Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

The resident doctors’ strike is unnecessary, irresponsible and wrong. Recently, and again today from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State has been resolute in not giving in to the BMA resident doctors committee’s demands. Although I do not know the details of the current status of his discussions with the committee, may I encourage him to remain firm in his stance and, while being fair to doctors, to always ensure that he puts the interests of patients and taxpayers first?

[Wes Streeting]

Once again, the House is speaking with one voice, and I hope that the BMA understands the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about the unnecessary and irresponsible nature of the proposed strike action this week. Discussions in recent days have been constructive, and I hope that gives grounds for the postponement of strike action so that we can work together to avert it—not just this week, but altogether.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Dementia is one of the greatest health challenges that we as a society face today and in the future, but too many people with dementia end up in hospital, rather than being treated in more appropriate community settings. The 10-year NHS plan offers a real opportunity to shift care into the community and away from acute settings, including for dementia. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with Dementia UK, the Alzheimer’s Society and other fantastic charities as he develops the implementation of his 10-year NHS plan to ensure that it truly delivers for people with dementia and those who care for them?

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely agree with what the shadow Secretary of State has said. All three shifts—from hospital to community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention—ought to benefit people with Alzheimer’s, dementias and other neurological conditions, as will the pioneering science that we need in this country, which I know he is so passionate about.

[Edward Argar]

Maintaining the focus on local communities, the fantastic St Mary’s birth centre in Melton Mowbray, in my constituency, has recently been temporarily closed by the local NHS trust for six months due to staff shortages. Although I appreciate that the Secretary of State does not have powers over such temporary closures and that local NHS leaders have engaged constructively, many local people fear that “temporary” could risk becoming permanent. If that risk looks like becoming a reality by the end of the summer, will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers pre-emptively agree to meet me at that point to discuss it?

Mr Speaker, if I may briefly crave your indulgence at what is my last Dispatch Box appearance for the foreseeable future, may I take the opportunity—after seven years, almost continuously, on the Front Bench in government and in opposition—to thank you, to say that it has been a privilege, and to tell the Secretary of State that it has been a pleasure to shadow him? I think he knows it, but I genuinely wish him well.

[Wes Streeting]

I absolutely give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I would be happy to meet him about his constituency issue, or indeed anything else. For all of the exchanges that we have across these Dispatch Boxes on issues of disagreement, what is not always readily understood beyond this House is the extent to which those on both sides work extremely constructively together, on the enormous number of issues that we have in common, in pursuit of the national interest. The virtues of wisdom, kindness and selfless dedication to public service are not the preserve of one side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has those qualities in abundance, and we wish him very well, personally and professionally.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy and advance sight of his statement. I also note that he is among the most assiduous of Ministers in volunteering himself to this House to be questioned on issues of importance. I am, however, afraid it comes as no surprise that we are here today discussing likely industrial action on this Government’s watch. Last year, we warned the Government that caving in to union demands for above-inflation pay rises without any conditions or strings attached would set a dangerous precedent. It would send a message that the Government were weak, and we warned that the unions would simply come back for more. Unfortunately, events in recent days have shown that we were right.

The public will be understandably concerned about what this industrial action will mean for them and the provision of local NHS services. For patients with an appointment scheduled or even on a waiting list, that concern will be particularly acute. Let me be clear: this BMA strike action—as the Secretary of State has said, it is supported by less than 50% of those eligible to vote—is irresponsible, wrong and unnecessary. On that, I agree with the Secretary of State.

Will the Secretary of State enlarge on the additional steps that he is taking to seek to resolve the industrial dispute and prevent the strike action from going ahead? I heard what he said about his willingness to talk. Does he anticipate further meetings before strikes start on 25 July, and does he anticipate a risk of any other parts of the NHS workforce balloting for strike action?

If this strike action does take place, what steps are being put in place to minimise disruption, what is the plan to protect patients who will need to access NHS services over this period, and can the Secretary of State guarantee that emergency cover will remain and that there will be minimum service levels in place? More broadly, and based on the previous strikes, how many appointments do the Government anticipate are at risk of being cancelled or postponed, and has he assessed what impact the decision by the BMA will have on his aim of reducing waiting lists and meeting his 18-week target?

The previous chief financial officer of NHS England said that nearly all the money allocated to the NHS at the autumn Budget will be eaten up by NHS pay settlements, the national insurance hike and increased inflationary costs, just to maintain services at their existing level. Following the recent spending review and the Chancellor’s announcement of additional funding, how much of that does the Secretary of State anticipate will be spent on staffing costs, including the already agreed pay award and the national insurance increase, and how much of it will actually make it to the frontline in the form of additional care, or to fund the reforms that he set out recently?

What does the Secretary of State anticipate will be the long-lasting impact of strike action on relations between the Government and trade unions in the health space? The 10-year plan was published just last week. As I said at the time, it is sensible and I am supportive of what he has set out in that, but concerns have been raised about its deliverability. The Secretary of State has said previously that he will need to work with the unions to deliver on the plan. Is he still confident that that will be possible? Does he believe that they will agree to the changes that are required, or is there a risk of further strike action over the coming years because doctors have sensed a weakness?

In opposition, the Secretary of State had some very strong and well-articulated views on industrial action. He said strike action was

“playing politics with our NHS”.

