reform plan. As I have said, however, the NHS is experiencing a period of significant winter challenge. The number of beds occupied by people with flu has been much higher than the number last year, and is continuing to rise. An average of just over 4,200 beds were occupied by flu patients at the end of December, surpassing the peak of about 2,500 reported last year. We monitor the situation closely, working hand in hand with NHS England and care leaders, and I continue to chair weekly meetings with senior leaders in social care, NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency.

[Calum Miller]

I am sure the Secretary of State will share my shock and anger about the number of young people in my constituency who are waiting more than four years for a first assessment by child and adult mental health services. Can he confirm that yesterday’s commitment by the Prime Minister that patients would not wait more than 18 weeks for a first appointment will apply to CAMHS in Oxfordshire?

[Wes Streeting]

We are determined to improve children and young people’s experience of both mental and physical health services, and we are determined to do more to ensure that mental health and paediatric waits are put under the spotlight and given the same attention as the overall elective backlog. I am sure we will have more to say about that when we publish the 10-year plan.