Lobular Breast Cancer: Moon Shot Project

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Thursday 9th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this vital debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for campaigning on this topic, following her own diagnosis of lobular breast cancer.

I add my tribute to Dr Susan Michaelis, as today marks one year since she passed away from lobular breast cancer. As a founder of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, she campaigned tirelessly on behalf of women diagnosed with lobular breast cancer and raised awareness for the condition. I also pay tribute to members of the Lobular Moon Shot Project, including Susan’s husband, Tristan Loraine, for picking up the mantle, continuing the important work of the project and carrying Susan’s torch forward.

I recognise the number of charities that carry out important work in this area, such as Lobular Breast Cancer UK, Breast Cancer Now and Cancer Research UK, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who continue to provide support, many of whom we have heard from today.

Lobular breast cancer accounts for 15% of breast cancer cases. However, as we have heard, this form of cancer sadly goes undetected in too many women. We are determined to transform diagnosis and outcomes for patients. Earlier this year, the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, who is the lead DHSC Minister on this issue—I am standing in for her today—and Lord Vallance, the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, met representatives of the Lobular Moon Shoot Project. Alongside Government research funders, they discussed the Lobular Moon Shot’s work, listened to the experiences of lobular breast cancer from those who attended, and discussed how to advance research in this vital area.

Following that meeting, last month Lord Vallance hosted a scientific roundtable that brought together a range of researchers, clinicians and industry representatives to identify opportunities to advance research and innovation. At that meeting, attendees agreed that one of the next steps should be to encourage collaborative research and funding applications across multiple existing schemes, including for basic discovery science. I would like to emphasise that Government research funders stand ready to support that work as it progresses.

We acknowledge and share the Lobular Moon Shoot Project’s ambition for researchers to take a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to addressing the unique challenges of lobular breast cancer. Government responsibility for delivering cancer research is shared between the Department of Health and Social Care, with research delivered by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, with research delivered via UK Research and Innovation.

The Medical Research Council primarily supports the discovery sciences and fundamental biological research, which is the focus of the Lobular Moon Shot campaign. Through MRC, UKRI has emphasised its commitment to supporting interdisciplinary team-based research across its funding schemes and highlighted support for collaborative activities to provide a platform on which to build a portfolio of research in this important area. NIHR’s research is complementary to the MRC’s focus, supporting the translation of discovery science into patient benefit.

Through the MRC and NIHR, we are already funding research into lobular breast cancer. For example, a breast cancer screening study is investigating whether a new, faster MRI scan could detect breast cancers earlier. The FAST—first post-contrast subtracted—MRI is a new type of scan that aims to detect cancers, including lobular breast cancer, that may not be routinely picked up by mammograms during a first screening visit. The £1.36 million study is jointly funded by the MRC and the NIHR. Furthermore, with a total investment of £32 million, the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre support lobular breast cancer by combining translational research, precision diagnostics and targeted clinical trials to develop and test tailored treatments.

Promising discoveries are being made. Scientists at the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre at the Institute of Cancer Research have recently discovered a drug, currently being tested in clinical trials for a rare blood cancer, that could also be used to treat lobular breast cancer. Researchers now hope to progress the drug to clinical trials for lobular breast cancer. More widely, we are supporting world-leading research and development to enable the prevention of cancer and to improve diagnosis, treatment and care for people affected by the conditions. Cancer is a major area of NIHR spending. Reflecting its high priority, the institute spent £141.6 million on it in 2024-25. Alongside that, UKRI invested £198 million in cancer research in the same year.

We are investing in the best science, which explores lobular breast cancer both in isolation and in conjunction with other cancers, to maximise the opportunity to share learning and identify possible breakthroughs. Historically, the breast cancer research community has categorised the field around signalling, pathway and molecular presentation on tumours. Rather than naming a particular cancer sub-type, therefore, grants within the MRC portfolio focus on the understanding of molecular mechanisms common to both lobular breast cancer and invasive breast cancer.

We know that more research is needed. That is why both the MRC and NIHR are committed to continuing to support the development of high-quality, fundable research proposals. There are a range of existing opportunities across funders that support this developing portfolio. The NIHR is actively encouraging high-quality, ambitious research proposals on lobular breast cancer, having launched a highlight notice in late 2025 to signal to researchers our interest in funding research into this area.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Helen Maguire]

rose—

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) was first.

[Daniel Francis]

I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing the debate. I have supported my constituent Emma Hunwick and her campaigning on this issue. It is the third time I have attended a debate on this subject in the two years I have been an MP. I hear what the Minister says about research, but I think what supporters want is assurance that we will not be having a similar conversation again next year. They want confidence that we will have made some progress in the next 12 months.