On that, I agree with him. He said that

“the Government ought to be pulling out all the stops”—[Official Report, 22 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 218.]

and that

“the power to stop these strikes is in the Government’s hands.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 732.]

He is the Secretary of State now. Does he agree that the power to stop these strikes is in his hands?

Our message to the Government is clear. The Secretary of State needs to do what he has said he will do: face down union pressure and deliver an affordable settlement that is fair to staff, patients and, crucially, taxpayers. On his watch, resident doctors are set to leave the frontline to go on to the picket line—whether that happens will be down to him. Sadly, Labour’s weakness is fuelling this crisis. If the Government do not get a grip now, a summer of discontent and strikes risks turning into a summer of chaos, and it will be patients who pay the price.

[Wes Streeting]

I think the shadow Secretary of State’s memory is letting him down. Let me just remind him that before the general election, and after months of refusing to meet the BMA, the Conservatives finally entered negotiations, but not before strikes were left to run and run—at a cost of £1.7 billion to the taxpayer—and 1.5 million operations, appointments and procedures were cancelled. They also offered the BMA junior doctors a pay rise, which was only about 4% of the pay rise that we eventually agreed. Imagine what would have happened if the Conservatives had pulled their finger out and got the doctors around the table sooner, and had not been quite so intransigent.

The shadow Secretary of State is right to say that I criticised my predecessors for their unwillingness to negotiate. The difference between me and them is that I have acted. Resident doctors have had a 28.9% pay increase thanks to the decisions that I have taken as Secretary of State, with the support of the entire Government. They have a Secretary of State who does not slam the door in their face, but who is open to working with them to improve their conditions.

The responsibility for these strikes lies squarely with those running the BMA’s resident doctors committee. Despite failing to get a majority of their members to vote for strike action for the first time in their campaign, they are still proposing to lead their members out on a five-day strike. They even made the announcement on the day that I had already written to them to suggest that we meet to avert unnecessary strike action.

The shadow Secretary of State is right to talk about the jeopardy facing the future. Because we produced our 10-year plan in partnership with patients, the public and NHS staff, there is not only much in it that resident doctors should welcome, but much that they suggested. Our 10-year workforce plan will set out training, education and retention of the workforce, and we will work closely with resident doctors on standards. They should start to experience an improvement in their working conditions on everything from the availability of nutritious food and drink to reducing violence against staff and tackling discrimination. We have already committed to prioritise UK graduates for training, and we have started a conversation on contractual reform with trade unions across the board. We are determined to recruit more people locally and to tackle social disadvantage, access to medicine and all the issues that are at the forefront of the minds of resident doctors, such as placements, rotations and future career progression, including specialty bottlenecks. I absolutely want to work with them.

These are not conditions for strikes. These are conditions to work in partnership with the Government, just as other NHS unions and so many other trade unions across the public sector do. I say to resident doctors once more that sitting in front of me is the ghost of Christmas past. Reform—its Members are not in their place today—is the ghost of Christmas future. Perhaps BMA members might consider that they are lucky to have the ghost of Christmas present in front of them.

Down’s Syndrome Regression Disorder

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. We thought we were going to have it a few weeks ago, and then things moved around, so I am pleased that she has been able to secure this time slot, because the issue is extremely important. I would not normally speak in Westminster Hall as the shadow Secretary of State, but this is a very important issue on which I know she has spoken powerfully since her election to this House.

This is not only an important debate, but one that has been conducted in a tone that does credit to this House, without party politics. Instead it has focused on those who are genuinely impacted by the topic we are debating. This Chamber so often succeeds in giving a voice to those who might not normally have their voice amplified in political debate, or indeed in the main Chamber, to the extent that it should be. In that sense, this is extremely useful. Although Down’s syndrome has been debated in the broadest sense by this House on numerous occasions, Down’s syndrome regression disorder has been debated rather less so. I recall that in March the hon. Member for Thurrock talked about it in a speech. Today’s debate has helped do something that was among her objectives, which is to raise the profile of this very important issue and draw greater attention to it.

Right hon. and hon. Members have already highlighted the nature of Down’s syndrome regression disorder, how it works, and what happens. It is important to note that, according to research, 1% to 2% of young people with Down’s syndrome between the ages of 10 and 30 can experience it. As the hon. Member for Thurrock and others have highlighted, one of the great challenges, and one of the most impactful parts of this, is the speed with which regression can occur, often without warning, or possibly with warning for those who know what to look for, as she touched on. She spoke very movingly about Fran, giving a real life example of how regression can happen, its impacts, and what can bring it about. It is important to remember, as hon. Members have highlighted, the impact on family when regression disorder occurs.

The hon. Member for Thurrock set out clearly the challenges: the speed with which regression can occur; the lack of knowledge among many, including some in the medical and caring professions, of Down’s syndrome regression disorder; and the challenges around getting a diagnosis and treatment. Like others, I pay tribute to the work of the Down’s Syndrome Association for its campaigning on the broader issues, and specifically on this one, and the helpful briefing and advice that it sent to right hon. and hon. Members.

