National Cancer Plan
Clive Jones Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne
Part of our recovery plan is to ensure that we return the national health service to constitutional standards, not just in respect of cancer but across the board. We inherited a broken national health service and it is incumbent on this Government to fix it and make it fit for the future. Clearly, in areas such as my hon. Friend’s, the NHS needs to be doing much better when it comes to cancer outcomes and cancer treatments, and this plan and this Government will ensure that his local system gets all the support it needs.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare an interest, as I have a family member who has shares in a medical company.
I pay tribute to the Minister for following through with his promise for a national cancer plan. It is clearly very important to him, and it is to me as well. Shaun Walsh of Cancer Research UK first raised with me the need for a dedicated cancer plan, and it has been an important part of my work in Parliament since then. Will the Minister meet me and Shaun to discuss the next steps for the national cancer plan?
Andrew Gwynne
I am more than happy to do so. My diary secretary, who will be watching this from the Department of Health, is probably having kittens at the amount of meetings. I meet Shaun and the cancer charities frequently anyway, and as I said at the start of the statement, I commend the work that they do in this area. This national cancer plan is important to me, to the Secretary of State, to the Prime Minister and to the sector, and that is why we are doing the right thing and having a plan.
Accessibility of Radiotherapy
Clive Jones Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for securing this debate and for his dedication on this issue. I declare an interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital. I also have a family member who has shares in a medical company.
Radiotherapy access suffers from geographical constraints, and this issue cannot be solved until the significant workforce challenge is addressed alongside it. The Royal College of Radiologists states that in England the NHS faces a 30% shortfall in radiologists. That figure is projected to rise to 40% by 2028, yet more than a fifth of NHS trusts have implemented recruitment freezes. Shortfalls in recruitment mean that consultants, faced with burnout and impossible workloads, retire earlier. That is made especially clear as the average age of retirement is just 54.
The Royal College of Radiologists highlights the absurd situation whereby newly trained consultants may struggle to find jobs, forcing invaluable radiologists and oncologists to go for locum jobs, move abroad or leave the healthcare sector altogether at a time when their skills are best placed in our NHS to fix our cancer care crisis—a crisis in which not a single integrated care board is currently meeting its cancer waiting time standards.
The impact of the recruitment freezes on patients is tangible and is not limited to radiotherapy. Some 80% of patient pathways in the NHS are reliant on radiology. Delays in scan reporting result in delayed treatment. Delayed treatment results in worse outcomes. Worse outcomes may be the deciding factor in whether someone fails to recover.
How will the Government ensure that when my Wokingham constituents visit the Royal Berkshire hospital, the oncology and screening departments are fully staffed? Can the Minister explain his understanding of the recruitment freezes that are taking place across NHS trusts? I am aware that the Minister has a very, very busy diary: he told me so earlier today in the main Chamber.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I suspect that my diary will be a little busier with the two requests from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
Clive Jones
The Minister’s diary will be a little busy, but I am sure it can cope. I ask him to meet me and representatives of the Royal College of Radiologists to discuss the Government’s plan for workforce reform.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am delighted to be able to call the Front-Bench spokesmen early, although that does not necessarily mean that they have to go on at immense length. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
New Hospital Programme
Clive Jones Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the New Hospital Programme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, for a debate that is very timely in the light of the statement of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care this week. My remarks will focus on three hospitals that serve my constituency as part of the East Sussex healthcare NHS trust: Eastbourne district general hospital and Conquest hospital, which are situated outside my constituency but are major secondary care providers for my constituents, and Bexhill community hospital.
As part of the new hospital programme announced by the previous Government, Eastbourne district general hospital is due to be entirely rebuilt, and Conquest hospital is set to be reorganised and the structure improved to ensure that it is fit for the future. Alongside creating additional in-patient wards and improved parking facilities, the plans include expanding the emergency departments at Eastbourne and Conquest, improving access to cardiology and ophthalmology services, and redeveloping out-patient theatres, endoscopy and diagnostic services.
Plans to upgrade Bexhill community hospital are also included in the programme, equipping it to deliver more services locally. Currently, only 53% of space in the hospital is allocated to clinical space. Once that work is complete, that will increase to 70%. To reflect increasing demand for care, the plans will also increase the number of hospital beds by 13%, the number of single rooms as a proportion of hospital space from 18% to 70%, and the number of out-patient consulting rooms by 28%.