[Stephen Kinnock]

In a nutshell, what I am trying to lay out is that it is not an either/or question. There is a tremendous amount of work going on to research cancer, including lobular breast cancer, which is a vital subset of that work.

The challenge for us is the idea of ringfencing £20 million, because ringfencing is not the standard process. The standard process is to have applications that are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of the importance of the topic to the public and health and care services, value for money and scientific quality. If there is a difference of view in the Chamber today, it is whether we have an ecosystem of cutting-edge research, applications and competitive process, based on the principles I have just outlined, or a ringfenced fund.

I have to be absolutely clear and straight with my hon. Friend that currently the Government are not of the view that a ringfencing approach is the right way to go. The worry is that that approach could potentially cut across the ecosystem-based approach that we are seeking to nurture and foster, which we believe will deliver better outcomes in the end.

Unpaid Carers: Inequalities

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Thursday 20th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will be very happy to do that. We have launched the 43 sites, so I would be happy to share the documentation on how we launched them and the terms of reference. [Interruption.] I can see the representative from my private office is taking notes.

[Daniel Francis]

I do not expect an answer now, but can I also ask the Minister to take away a point about the complexity of some of these disabilities? Sometimes people are under several different consultants in several different hospitals, perhaps for a neurological condition, for their sight, for epilepsy and so on. I am thinking about both the complexity of the different apps, and different parts of apps, used by different NHS trusts and hospitals, and the complexity of the distances travelled —it is the carer who manages all those aspects. How can we take that away and support the carer in managing the care of the person for whom they are caring?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s points; I think that neighbourhood health, as a strategy, addresses his points about both the proximity and complexity. By definition, through shifting from hospital to community, we are addressing the proximity point. The fact that neighbourhood health will be based on multidisciplinary teams creates the idea of a one-stop shop for the patient, where their complex needs are addressed in one place.

To ensure that local areas can meet their duties under the Care Act, the 2025 spending review allows for an increase of more than £4 billion in additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, to support the sector in making improvements. The Health and Care Act 2022 strengthened expectations around identifying and involving carers and ensuring that services are shaped by carer feedback.

NHS England is helping local systems to adopt best practice through co-produced tools, case studies and events such as Carers Week and the Commitment to Carers conference. Initiatives such as GP quality markers for carers, carer passports and digital proxy access are already making a real difference and increasing the number of carers who are identified in the NHS.

Balancing paid work and caring responsibilities remains a significant challenge, and too many carers risk financial hardship as a result. That should never be the case. Supporting carers to remain in or return to work is central to our plan for a modern, inclusive labour market. Employers benefit enormously from the skills, dedication and experience that carers bring. That is why in April we increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit to £196 a week—the largest rise since its inception in the 1970s—meaning that carers can now earn up to £10,000 a year without losing the allowance.

The Carer’s Leave Act, which came into force in April 2024, gives employees one week of unpaid leave each year to help to manage planned caring commitments. We are now reviewing how the Act is working in practice, listening to carers and to employers of all sizes. That includes exploring the potential benefits and implications of introducing paid carer’s leave. To ensure transparency, and as hon. Members have noted, the Department for Business and Trade yesterday published the terms of reference for that review and we will hold a public consultation in 2026 on employment rights for people balancing work and care.

Young carers make an extraordinary contribution, often taking on responsibilities far beyond their years. Our ambition is that every young carer should receive the support that they need to succeed at school and beyond. This autumn, we published key stages 2 and 4 attainment data for young carers for the first time—an important step in understanding and addressing the educational disadvantage that they face. Reforms across education and children’s social care will strengthen identification and support. Ofsted’s new inspection framework, introduced on 10 November, explicitly references young carers in the expected standards for inclusion, safeguarding and personal development.

Local authorities must identify young carers who may need support and assess their needs when requested. We strongly support the “No Wrong Doors for Young Carers” memorandum of understanding that promotes collaboration across children’s and adults’ services, health partners and schools. I encourage all local authorities to adopt it.

NHS England is supporting the identification of young carers through GP guidance and improved data sharing. It is also leading a cross-Government project, co-produced with young carers and voluntary, community and social enterprise partners, to support identification, strengthen support pathways and join up services across education, health and local organisations. Engagement workshops have already helped to shape the next young carers summit, in early 2026.