It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister for Care. Although we might occasionally tussle on some things, I know he is a very thoughtful Minister who understands his brief. I therefore look forward to his response; I know it will be considered and measured. I have a few questions for him, which will come as no surprise. First, in 2021, the Down’s Syndrome Association supported research undertaken by the University of Cambridge. I would welcome from the Minister his thinking on how that can be built upon, and what further work can be done around that. Having been a Minister in the Department, I know that it is not always directly within the Minister’s gift to do x and y, because often it will be undertaken by arm’s length bodies or different parts of the system, but I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Department can drive forward an increased focus on research.

We have heard about some trials—some treatments—in the US that may offer a positive way forward. To echo the words of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what more can be done to create clearer diagnostic and treatment pathways for young people with Down’s syndrome regression disorder. I am conscious that, in 2022, Sir Liam Fox secured the passage into law of his Down Syndrome Act, but the guidance on it is still outstanding. Does the Minister have a timeline for when that will be produced, and might that guidance offer an opportunity to wrap in some of the issues around Down’s syndrome regression disorder, to better inform people and raise awareness?

I am conscious that the Minister needs time to reply, and I suspect the hon. Member for Thurrock will want to have a few minutes at the end. I will therefore conclude here. I hope that today’s debate is one of those in this place in which we can see broad agreement across both sides of the House and, in the Minister’s remarks, the potential way forward. As well as debating this and raising awareness, what we all want to see is progress. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give me succour in that respect.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his typical courtesy in providing advance sight not only of his statement but of his plan. I am grateful, and others on the Government Front Bench might learn a thing or two from him. I am pleased to see the plan published. This Secretary of State is a rare thing these days: one whose announcements do tend to survive largely intact for more than a week. In the case of the plan, it is vital that it does stick.

The Secretary of State is not known to be short on ambition, and to be fair that is reflected in his plan; it is ambitious. I believe that his long-term goals are right and that the reforms he has set out build on the reforms that the Conservatives set out and carried out. The desire to shift care from hospital to community, to better use technology and to move to prevention is not new at all, but it remains vital.

The NHS undoubtedly needs reform, not just more cash—it is not fiscally sustainable in the long term to have 38% of day-to-day Government spending going on the NHS—so we need to focus on outcomes, not just inputs. But the plan, while welcome, is still sketchy on some of the details of delivery and how it will be paid for without the funds that the Secretary of State mentioned being eaten by pay rises and by inflation, as well as how that shift will be staffed. Greater use of the app is right, and builds on the amazing work done on the app by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) when he was Secretary of State. Greater use of technology and of genomics is right, and the Secretary of State’s big five tech bets are largely right, but, as he knows, tech alone will not deliver this; people will, so a workforce plan that is clearly aligned with his strategy is vital.

Neighbourhood health centres are one of the measures at the heart of the Secretary of State’s plan. The concept is an interesting one, but it does throw up a number of questions that I hope he can answer in the spirit in which they are asked. Will the providers of those new centres be NHS public sector organisations, private sector organisations or a mixture? How will the centres fit with GP provision and other services without duplication or fishing in the same pool for staff? What assessment has he made of the cost of new buildings and technology to go in them? How many centres does he envisage, and by when? Crucially, how will he ensure that a public-private partnership model will avoid the downsides of the Blair- Brown private finance initiative model?

I ask those questions from a desire not to see this fail but to succeed, because it is in all our interests that the Secretary of State does succeed, but that will take time. Given that, on page 71 of his plan he talks about the need for “immediate opportunities” to be seized. Although there will be others, may I take the opportunity to suggest just one? He should deliver on the pre-election commitment for fracture liaison services to be delivered in all communities, as campaigned for by the Royal Osteoporosis Society, The Mail on Sunday, the Express and many others. That policy would deliver savings within the comprehensive spending review period. Similarly, Melton Mowbray in my constituency has a fantastic community hospital—there will be many up and down the country—and I hope that such hospitals will be a part of delivering more services in the community.

On maternity care, I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to a national investigation into maternity scandals, but I hope that will not stop him from delivering on the work done by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and Theo Clarke, which included measures that can be implemented now to help improve maternity safety.

On systems reform, may I offer the Secretary of State a couple of words of caution? One is on folding the Health Services Safety Investigations Body into the Care Quality Commission, even as a discrete entity within it. HSSIB is not a regulator and is not designed as such, and it is important that those distinctions are not blurred in making that change. Similarly, may I urge him to be wary of further moving integrated care boards to larger geographies—they are at risk of becoming again the old regional health authorities—as that will move them further away from the local communities they serve and the entities providing social care in those communities with whom they must interact?

That brings me finally to a significant question hanging over the plan. Unless we move faster to adjust to the challenges of social care and put it on a sustainable footing, these reforms risk failing to seize the genuine opportunity presented. In the move from cross-party talks to an independent commission, we risk losing that opportunity. Crucially, I ask the Secretary of State again to consider bringing forward the end date of that commission so that we can go further and faster on social care.

I have often said to the Secretary of State that where he is wrong we will rightly hold him to account and challenge him, but where he is right we will offer constructive support. The plan, by and large, does say the right things. We must shift to outcomes and not focus continually on inputs, and we must do that through real and genuine reform. The challenges he faces will be in the detail, much of which is still to be confirmed, and crucially for the Government, in the actual delivery. He should not underestimate those challenges. I will work with him to improve the plan where it needs it, but I will support him where he pledges and brings genuine reform to our healthcare system. His plan will have a key test: will patients see the difference, and when will they see the difference? In all that we do, it is vital, as we reform our NHS, that patients are at the heart of our deliberations and our plans.