Having worked in the NHS as a doctor in A&E for a number of years before becoming an MP, I know the difficulties that can arise from working in buildings that are in need of improvement. The physical infrastructure of the building is outside the control of frontline staff, so they often have to do whatever it takes to make it work, but it would be better if they did not have to. I think the Minister would agree that despite those circumstances, our healthcare staff work tirelessly, and we owe it to them to deliver better infrastructure.
Whatever the new Government may say, progress on the new hospital programme was being made under the previous Government, despite the challenges presented by the pandemic and the inflationary pressures on construction costs as a result of the war in Ukraine. The programme was incredibly ambitious but remained a significant commitment to investment in hospital infrastructure.
During the 2024 general election, the Labour party committed to delivering the new hospital programme. Candidates up and down the country made pledges to deliver on the programme, but this week, the Health Secretary broke that pledge at the Dispatch Box by moving the goalposts, as a result of which many constituents in Bexhill and Battle will not see the benefits of the programme until 2039 at the earliest.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and that a family member has shares in a medical company. My constituents are heartbroken by the Government’s decision to push the start date of the Royal Berks’s construction to 2037, which will disappoint patients and staff. The hon. Member must recognise the role that his party played in creating that situation, so does he agree that his party needs to reflect on its part in the delayed new hospital programme, and will he apologise for it?
Dr Mullan
It is a 30-minute debate, and I want to be generous in letting hon. Members make short points in support of their hospitals, but I do not want to allow it to degenerate into a highly political back and forth. As I was saying, the Government pledged to do it and they did not.
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.
Health and Social Care: Winter Update
Clive Jones Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting
I would be very happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out the support provided by NHS England to health and care services for his community, and I would be delighted to receive via him feedback from his health and care providers about what Government support they would like next winter and in future years.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who has shares in a medical company.
The Secretary of State has a really tough job of clearing up the mess left in the NHS by the Conservatives, but some of the Royal Berkshire hospital estate is not fit for purpose and especially not fit to cope with the winter crisis. Can he confirm that a proper level of funding will be available to rebuild the Royal Berkshire hospital and that there will be no increase in the seven-year delay announced by the Conservatives in April this year? That will help with future winter crises.
Wes Streeting
I will take that as another representation from the hon. Gentleman on the new hospital programme, and I reassure him we will be setting out our review and its conclusions shortly.
NHS Backlog
Clive Jones Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and that a family member has shares in a medical company.
It is a simple fact that as a result of the last Conservative Government, more patients than ever are waiting for hospital treatments. In October 2024, the national waiting list stood at 7.5 million. House of Commons Library data reveals that the waiting list for hospital treatment locally is seven times worse than it was a decade ago. Ten years ago, 91.9% of patients in West Berkshire waited less than 18 weeks for elective surgery; now that proportion has dropped to 75.5%, which is well below NHS targets and is completely unacceptable. Where is the acknowledgment and apology from the previous Government for the mess they created? A backlog means that people’s conditions worsen, forcing on them more complicated surgeries and leading to slower recoveries, worse outcomes and reduced quality of life.
Many people in Wokingham receive treatment at the Royal Berkshire hospital, which is important to me as it is where my children were born and where my cancer was discovered. Its dedicated staff are the pride of our community, and it employs innovative practices to try to reduce the existing backlog. For example, it has expanded its virtual hospital and is now able to treat 124 patients who would normally be in hospital from the comfort of their own home.
However, the hospital’s situation is continually worsened by a crumbling estate. Some 95% of its lifts are beyond their end of life, and it has had to cancel operations due to infrastructure issues. Today’s announcement that extra investment will be provided to hospitals that cut waiting times the fastest is putting the cart before the horse. How does the Secretary of State expect the Royal Berkshire hospital to meaningfully cut waiting times when the Department is unable to set out the next steps for its urgently required rebuild? I and other Members will continue to pursue this matter until we get Government action on it. Will the Minister please set out when the new hospital programme review will be published?
A rebuild of the Royal Berks is especially important for the cancer centre. Some parts of that building are 164 years old—this is where people who are perhaps in the last years of their lives are being treated. Urgent investment is crucial. I was delighted to secure a commitment from the Government to a national cancer strategy for England, which is a very important step forward.