Our 10-year plan sets out strong foundations for change, and we are now fully focused on delivery. Baroness Casey’s independent commission will shape the cross-party and national consensus around longer-term reforms, including proposals for a national care service. As noted by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), however, supporting unpaid carers requires commitment across Government. That is why I chair a ministerial working group, working closely with my counterparts at the DWP, the DBT and the Department for Education, to ensure that our policies reflect the realities of caring.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and others asked about the Government’s response to the Sayce review. I can confirm that we will publish that response this year and I am receiving regular updates from DWP colleagues on that matter. Additionally, our research arm, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, is evaluating local carer support programmes to identify what works and where improvements are needed.

As we look to the future, prevention must sit at the heart of our approach. Too many carers reach crisis point before they receive help. That not only places huge strain on families, but leads to avoidable pressure on hospitals, primary care and social services. By intervening earlier—through better identification in primary care, strengthened community networks and improved signposting —we can ensure that carers receive the right support before challenges escalate.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

Yes. I am very happy to take that up with officials and I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in short order.

New clause 20 would introduce a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay an annual report in both Houses of Parliament on the impact of the Bill. The report would include the effect of an assisted dying service on access to healthcare, palliative care and assisted dying, and an analysis in relation to people’s socioeconomic status and protected characteristics. That report would sit alongside the existing requirement in clause 35 for a report five years after the Bill is passed. The new clause would require that the first annual report be laid before each House on its first sitting day after one calendar year from the passing of the Bill. The Committee may wish to note that, given the 12-month timeframe, the reporting requirement may start before implementation is complete.

Protected characteristics are defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010; however, socioeconomic status is undefined in the new clause, and is not defined elsewhere in the Bill. It is therefore not clear what the assessment of those factors is intended to involve, and it may be difficult in practice for the Secretary of State to determine whether they have fulfilled this duty.

New clause 28 would introduce a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the Bill within 12 months of it being passed, and to publish and lay a report of that assessment in both Houses of Parliament. The Committee may wish to note that, given the 12-month timeframe, the reporting requirement may start before implementation is complete.

Under the new clause, the assessment must cover the extent to which the Bill is on course to meet its aims; the state of health and care services for persons receiving palliative and end-of-life care; the implications of the Bill on those services; any emerging concerns relating to the operation of the Bill; and any steps the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to those concerns. That requirement is in addition to clause 35, which requires a review by the Secretary of State at the end of the initial five-year period after the Bill is passed. That new requirement is wider in scope, and would be required after one year.

Palliative and end-of-life care services are broad, holistic services, provided by a range of professionals and providers—generalist and specialist—across the NHS, social care and voluntary sector organisations. Therefore, measuring the provision is difficult, as relevant consultations and tasks are not always coded as palliative or end-of-life care. Commissioning and contracting processes do not consistently support data collection, with block contracts and grants commonplace. It is also practically difficult to identify the Bill as the catalyst of the implications on those services over the specific period, as they are affected by multiple factors.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Disqualification from being witness or proxy

[Daniel Francis]

I beg to move amendment 454, in clause 36, page 22, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) any person who would not have capacity to request assistance to end their own life under this Act.”

[Daniel Francis]

Amendment 454 stands in my name, in relation to the clause on disqualification from being witness or proxy. Clause 36(2) outlines the reasons why an individual cannot be a witness or proxy: if they are a relative of the person; if it is believed they are a beneficiary of the will; if they may otherwise benefit financially; if they are a health professional who has provided treatment or care for the person; or if they have not yet attained the age of 18.

Clearly—particularly on clause 3—we have had long debates about mental capacity, and it does not state in clause 36 as is currently stands that the person who is over 18 has to have mental capacity. Therefore, as the Bill stands, someone could bring their grandmother with Alzheimer’s or dementia along and get her to sign their paperwork. My amendment simply seeks to ensure that the person who is the proxy has mental capacity. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Stephen Kinnock]

As drafted, clause 36 sets out individuals who are disqualified from acting as a witness or proxy. Amendment 454 would add to that list and exclude anyone from acting as a witness or proxy who would not themselves have capacity to request to end to their own life under the Bill. This would require there to be an assessment of the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies. There is no corresponding obligation placed on medical practitioners in the Bill to assess the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies, so it is not clear how a person would request, and be provided with, the required capacity assessment.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is right that there are some exclusions for witnesses and proxies, as set out in the Bill, but although I have no doubt that amendment 454 comes from a good place, it seems both excessive and impractical to conduct a capacity assessment on witnesses and proxies. They are not the patient who is seeking assistance under the Bill, and the role they have is functional and will be overseen by the co-ordinating doctor. The panel can also ask to hear from them if they wish. As such, I cannot support the amendment.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis]

These amendments refer to the oral evidence we received from Mencap. They would add provisions to ensure those consulted in the preparation of the chief medical officer’s guidance include persons with learning disabilities. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Clause 31(2) provides that, before preparing guidance under the clause, the relevant CMO must consult such persons as they consider appropriate. Amendment 395 would add a duty for the CMO to consult persons with learning disabilities before preparing such guidance. That may call into question why other specific groups are not expressly listed.