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his constructive approach to what does need to be a successful plan for the next decade, to get our NHS back on its feet, to make it fit for the future and to make sure we improve the health of the nation. Aside from the lines that he was no doubt given to trot out at the beginning—he almost said them with conviction—we know that we can count on him to be rather more serious and sensible than the display we saw from the Opposition yesterday.

I turn to the shadow Secretary of State’s points. He was right to say that investment needs to go alongside reform. That is why the spending review only a matter of weeks ago set out the Chancellor’s commitment to the NHS and NHS reform. The Government are providing a £29 billion real-terms increase—a £53 billion cash increase—in annual NHS day-to-day spending by 2028-29. That funding will support the first steps towards delivering the reforms, the service improvements and the new technology set out in the plan.

But investment alone is not enough. One of the reasons we are paying more and more for worse and poorer outcomes is that we have the wrong care in the wrong place at the wrong time. Contrary to what we read in some newspaper columns—on the radio this morning I heard the hon. Member for Clacton once again attacking the NHS’s equitable principles and funding model—the problem is not the model of funding; it is the model of care. That is why the shift to neighbourhood health is essential for delivering better outcomes for patients and better value for taxpayers.

The technology coming down the track, and indeed the technology we already have, will drive the big productivity gains in the system that have eluded us. In recent years, the previous Government invested in more staff, but they put all those staff in hospitals to work in an undercapitalised NHS. If there are more inputs but not the enablers to deliver the service, we do not see the responding improvements in output and impact. That drives poorer productivity, poorer value for money and poor outcomes for patients, and that is the approach that we are changing.

If, for example, we roll out, as we will, ambient AI to all GPs, and we make sure that in their interactions with patients we liberate them from being glued to the screen, filling out the forms and drafting the letters, because that is all done automatically before the GP spends a few moments checking over to make sure it is right—if we can just save 90 seconds in every GP appointment—we will save the equivalent time of 2,000 more GPs. That is how we get more bang for the buck, that is how we drive productivity improvements and that is how we deliver better care and better value.

That is why the previous Government’s workforce plan was not right. It assumed that the NHS just needed growth at the same rates and in the same way as always. In fact, so implausible were the assumptions in that plan that if we had continued with the rate of growth that they had set out, by the end of the century 100% of our entire country would be working in the NHS. I know we love the NHS and we love the people who work in it, but I do not think that everyone in our country can or should be working in the national health service. To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, we will, this autumn, set out a new workforce plan that aligns with this 10-year plan.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about neighbourhood health centres. We aim to go for 250 to 300 new neighbourhood health centres by the end of this plan and 40 to 50 over the course of this Parliament. They will be NHS providers and we will have a combination of new builds and the refurbishment and rejuvenation of underutilised existing estate, both in the NHS and in the public sector. Therefore, the cost of each neighbourhood health centre will vary, from the low millions to around £20 million, depending on whether it is an upgrade, a refurb and expansion or a new build.

Given the undercapitalisation of the NHS that we inherited, even the record investment from public sources that the Chancellor has provided will not be enough to deal with the capital backlog. That is why, as set out in the Government’s infrastructure plan, with care and caution, and keeping in mind the mistakes that were made by the private finance initiative, we are looking at alternative private sources of investment to make sure that we can go further and faster on capital improvement, particularly in the neighbourhood health service.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to commit again to fracture liaison services. Those services have a demonstrable impact on keeping people well and providing both better outcomes for patients and better value for taxpayers. That is why we want to see them rolled out across the country.

On maternity, I welcome his support for the investigation. NHS England is in the third year of the three-year plan put in place by the previous Government and we have sought to support that progress and not to interfere. Yet as we have seen, even with the most recent CQC report into the trust in Nottingham, we have so much more to do and an entire change in approach and culture is needed, let alone a change in practice and behaviour. I am committed to working with all parliamentary party groups across this House and to making sure that the expertise and insight that we have right across these Benches, on both sides of the Chamber, help us to drive maternity improvements.

He asked about us rolling HSSIB into the CQC. Let me provide him with this reassurance. HSSIB has been a really effective body, but we cannot justify the duplication of back-office functions and the inefficiency that comes with that. However, the CQC, when we came into office, was in such a dire state that we had to replace the leadership and we have in place an improvement plan. The House therefore has my assurance that we will not roll HSSIB into the Care Quality Commission until we are assured that the CQC is back to the standards that we expect for it to perform its core duties today, let alone the work it will do with HSSIB housed within the CQC.

On ICBs, I will not measure success through the number of bodies in the NHS; I think that has led us to where we are. However, I am committed to making sure that as we devolve more power, more responsibility and more resource closer to the frontline, to system leaders and to provider leaders, we also make sure that we have in place democratic accountability, so that Members of Parliament, local councils and metro mayors can influence and shape healthcare where they live.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about social care. We are not waiting for Casey. The spending review gave an additional £4 billion to social care. We are delivering the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s and a significant increase in the disabled facilities grant. The Deputy Prime Minister and I will also shortly set out how we will deliver the first every fair pay agreements for the care workforce, building real social care progression.

On neighbourhood health, social care has to be part of it. In the context of this plan, social care features because it has a role to play on admission avoidance and speeding up delayed discharges. However, we know that social care is important in its own right and that is why it is important that it has its own commission.