The Government’s cancer strategy needs to clearly set out how it will improve cancer waiting times and tackle outcomes. I hope this can be done before the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill on 4 July, but I fear that today’s announcement regarding the 18-week target pits knee replacements against radiotherapy. Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and is expected to increase annually, with 30% more patients with cancer, yet we have a staggering workforce shortage in almost every staffing group, insufficient capacity, and more than one in 10 referred patients waiting more than 104 days for treatment. Is the Minister still committed to meeting cancer waiting times in this Parliament?
Winter Preparedness
Clive Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karin Smyth
As I said earlier, different systems have different issues. Funding has been allocated in advance to the NHS so that it understands which systems require funding, and that has now been baked in for this year. I cannot address the hon. Gentleman’s points directly from the Dispatch Box, but I am very happy for officials to take note of them and to check with the system on what is happening in his particular community. Obviously, it is important that Winchester hospital works closely with its local authority with regard to discharge. We want to improve the better care fund, and I am sure that he will work with the local authority and his hospital to make sure that it works better.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare an interest: I am a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who has shares in a medical company.
The Royal Berkshire hospital has experienced its highest increase in emergency department attendances as we head into the winter period, yet the estate of the Royal Berks is crumbling, out of date and not fit for purpose. People with infectious diseases, such as flu, covid and norovirus, cannot easily be isolated due to poor air circulation, which only makes the situation worse. When will the Royal Berkshire hospital be rebuilt, and will the Minister visit it to see the full extent of our challenges?
Finally, may I wish the Secretary of State and the Minister a merry Christmas? They should take a short break but come back quickly to continue to clear up the Conservatives’ massive failures on the NHS.
Lobular Breast Cancer
Clive Jones Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate, and for her very moving speech. I have to make a declaration of interest: I am a governor at the Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading and I have a family member who has shares in a medical company.
I would like to start by giving my sincerest thanks to Dr Susan Michaelis: first, for her rose, which I have to say I first thought was a delivery of parliamentary stationery to my office—but it was not; and for her passion and diligence in running the Lobular Moon Shot Project. I am proud to have pledged my support to the campaign, which will hopefully change the lives of millions. I will relentlessly champion the need for improving cancer research in this House, because cancer research is so important for securing earlier diagnosis and delivering more effective treatment. However, the existing system has numerous challenges that need to be overcome.
Funding is certainly one of the research barriers, but there are wider concerns that the existing pressures on our cancer and wider health service are acting as a barrier to research. The Government have committed to developing a national cancer plan. This could be a real turning point, because cancer services are simply not delivering for their patients. The Government are determining what the cancer plan will look like, and they are fortunate that Cancer Research UK has already produced a comprehensive report titled “Leading on Cancer”, which sets out some of the key recommendations that they should consider on all matters of a cancer plan. I will highlight some of their points regarding research, which I suspect would significantly improve the chances of making the Lobular Moon Shot Project a reality.
Cancer Research UK makes it clear that the Government’s cancer plan needs to cover workforce planning, and physical and digital infrastructure. That would give NHS services the capacity to carry out clinical research and would reverse the current trend whereby clinical research is seen as a “nice to have”, rather than as something that is deeply integrated into cancer outcomes. Cancer Research UK’s report also makes it clear that long-term planning is important in giving healthcare systems notice of innovations coming down the track so that the adoption and implementation of those new treatments can be planned for appropriately.
The Government will need to support staff with the right kind of training, and provide the right equipment to deliver innovations. They must not fall into the trap of talking only to themselves. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology needs to work as one to ensure that cancer research is given the priority it needs. The Cancer Research UK report addresses those points in far more detail. I urge the Minister to read it if she has not done so already, and I would be incredibly grateful if she would meet me and Cancer Research UK to discuss its findings.
I pay tribute to the cancer centre at my local hospital, the Royal Berkshire. The King Edward ward provides constituents with chemotherapy, and the Adelaide ward provides care for oncology patients. Its staff are among the very best in the NHS. Can the Government assure me that when they publish their plans for the rebuild of the Royal Berkshire hospital—following the new hospital building programme review, which I fear is already dragging on quite a bit—they will include appropriate digital and physical infrastructure to fully realise and implement new technologies in future years?