Amendment 396 would include persons with learning disabilities as an additional category of people to which the CMOs must have regard in relation to preparing practical and accessible information, advice and guidance under clause 31. The effect would be to include persons with learning disabilities as a specific category of people in addition to the listed categories. This could imply that those with learning disabilities would not already be included in one of the categories already listed, namely

“persons requesting or considering requesting assistance to end their own lives…next of kin and families of such persons”

and “the general public.”

Clause 31 sets out a duty on the chief medical officers for England and Wales to publish public-facing guidance relating to the operation of the legislation. It has rightly been a matter for the Committee to determine amendments to the clause, and the Government will respect the will of Parliament. As Members will know, the Government have been working with the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, on amendments to ensure that, if passed, the legislation will be legally robust and workable.

On this clause, we intend to support the development of further such technical amendments on Report. Where amendments are required to clarify the obligations in relation to the preparation of guidance, we will work with the promoter to ensure that MPs receive good notice to give them adequate time for consideration. I hope those observations were helpful for the Committee.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Fundamentally, the balance of judgment of risk is based on whether, if we add additional words, phrases and amendments to a piece of legislation, it would have the result of decreasing the risk we are trying to address, or of increasing that risk. The Government’s view is that the Mental Capacity Act is a robust foundation for the decisions and processes set out in the Bill. Hon. Members are, of course, absolutely welcome to say that they do not believe that the Mental Capacity Act does what it should be doing and that that is why they have tabled amendments. However, the Government’s view is that the proposed changes would increase the risk of somehow creating a parallel framework to the Mental Capacity Act, rather than keeping it as the foundation. The system is very familiar with it and knows how it works, and that is the best way to minimise the risks that I think all hon. Members are keen to minimise to the greatest extent possible.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

The Mental Capacity Act code of practice outlines that following a court judgment, there is a separate capacity test for making a will or a gift, entering into a contract, litigating and entering into a marriage. It outlines, in paragraph 4.50, specific legal tests on top of the mental capacity assessment. Will the Minister outline why we allow separate mental capacity tests in those cases, but not in this case?

[Stephen Kinnock]

What we are saying is that we have the Mental Capacity Act as the legal basis for the questions we are addressing in the Bill. Cleary, on top of that regulations will be brought forward by the Secretary of State to ensure that medical practitioners have adequate training and that capacity-building takes place, so that the system is able to deal with the question before it, and therefore the judgment of the medical practitioner is trusted. I think, in the situation my hon. Friend just outlined, that that would be the same case.

Again, this is the process that every Government go through in pretty much every single aspect of policy that they deal with. They have a legislative basis; they bring forward regulations; they deliver training and they build capacity; and the system works on that basis. We then need to ensure that we have a system that is flexible, robust and resilient enough to deliver and to address whatever challenges it faces.

[Daniel Francis]

I will read paragraph 4.50 of the mental capacity code of practice:

“For certain kinds of complex decisions (for example, making a will)”—

and the others I have just mentioned—

“there are specific legal tests…in addition to the two-stage test for capacity.”

It already exists within our law; for other tests, there is an additional test.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I see the point that my hon. Friend is making, but the amendments, as the Government understand them, would risk creating a parallel legal framework and increasing levels of uncertainty, and the more that we increase levels of uncertainty, the greater the risk of the system not working properly. Clearly, the situation that he describes is based on particular measures that have been brought forward, but what we are talking about is a legal framework, not a code of practice, in the legislation.

Amendment 398 would remove the existing presumption of capacity in the Mental Capacity Act, thus requiring a capacity assessment in every case. The amendment would also establish a different test for assessing capacity with regards to the decision to seek assisted dying. Establishing a lack of capacity would not be based on an inability to make a decision because of an impairment of, or disturbance in, the functioning of the mind or brain, as in the Mental Capacity Act. Rather, this would allow for the consideration of other factors, such as immaturity. It would also apply a higher standard of proof than the Mental Capacity Act requires for other decisions, including for serious medical treatment, by requiring assessors to establish capacity “beyond reasonable doubt”. This may raise questions about the nature and extent of the evidence required.