Finally, the shadow Secretary of State asked about whether people will see and feel these improvements. We know on the Government Benches that we will be judged by results and by whether people can feel the change that we are delivering. All I would say to people watching our proceedings today is this: in our first year, we promised 2 million more appointments to cut waiting lists—we doubled that; we promised to deliver 1,000 more GPs—we have almost doubled that; and we promised that people would see the NHS moving in the right direction—waiting lists are at the lowest point for two years. We know that there is more to do, but I hope that the progress people have seen under this Labour Government reassures them that, when it comes to our national health service, if anything, we under-promise and over-deliver. We know that people will see and feel the change. I say respectfully, given the shadow Secretary of State’s constructive tone, that that will be the difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

May I, through the Secretary of State, pass on my best wishes to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)? In front of the Health and Social Care Committee in January, NHS England’s then chief financial officer set out that pretty much all the additional funding to the NHS last year would be absorbed by pay rises, national insurance contributions and inflation. What proportion of the latest additional funding will be absorbed in the same way?

[Wes Streeting]

First, I just do not buy the argument that investing in our staff is somehow not investing in the NHS. Who on earth do the Opposition think provides the treatment, delivers the care, organises the clinics and delivers the services? Even in this great new world of technology, the NHS will always be a people-based service and I am proud that this is a Government who deliver for staff. We are also waging war on waste, and that is how we can deliver fair pay for staff and improve care for patients. If only the Conservatives had done that when they had the chance.

[Edward Argar]

The right hon. Gentleman could not answer that question, but hopefully we will get a more positive response to this one. I recently had the privilege of meeting Dr Susan Michaelis and her husband Tristan, who have set up the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which large numbers of Members of all parties across the House have backed. They are seeking £20 million over five years—a tiny sum in the context of the overall NHS budget—to research lobular breast cancer, which Susan is currently battling, to help improve outcomes. Her immediate ask is even simpler: it is for the Secretary of State to meet her in person to discuss the campaign and its aims. He is a decent man. Will he agree to do that?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question and, even more importantly, I thank the amazing campaigners for what they are doing. This is probably the easiest question he is ever going to ask me. The answer is, of course, an emphatic yes.

Spending Review: Health and Social Care

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

Yesterday, yet again, we saw the Chancellor do what the Labour party always does: default to high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes, leaving the public finances vulnerable. The Minister has spoken of additional funding for the NHS. To use the same comparison as the NHS England chief executive, the NHS budget will now be roughly the equivalent of the entire GDP of Portugal, yet we are still none the wiser as to how the Government actually intend to use most of the money—there is no real detail and no real plan. Just last September, the Prime Minister pledged that there would be no more money without reform. Despite the Minister’s words, that is exactly what the Government have done. There is still no plan for reform, and the Secretary of State is unwilling to set out the bold reforms that are needed.

Despite 14 years in opposition and nearly one year in government, the Labour party has failed to come up with a plan for the NHS, with the exception of the abolition of NHS England, which will not happen for years and appears to be delayed and in chaos. Ministers respond to every written parliamentary question about it by saying they cannot set out the savings, how the people will change or how the structure will change at this stage—yet again, there is still no plan. We have been very clear that where the Government are wrong, we will oppose it, but where they get something right, we will work constructively with them. That includes reform, but there is still no reform for us even to consider supporting.

Can the Minister tell us where the £29 billion she set out will be spent? The chief executive of the NHS Confederation said yesterday that increases in NHS staff pay will

“account for a large proportion”

of the funding increase. The former NHS chief financial officer echoed that view at the Health and Social Care Committee in January, saying that pretty much all the last tranche of additional spending was absorbed by pay rises, national insurance and inflation. Can the Minister confirm how much the pay offers from the independent pay review bodies, alongside increased national insurance, will cost, how much of this funding will have to go to cover that and how much will actually make it to the frontline to improve patient services?

The Minister touched on the aim of meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament. Of course, we wish the Government well in achieving that and hope they succeed, but just yesterday The Times reported that internal departmental modelling showed they are not on track and could only come close to meeting the target with “implausible” and “over-optimistic” assumptions. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies agreed. Can the Minister set out how the Government will meet that target? Again, where is the plan? We need a plan, not empty rhetoric.

It is clear that the NHS needs reforms, not just more funding, so when will the 10-year plan finally be published? Will it be before the one-year anniversary of the Labour party being in government? Will it be like their elective reform plan: simply a reheat of the plan that Sajid Javid brought forward in 2022, with nothing new? The Secretary of State needs to be more ambitious—words that I suspect will never be echoed by the Prime Minister or his team in No. 10.

The capital budget remains broadly flat in real terms from this year onwards. The Minister has said she wishes to continue with the new hospitals programme and invest in technology to boost productivity, but it is unclear how that can be achieved with this settlement. These are not my warnings but those of respected independent think-tanks, including the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund. The Chancellor’s plan is clear—indeed, not one Treasury Minister has ruled it out: more tax rises are coming.