Breast Cancer: Younger Women
Clive Jones Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wera Hobhouse
I will come to that later in my speech, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are here to make the case for earlier screening programmes for younger women, because it is becoming such an issue—the rates are increasing. It is because of Lucy’s struggle to get a diagnosis that she felt the need to speak up on behalf of the countless young people who would not question decisions made by medical professionals.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. After I survived breast cancer, one of my many emotional conversations with my daughters was about having the BRCA gene. Currently, there is a postcode lottery for the availability of counselling with proper genetic guidance for those who are identified as having the gene. Does my hon. Friend agree that NHS England should ensure equitable access to information and counselling services, and that fixing the system should be a feature of the Government’s future cancer strategy?
Wera Hobhouse
I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend went through a cancer diagnosis, and I am glad that he recovered. Breast cancer in men is not as well known; people do not necessarily recognise that men can develop breast cancer. Once a diagnosis is made, it is quite traumatic for the whole family. Counselling services need to be adequate, and I agree that there should not be a postcode lottery.
The description of Lucy’s story is in no way meant as an attack on the NHS. Since she was diagnosed, Lucy has received the top-class care for which the NHS is renowned, but she is not alone in having her age used against her. There are countless similar stories of women of a similar age or younger who have found it difficult to receive an initial diagnosis, with concerns often dismissed too early by doctors as hormones, anxiety or tiredness. This is by no means the doctors’ fault; they are forced to make difficult decisions about who to prioritise because of the impossible time and budget constraints that are imposed on them. That does not, however, make it acceptable.
There is a long-standing myth that breast cancer only affects older women, but there has been a global surge in cancers among the under-50s over the past three decades—sadly, the issue is not limited to breast cancer. Last year, a study found that cancer cases in under-50s worldwide are up nearly 80% in the last 30 years. More than a million under-50s are dying of cancer each year, and that figure is projected to rise by 21% by 2030.
I draw attention to the “Jess’s Law” petition, which has more than 350,000 signatures, to improve the awareness and diagnosis of cancer in young adults. It points out the struggles young adults face in getting diagnosed, even though adults aged 25 to 49 contribute around a tenth of all new cancer cases. According to Cancer Research UK, cancer rates in 25 to 39-year-olds in the UK increased by 24% between 1995 and 2019. In 2019 alone, almost 35,000 people in that age bracket were diagnosed with cancer.
The trend is especially alarming in breast cancer. Diagnoses of breast cancer have increased steadily in women under 50 over the past two decades, but in recent years the increase has been even more stark. In 2013, breast cancer cases in women under 50 topped 10,000 for the first time. To the alarm of experts, breast cancer diagnoses in women under 50 have risen by more than 2% annually over the past five years, so the trend is clearly an increase. That is deeply concerning, especially since women under 50 are nearly 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are women over 50.
It is truly alarming that in the UK, breast cancer accounts for 43% of all cancers diagnosed in women aged 25 to 49. Despite that, we continue to wait until women are 50 or older to begin routine screening. Why are we delaying early detection when the rates of breast cancer in younger women are rising year on year? Cervical cancer screening is available to women from the age of 25, but of the top 10 cancers detected in those aged 25 to 49 in the UK, breast cancer outweighs cervical cancer by more than five times, so that discrepancy simply does not make sense. If we can screen for other cancers earlier, we should do the same for breast cancer. We all know that early detection saves lives, so we must ensure that all women, regardless of their age, have the opportunity to access lifesaving screenings.
Young women are more likely to develop aggressive forms of the disease. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and it remains one of the leading causes of death in women under 50 in the UK. Unfortunately, as Lucy’s story shows, younger women often face more challenges to diagnosis. They are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of the disease, with larger tumours and greater lymph node involvement. Cancer in younger women is also more likely to be biologically aggressive: sub-types such as triple negative breast cancer are harder to treat and have poorer outcomes. As a result, younger women have significantly worse prognoses, with a higher risk of recurrence and death than older women. We cannot ignore that stark reality.
Premature death from breast cancer among women in their 40s accounts for the same years of life lost as those in their 50s, and substantially more than those diagnosed in their 60s. That is crucial. A death of a woman in her 40s or 50s represents not just a loss of life, but a tragic loss of potential life years.