In summary, the amendment would introduce a new framework for assessing mental capacity specific to assisted dying. This may create operational challenges for practitioners and healthcare professionals who are well experienced in applying the Mental Capacity Act.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. As was noted earlier, the Government remain neutral. My role here is not to offer a Government view on the merits of the amendments but to provide a factual explanation of their technical and practical effect, to assist the Committee in its scrutiny. This group of amendments focuses on the concept of mental capacity. As drafted, the Bill, in clause 3, states that

“references to a person having capacity are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005”,

with sections 1 to 3 of that Act establishing the principles and criteria for assessing a person’s capacity to make decisions. New clause 1, which would replace clause 3, and amendments 34 to 47, would collectively introduce the concept of an individual having the ability to make the decision to request assistance to end their life. A person’s ability would be determined by whether they could

“fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

That is intended to replace the term “capacity”, used in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provides a very specific definition of what it means to lack capacity in relation to a particular decision. A lack of capacity under this framework means that a person must be unable to understand, use and weigh information relevant to the decision, and that that must be directly caused by

“an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”

The “ability” proposal, as drafted, deals only with the use and weight of information.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

To go back to the point I made this morning—I am happy to stand corrected, but nobody has disputed it—two issues continue to concern me in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the code of conduct. The first is that the doctor would have a choice, under chapter 5 of the guidance, as to whether it is practical and appropriate to consult other people—with regard to learning disability, for instance.

Also, we have not discussed principle 2 in chapter 2, which says that the doctor has to do everything practicable to try to help the person to make the decision for themselves, before concluding that they do not have the capacity to do so. The principal concern for some Members remains those issues in relation to the Mental Capacity Act, which have not been considered for this scenario. I would like the Minister to address them and the fact that that Act, which was written 20 years ago, was not written for this scenario.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The fundamental position of the Government is that the Mental Capacity Act as it stands is a known quantity. It provides the legal base for a whole range of measures and interventions, and the Government’s view is that it would be an adequate legal base to operationalise the Bill should it receive Royal Assent. Our position on it goes no further than that; it is simply a matter of fact that there is a piece of legislation that is a known quantity.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. As was noted earlier, the Government remain neutral. My role here is not to offer a Government view on the merits of the amendments but to provide a factual explanation of their technical and practical effect, to assist the Committee in its scrutiny. This group of amendments focuses on the concept of mental capacity. As drafted, the Bill, in clause 3, states that

“references to a person having capacity are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005”,

with sections 1 to 3 of that Act establishing the principles and criteria for assessing a person’s capacity to make decisions. New clause 1, which would replace clause 3, and amendments 34 to 47, would collectively introduce the concept of an individual having the ability to make the decision to request assistance to end their life. A person’s ability would be determined by whether they could

“fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

That is intended to replace the term “capacity”, used in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provides a very specific definition of what it means to lack capacity in relation to a particular decision. A lack of capacity under this framework means that a person must be unable to understand, use and weigh information relevant to the decision, and that that must be directly caused by

“an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”

The “ability” proposal, as drafted, deals only with the use and weight of information.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

To go back to the point I made this morning—I am happy to stand corrected, but nobody has disputed it—two issues continue to concern me in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the code of conduct. The first is that the doctor would have a choice, under chapter 5 of the guidance, as to whether it is practical and appropriate to consult other people—with regard to learning disability, for instance.

Also, we have not discussed principle 2 in chapter 2, which says that the doctor has to do everything practicable to try to help the person to make the decision for themselves, before concluding that they do not have the capacity to do so. The principal concern for some Members remains those issues in relation to the Mental Capacity Act, which have not been considered for this scenario. I would like the Minister to address them and the fact that that Act, which was written 20 years ago, was not written for this scenario.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The fundamental position of the Government is that the Mental Capacity Act as it stands is a known quantity. It provides the legal base for a whole range of measures and interventions, and the Government’s view is that it would be an adequate legal base to operationalise the Bill should it receive Royal Assent. Our position on it goes no further than that; it is simply a matter of fact that there is a piece of legislation that is a known quantity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Francis and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

The NHS South East London integrated care board provides services to my constituents, and I have discussed some ways in which we could better deliver services by redeveloping the Erith community hospital site in Northumberland Heath. Is the Minister able to provide an outline of the Government’s plan to provide capital funding for expanding community services like those at Erith hospital?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend so that we can get into a bit more detail about what is happening in his constituency, but he is absolutely right to point to the need for more and better community health services. That will be at the heart of our shift from hospital to community in the 10-year plan that we are delivering.