Finally, and importantly, we have seen social care largely neglected again by this Government. There were just two sentences about it in a four-page statement. Social care deserves better. The Minister knows very well that we cannot improve the NHS without social care working well. Earlier today I met with social care providers. They want to see reform, yet the Government have apparently abandoned cross-party talks on social care reform for an independent commission led by the very able Baroness Casey, who is still doing her Home Office work on grooming gangs and is yet to be full time on this commission, which has a deeply unambitious finishing time of 2028. When will Baroness Casey be full time on the commission? These providers were clear that they want a seat at the table when better care funds are distributed by the NHS—they want to have their voices heard in decision making on that funding. Will the Minister agree to that?

Finally, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said he has modelled his assumptions on continued trends in local government finance and local government precepts —in other words, a 5% uplift in the precept. However, a large number of counties are now controlled by Reform—whose Members are, as ever, notably absent from the Chamber when we talk about health and social care—who have pledged no tax rises whatsoever in their councils. If they do that, what is the Minister’s plan to make sure social care is funded? As ever, the Government have gone for the headline announcement, but sadly without a plan, without delivery and with no real reform to benefit patients.

[Karin Smyth]

I am entirely unclear, after that run-through of a number of different issues, whether the Conservatives welcome the extra investment in the NHS or oppose it. We know they oppose the means of funding it, but after that, I have no idea. At some point, they have to make up their mind whether they support that extra investment or not. As I said in my statement, if they do not, what out of the list of the improvements that we have already made would they not do?

As Lord Darzi made clear, under the Conservatives’ watch for 14 years the NHS was broken. Staff were left with out-of-date equipment and unable to do the job they needed to do. We agreed with Lord Darzi’s diagnosis, but Conservative Members have still not said whether they agree with it, or apologised for the state they left the system in. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) has not been able to read the elective reform plan or the urgent emergency care plan that we published recently. It is up to him to read those plans properly and try to understand what is happening.

The right hon. Gentleman has started to do my job for me again, because he cites various think-tanks and people who have said that this cannot be done. Well, I can tell him that we were told, for example, that waiting lists would not drop in April because of seasonality, but we have shown—by keeping a relentless focus on the system, working closely with leaders on the frontline and being clear with officials in the Department—that it can be done. That is what we heard this morning.

We are taking a relentless approach to spending, line by line, throughout the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care. We have rolled up our sleeves and we will not accept putting more and more taxpayers’ money into a leaky system, which is what happened under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. If he had read the patient satisfaction survey, he would know that taxpayers across the country, in all our constituencies, love the NHS. They understand that the Tory party broke it and that it will take long time to fix. They also know that they are paying more taxes for it and getting a worse service, and they expect us to do much better. That is what we have already shown we are doing, and what we will continue to do.

I have outlined the capital that is going into the new hospital programme, which we are committed to, and we have already seen increases in diagnostic capability and surgical hubs throughout our constituencies. We will continue to do more of that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is critical to ensure that social care is supported alongside the NHS. That is why £4 billion is going into social care through our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and as he knows, Louise Casey will publish her interim report next year.

We are clear that fiscal responsibility does not stop at the Treasury or down in Victoria Street with the Department of Health and Social Care. It is important that everybody in the NHS is aware that we are determined to fix the NHS and put it back on a sustained footing. There is record investment; that is our commitment to people, and I know from the people I worked with in the health service over many years that they are determined to make it better. Morale sank to an all-time low under the Conservative party, but we are raising that morale, and we will continue to work with the system to make sure that it is fit for the future.

Covid: Fifth Anniversary

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) on his speech and on securing this important debate. The vast majority of contributions today have been measured, thoughtful and non-political, and I think they have done this House proud. It is right that we remember, reflect and learn. It is the least we owe those who lost loved ones during the pandemic.

As someone who during the pandemic was doing the job of the Minister, I recall it incredibly well, as will so many in this House and outside it. The hon. Gentleman said—I know what he meant—that with the passage of five years, sometimes what happened then can feel a bit like a dream. It is something that still catches me in mine at night. I often wake with a jolt, suddenly remembering vividly something that took place then—something that we did or had to do, or a particular moment as a Minister. I suspect that that is true of many up and down this country in many different walks of life, particularly those who were on the frontline.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My wife was an obs and gynae doctor, and she still is. She was one of those people on the frontline whom the shadow Secretary of State describes. Does he agree that there needs to be a study into the long-term impact on the wellbeing of staff who were on the frontline dealing with these traumatic situations, so as to understand the impacts on health and productivity within the NHS?

[Edward Argar]

That is important, because people up and down this country still live with the impacts of the pandemic through long covid and mental health challenges. We see that huge impact still today on individuals and the NHS. We must remember how the country came together in the face of unprecedented events, about which we learned more every day. We had to adapt our approach to that changing knowledge. I am grateful to all Members from all parts of this Chamber for what they did.

A few Members in the Chamber were in the House at the time, and they will remember the work of Jon Ashworth, which I recognise in particular. He was in this place at that time, and I remember his cross-party approach to so much that was done. I pay tribute to the emergency services, to councillors and to the people of this country, particularly those who worked in health and social care and those who lost someone.

It was a traumatic time for the whole country. There are lessons that must be learned about planning for future pandemics and supporting those with long covid. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) was right—like so many, I have constituents who lost loved ones and family members who were affected by the vaccine, as has been recognised by a coroner. They have been dignified and courteous, but they call for the Government to review the vaccine damage payment scheme. I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion in the spirit in which it is intended.