Researchers also found an increase in the diagnosis of stages 1 and 4 tumours, which suggests that if stage 1 tumours are missed in younger women, they tend not to be found until they reach stage 4, at which point the cancer is incurable. Early detection can make all the difference. During the previous Parliament, a petition calling for funding to extend breast cancer screening to women from the age of 40 got more than 12,000 signatures. That widespread public support reflects the growing concerns about early detection.
The Government’s response was deeply disappointing. They continue to use the Marmot review as their main reference point, citing the lower risk of young women developing breast cancer and the fact that women below 50 tend to have denser breasts, reducing the accuracy of a mammogram. It is true that the risk of younger women developing breast cancer is lower, but statistics show that rates of breast cancer in women aged 25 to 49 are rising fast, and that upward trend demands urgent attention.
Although mammograms can be less effective in women with denser breast tissue, that should not limit our approach to early detection. We should continue to use modern digital mammography, but the Government should expand the use of automated breast ultrasounds. Ultrasounds are especially effective in detecting abnormalities in dense tissue that might be missed on a mammogram. The technology is not invasive; it is quick and radiation-free, and it is often used for secondary screening for women with dense breasts. Automated breast ultrasounds can detect up to 30% more cancers in women with dense breasts than mammograms alone. By embracing both mammography and ultrasound, we can significantly improve detection rates, ensuring early and more accurate diagnosis.
Last week, in the light of Sir Chris Hoy’s bravery in sharing his story about his struggle with prostate cancer, the Health Secretary asked the NHS to look at the case for lowering the screening age for prostate cancer, particularly for people with a family history of the disease. That is an important and welcome step, but we must look at extending that approach to breast cancer too. Both diseases share a significant genetic link, and a family history often increases the risk. Aligning the screening policies for prostate and breast cancers in recognition of the shared genetic risks would provide a better safety net for those affected.
Various parts of the NHS are competing for investment, but it is clear that short-term investment in this area will save money in the long term, with fewer women needing extensive long-term treatment if breast cancer is caught early. According to Breast Cancer Now, breast cancer will cost the UK economy almost £3 billion in 2024, and the annual cost could rise to £3.6 billion by 2034.
I call on the Department of Health and Social Care to review the national breast cancer screening programme to identify where changes can be made to increase capacity in the system, to ensure that, where appropriate, a woman’s initial screening appointment can happen at a lower age. I also call on the Government to investigate the merits of early optional ultrasound for women aged 30 to 49. Finally, we must educate healthcare professionals and increase resources so that younger women who seek help are always taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, and never dismissed.
It is about not just policy change, but giving people the best possible chance to fight back against cancer and live healthier, longer lives. I hope that the Minister has heard Lucy’s story and will actively look at changing the way we screen for breast cancer for good.
NHS Dentistry: South-west
Clive Jones Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Foord
Dentists need to be rewarded under an NHS dental contract that recognises that not everyone has the same ability to pay. Frankly, if a little money were invested early in preventive measures, some of our constituents would not cost the system nearly so much later.
At a Westminster roundtable on dentistry last year, it was made plain that the issue was about not so much a shortage of dentists, but a need to attract private practising dentists to NHS work. Many dentists, even those who would ideally prefer to work within the NHS, avoid NHS work or leave it, because the current system is not fit for purpose.
On Remembrance Sunday, I was talking to a couple near the war memorial in Sidmouth. They were both veterans. Between them, they had served for 62 years, and they were unable to get NHS dental appointments. They felt that they had dedicated their lives to public service and this was how the state was rewarding them.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I am sure that the issues in the south-west are similar to, and as challenging as, those in Wokingham in Berkshire. Commons Library data states that only 32.6% of children in Wokingham have seen a dentist in the past two years, compared with a 40.3% figure for the whole of England. Both figures show the Conservative party legacy of rotten teeth, fillings and agony. Arborfield and Swallowfield in my constituency are without dedicated dentists. That simply is not good enough. Does he agree that NHS primary care needs to be properly funded?
Richard Foord
I am appalled to hear about those examples from my hon. Friend. The really disappointing thing is that some of the expense of secondary care could be avoided with a little more investment upstream in primary care.
There is a clear disparity between the work that dentists do in the NHS and in private practice. There is so much more emphasis in private practice on preventive care. We need to see that same level of preventive work happening in the NHS.
