Health Bill

Debate between Caroline Dinenage and Liz Twist

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, and was pleased to be a member of the Bill Committee. I also welcome the Government’s new clauses, about which the Minister has spoken today.

New clause 159, to which I have added my name, seeks to address a long-standing legislative omission in our health service. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for tabling it. For over a decade since the Health and Social Care Act 2012, Parliament has recognised the principle of parity of esteem between physical and mental health, but without statutory accountability that parity has remained an aspiration rather than a clinical reality.

The scale of the problem is clear. NHS data shows that 1.87 million adults and more than 576,000 children and young people currently hold open referrals for mental health services. While the Government set clear targets to reduce physical healthcare waiting lists, mental health services are excluded from these core constitutional ambitions, and the division has severe consequences. A survey conducted by Rethink Mental Illness found that 83% of patients experienced a deterioration in their mental health while waiting for support, and that nearly a third of those whose health worsened attempted suicide.

New clause 159 would require the Secretary of State to publish national waiting time standards for mental health services within 12 months of the Bill passing into law. The fact is that what is measured is addressed, so we need to give the same attention to mental health that we rightly give to physical health measures. These standards, which cover both community and urgent care, must be developed in consultation with the chief medical officer. Crucially, the new clause mandates the Secretary of State to report performance against those waiting times, alongside mental health expenditure, to Parliament every year. That will ensure that the funding that we allocate in the House is linked transparently to patient outcomes. If we do not measure waiting times we cannot manage them, and patients will continue to be left until they are in crisis before they receive support. It is time that we started to pay the same attention to mental health as we do to physical health, so that we can really achieve parity of esteem.

The Government have set out a welcome and ambitious path to rebuild our NHS, and achieving true parity of esteem is central to that mission. I urge the Minister to look closely at new clause 159 as a constructive measure.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I will speak about new clause 41, which stands in my name.

We put enormous, unquestioning trust in those who care for the bodies of our loved ones when they die. However, in this Chamber six months ago, I told a former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), about Elkin and Bell, the Gosport funeral directors who left 46 bodies decaying in an unrefrigerated room. One of them, an elderly gentleman whose family had already paid for his cremation, was left decomposing for 36 days. I said then that the funeral sector was nothing better than a lawless wild west with no mandatory qualifications to practise, no accreditation for professionals, no licensing of businesses, no inspection of premises, and no law to fall back on when things go wrong. It was only persistence and ingenuity on the part of Hampshire constabulary that saw Elkin and Bell brought to justice. The Minister at the time told me that a decision on regulation would come in the Government’s full answer to the Fuller inquiry, and we are still awaiting.

Since then, matters have worsened. In July, Robert Bush, a funeral director in Hull, was sentenced to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty to 67 charges for bodies left decomposing in squalor. Forty-six grieving families had been reunited with the wrong ashes, but the real horror is that these will not be isolated cases. Under the law as it stands today, almost anyone can set themselves up as a funeral director.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Caroline Dinenage and Liz Twist

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)]

The Government have enshrined in legislation through the Care Act 2014 a council’s statutory duty to meet eligible needs for adult social care. We have given councils access to up to £1.5 billion more dedicated funding for social care in 2020-21 to help them to meet this requirement.

[Liz Twist]

Figures from Age UK show that 1.5 million people aged 65 and over have an unmet social care need, and Age UK estimates that this figure will rise to 2.1 million by 2030 if we carry on as we are. In my constituency, that equates to 3,012 older people with unmet needs and 2,517 older people providing unpaid care. Those are real people who are not getting the help they need. The Prime Minister said last summer that he had a plan to “fix” social care. Where is it?

[Caroline Dinenage]

As I have explained, the Care Act sets out the requirement that entitles individuals to a care needs assessment and sets a minimum national threshold at which care should be delivered. We have backed councils up by giving them access to £1.5 billion in additional funding in the next financial year. In the hon. Member’s constituency, that will equate to an additional £5.1 million from the new social care grant. This is something that the Government take very seriously.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Dinenage and Liz Twist

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am actually coming to that very section of the Bill now.

We are proposing that a review of an authorisation will be completed by an approved mental capacity professional when an objection is raised by someone with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare. It is vital that objections can be raised not just by the person themselves but by others who have an interest in their welfare. This could be a member of the care staff, a close friend or a family member. The Government amended the Bill to clarify that objections can be raised at a pre-authorisation stage, and these new amendments clarify that objections can be raised at any time throughout the authorisation and can lead to a review of the ongoing need for deprivation of liberty.

Amendments 39, 40 and 42 relate to authorisations that need to vary in order to prevent them from ceasing because small variations need to be made. Under the current deprivation of liberty safeguards system, an authorisation is tied to one specific location. This creates a situation in which a person has multiple authorisations if they need to move between settings. If a person is in a care home and has a planned stay in hospital, for example, a new application has to start from scratch. The Law Commission recommended that authorisations should be able to cover more than one setting to remove that duplication. There is an exception if someone needs to go into hospital in an emergency, when variations can be made without a review taking place first, but one should be held as soon as possible afterwards. In some cases, the responsible body will change even though the person still resides in the same location. For example, a care home resident may become eligible for NHS continuing healthcare, but their location and care will not change.

Opposition amendment 49 seeks to require the responsible body to carry out the consultation required by the Bill in every case, removing the ability of the care home manager to complete the consultation. We are clear that it is not appropriate for certain functions to be conducted by the care home manager, which relates to what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was saying. The Bill explicitly prevents anyone with a prescribed connection to a care home, which will be set out in regulations and will include care home managers and staff, from completing the assessments required for an authorisation and the pre-authorisation review. We are clear that decision making lies with the responsible body, not the care home manager.

Consultation is another matter. We expect, as part of good care, that care providers are consulting with the people in their care, and with those with an interest in that person’s welfare, to establish their needs, wishes and feelings. That applies regardless of whether someone is subject to a liberty protection safeguard and should happen on an ongoing basis. Having care home managers complete the consultation required by the Bill is simply building upon current good practice. The Bill has clear safeguards for that purpose. Objections do not need to be raised through the care home manager. They can be raised directly to the responsible body by the person or by someone interested in their welfare. If there are concerns about the care home manager’s ability to complete the consultation required under the Bill, the responsible body can decide to take on the care home function and complete the consultation itself.

[Liz Twist]

Many hon. Members will have had a large amount of correspondence from constituents on this matter. Does the Minister accept that there is huge concern about the operation of the provisions and about the role of care home managers more generally? The amendments seek to address that concern, but that feeling remains.