We owe it to this country to make sure that we are better prepared for any future pandemic. We owe it to those who lost loved ones and those who suffered in so many different ways: those with long covid, those with mental ill health, kids who were unable to attend school, domestic abuse sufferers and those who still suffer today. It is right that we remember, reflect and debate, as we do now, in order to learn.

As a former Health Minister, I have memories that continue to surface. We will all of us live with our memories of that time till the end of our days. The least we can do is to ensure that this House and this country always remember and reflect carefully on what we can do better next time.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Edward Argar Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for bringing the Bill before Parliament. The last update to the Mental Health Act, in 2007, took eight years following the Richardson review, and this Bill has been a similarly long time in the making, so I welcome the speed with which he has moved on it since taking office. Although we may tussle on occasion, as I have said since the election, we on the Conservative Benches will not oppose for the sake of opposition. We will be constructive, working to improve legislation and supporting the Government where we believe they are doing the right thing, and I recognise the Secretary of State’s constructive approach to the Bill.

At the outset, let me join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the families of Calocane’s victims in Nottingham for what they have done subsequently—their campaigning, their dedication and their work, including on this legislation—and for the incredible dignity with which they have conducted themselves in unthinkable circumstances.

As the Secretary of State mentioned, the Mental Health Act 1983—I will not miss the opportunity to allude to his youthfulness—governs the compulsory detention and medical treatment of people with severe mental illness for the safety and protection of themselves and those around them. He also set out that sadly, all too often, those with learning disabilities or autism have been conflated with that group. We must take this opportunity to address that, and the Bill rightly seeks to do so. In the more than 40 years that have followed the 1983 Act, healthcare, treatments and, crucially, our understanding of mental health illnesses have come on in enormous strides. It is not only important but right that our laws are updated to reflect the modern world and the knowledge that we have today.

We are debating measures that impact those with the most severe mental health issues and their families, but as was highlighted in interventions on the Secretary of State, we should not forget the broader context, the challenges posed by mental health issues more broadly, or the importance of continued investment in this space. We should also recognise the many organisations that do amazing work both to educate society about mental ill health and to support people with mental health illnesses.

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who has just left the Chamber, for the work that he did on mental health as Secretary of State. I think it is fair to say that, away from the to and fro of party politics, the current Secretary of State shares my right hon. Friend’s passion and determination to address these issues. As he said, we have done much, but I believe we can and must continue to strive to do better.

Keeping legislation up to date is particularly important for a measure such as the Mental Health Act, which gives the state the power to deprive people of their liberties in order to protect the safety of the individual and those around them and to carry out treatment. Those powers should only ever be used when absolutely necessary, and it is therefore right that they are reviewed and updated to ensure that they remain relevant, proportionate and appropriate.

The most recent update to the Mental Health Act, in 2007 under the last Labour Government, introduced community treatment orders and independent mental health advocates and changed the detention criteria. Since then, as the Secretary of State alluded to, trends have emerged that have raised concerns. The overall number of detentions under the Act has been rising steadily. There were around 52,500 recorded detentions in England in 2023-24, including 963 of children aged 17 and under. That is a 2.5% increase on the previous year and around 14% higher than in 2016-17. In the same year, 2023-24, black people were 3.5 times more likely than white people to be detained under the Act, and seven times more likely to be placed on a community treatment order. The reasons for that are likely to be complex, and I will return to them later.

That is why in 2017, just 10 years after the previous update, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May—now Baroness May—commissioned an independent review of how the Mental Health Act was used and how it could be improved. The review considered not only the trends in detentions, but wider concerns about whether some processes were out of step with what should exist in a modern mental health system, including the balance of safeguards, patient choice and patients’ agency in their own care, and the effectiveness of community treatment orders. Sir Simon Wessely published the report of his review in 2018, and I take this opportunity to put on the record again our thanks for his important work.

[Wes Streeting]

Hear, hear.

[Edward Argar]

The previous Government published a draft Mental Health Bill based on the recommendations in the report, giving others the opportunity to have their say. The draft Bill was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Parliament, allowing Members of both Houses to thoroughly review it and make recommendations before the final version was introduced.

Given the importance of this area of policy, which can have such a profound impact on people’s lives, I believe it is right that we took the time to get this right. The work to update the Mental Health Act started under the previous Government and we had a commitment in our election manifesto to update the law in this area, and that has been carried on by the new Government. We continue to believe that this is the right thing to do, so I put on the record our in-principle support for the Government on the Bill.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his work in this space as a shadow Minister. Not only does he have professional expertise, but he has brought it to the House’s deliberations on this legislation. I suspect that we may hear from him a little later.

There are many areas of the Bill that we welcome, including the strengthening of the patient’s right to express a treatment preference, the expansion of access to independent mental health advocates, and the removal of police and prison cells as places of safety so that patients can be treated in an appropriate setting. That said, of course we will not stand back without scrutinising and seeking constructively to improve the Bill as it passes through the House. Part of our role as the Opposition is to engage constructively in the scrutiny of legislation—to ask questions, to probe further, to seek to prevent unintended consequences, and to identify potential problems and ensure that they are aired in Committee—in order to improve it for everyone’s benefit, and that is what we shall do. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) will approach the Public Bill Committee in that vein.