At an Adjournment debate last week in the main Chamber, it struck me that although many of us were there seeking to draw attention to NHS dentistry, not a single Conservative MP attended. I thank the Minister in the new Government for showing more commitment to NHS dentistry than the last administration, yet we have further to go. The Government prioritised the NHS in the Budget, allocating it an additional £25.7 billion. However, we needed more reference to dentistry in the Budget. The Labour party’s manifesto talked about a dental rescue plan that would provide 700,000 more appointments and, most critically, focus on the retention of dentists in the NHS. We urgently need that.
We urgently need a dental rescue package to bring dentists back to the NHS, particularly in the south-west, where we have a dental training school in Plymouth. We understand that dentists, once trained, often stay where they went to university, so we need more dentists to be attracted to the south-west and to stay once they are there.
Income Tax (Charge)
Clive Jones Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
My constituency has suffered from the previous Government’s failure to fix our NHS. My constituents were promised a rebuild of the Royal Berkshire hospital. That amounted to nothing. The Conservatives failed to fund the programme; they did not allocate the proper amount of money and they dithered and delayed.
I therefore welcome this Government’s extra funding in the Budget for the NHS and its infrastructure. However, they need to make clear how they will manage a backlog of maintenance repairs amounting to £102 million for the Royal Berkshire hospital, on top of upwards of £1.3 billion required to build a new hospital. The trust could start construction as early as 2028, but that requires urgent confirmation that the funding will go ahead. Does the Minister agree that a hospital sooner rather than later will deliver better outcomes for patients?
I do not blame the Government for the financial mess that they have inherited from the Conservatives, but when it comes to primary care, the Budget has taken one step forward but two steps back. I simply do not understand why, at a time when Wokingham has an increasing GP-to-patient ratio and a growing population, the Chancellor has decided to levy a tax on jobs through the national insurance employer contribution. That will impact GP care provision and leave our overstretched services struggling even more.
I am campaigning for the community of Arborfield to have their own dedicated GP practice. My constituents are crying out for change so that they can get the services that they deserve. Does the Minister agree that GPs in Wokingham and across England should be protected from the national insurance hike? If that does not happen, we risk losing their services. Will he engage with my local integrated care board to impress upon it the need to fund a GP surgery in the community of Arborfield?
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
The Government have a profound duty to tackle poverty with urgency and ambition. After 14 years of Tory austerity hollowing out our public services and leaving our communities struggling, eradicating poverty must be at the heart of the Government’s agenda. Yet the Budget falls short, and without bold action the most vulnerable in our constituencies will continue to suffer.
Ending austerity is not just about stopping cuts; it is about real action to lift people out of poverty. The critical first step must be to scrap the two-child benefit cap, which unfairly punishes families for having more than two children. If it remains, according to the Resolution Foundation an additional 63,000 children will be in poverty by 2025. We must scrap it immediately. We must also reverse the means-testing of winter fuel payments. No pensioner should have to choose between heating and eating in a cost of living crisis. Providing warmth to those at risk should be non-negotiable for a Labour Government. The 50% rise in bus fare cap is equally unacceptable. Affordable public transport is vital for low-income families, students and those without cars. Increasing fares deepens and entrenches inequality, and hinders our climate goals.
The Labour Government must ditch Tory welfare reforms that will slash billions from disability benefits, pushing people into more severe hardship. Those reforms must be rejected root and branch, not piecemeal. The more than 330,000 excess deaths in the past decade remind us that austerity costs lives and that politics is a matter of life and death. In one of the world’s wealthiest nations, no family should be in poverty, no child should be left hungry and no pensioner should be unable to heat their home.
Our response must be transformative in rebalancing the economy for the many, not the few. We need a fair tax system that places the burden on those who can pay the most. A 2% tax on assets over £10 million could raise £24 billion annually, and equalising capital gains with income rate thresholds would bring in an additional £17 billion. Those funds could truly transform our NHS, schools and communities.
Finally, we need a bold economic plan to secure our future, with a worker-led just transition to renewable energy, creating thousands of unionised jobs and ensuring that no one is left behind. My constituents in Coventry South and communities across the UK deserve a Budget that marks the end of austerity with action not just words, and with a true commitment to ending poverty.
Clive Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must apologise to the House for not making a declaration at the beginning of my speech. I am a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who has shares in a health company. I apologise for not mentioning it at the beginning of my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. It is most definitely relevant to the debate, and his transparency is noted.