We very much welcome efforts to improve patients’ voice and involvement in their own care, including through greater use of advance choice documents. In its current form, the Bill places a duty on NHS England and integrated care boards to make patients aware of their option to have such a document, but this could be as simple as having a poster on a noticeboard, for instance. It does not necessarily require a conversation. Introducing it as a legal right for patients who are being treated or for someone who is at risk of detention would mean that they have to be specifically told about the option, allowing them to make a deliberate decision. I suspect that in Committee we may gently press the Minister to go further in strengthening the patient’s right to have their voice heard. I have been on a number of Bill Committees, and gently hinting to the Minister areas where we might press further may make his and his officials’ lives a little easier when amendments are tabled in Committee.

We were pleased that peers passed an amendment to better protect children who require a nominated person, removing the discretion where a court order regarding parental responsibility is in place. However, we believe there is more we can do to support and protect children, particularly regarding age-appropriate settings for treatment. I hope that when the Minister for Care winds up, or in Committee, he will explore in greater detail the steps the Government are taking to reduce the number of children being treated on adult mental health wards and to ensure that lessons are learned at both national and local service provider level.

Thirdly, we are conscious that a number of elements of the Bill will require additional resources to be put in place. The removal of police and prison cells—sensibly—as places of safety will require sufficient alternative capacity for people to be treated when they are detained. What approach do the Government intend to take in addressing this?

Increasing the frequency with which patients can apply to the mental health tribunal to have their detention reviewed and widening automatic referrals will potentially increase demand and pressure on the system. We know that the legal system is already under pressure, and the impact assessment acknowledges that there will be impacts and costs, so is the Minister confident that the system has the capacity to handle the additional demands? If not, what steps are being taken with the Ministry of Justice to address that?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The shadow Secretary of State raises an important point about resources. The updated impact assessment estimates that the cost of reform is £5.3 billion. With the Secretary of State having confirmed that mental health spending is falling as a share of NHS expenditure from 9.01% to 8.73%, does the shadow Secretary of State agree that without legislative safeguards to protect mental health funding, the Bill may not achieve the aims it sets out to achieve?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight both the costs and the investment that is needed, but the cost does not detract from the importance of and need for the measures set out in the legislation. He points out that as a proportion of overall health spending, mental health spending has fallen slightly in the latest figures. I hope that the Minister in his wind-up will address how the Government will ensure that this legislation, which enjoys broad support across the House, has the resources behind it to deliver the outcomes we all wish to see in practice?

[Wes Streeting]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will regret doing so, but of course I give way to the Secretary of State.

[Wes Streeting]

I should point out for the record that mental health spending has increased in real terms this year, thanks to the decisions the Government have taken. As a proportion of spend on health services overall, it is true to say that it has decreased by 0.07%, but that does not take into account the fact that as well as investing heavily in our elective backlog and in clearing waiting lists, we are investing in general practice, which will benefit enormously people with mental ill health.

[Edward Argar]

The Secretary of State was kinder than he normally is, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging the reduction in the proportion of mental health spending—it is slight, but it is none the less a reduction. I hear what he says more broadly, but I hope that he and the Minister will reiterate their commitment to ensuring that the legislation succeeds, which we all wish for, and that the pressures it may place on parts of the system will be addressed and not simply be absorbed within the system. I suspect that the Minister will come to that in his concluding remarks.

While it is the right principle to direct more mental health patients away from in-patient hospital settings and to community treatment settings where clinically appropriate—this is key, and goes to the Secretary of State’s point—we must ensure that the NHS has the capacity to provide community treatments when the Bill is on the statute book. The Government accepted that the reforms will take a number of years to implement, given the need to recruit and train more clinical and judicial staff, but what is the plan and how much will it cost? Will it be phased in over a number of years?

The NHS workforce plan will nearly double the number of mental health nurses by 2031-32, but the Secretary of State has said that he intends to update the plan. It would be helpful if, during the Bill’s passage, he or the Minister could tell either the Bill Committee or this Chamber what the changes that he envisages making through this legislation will mean for the workforce.

We recognise the significance of the provisions limiting the detention of patients with a learning disability or autism. Under the Bill, they can be detained for treatment only if they have a co-occurring mental health condition that requires hospital treatment and meet the criteria in the Mental Health Act 1983. Autism alone would no longer justify continued detention under the 1983 Act; in theory, this will ensure that those with autism receive the appropriate support in the right setting, as we would all wish. What steps are being taken to ensure that there are sufficient services, with sufficient capacity, to properly support people with autism and learning disabilities? Can he confirm that under this legislation, there will always be a central role for professional clinical judgments on these matters?

This debate in part follows on from concerns being raised about racial disparities in the application of the Mental Health Act. Can the Secretary of State or the Minister provide more evidence to help the House better understand this issue? What research has been undertaken, or is being planned, to enable us to understand what is behind the statistics?

We welcome this important opportunity to look again at how we treat and protect people with the most severe mental illnesses, and to ensure that our laws remain relevant and proportionate in the modern world, empowering people and treating them humanely. Updating the Mental Health Act is the right thing to do, and we will work constructively with the Government to improve the safety, treatment, agency and, crucially, dignity of mental health patients who are detained, and of the wider public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I fear that many will have found the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) disappointing. He highlighted that the previous Government committed to the headline recommendation of the cross-party birth trauma inquiry led by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and the former Member for Stafford, Theo Clarke, who has recently written about her experiences in a book, and in the Daily Mail called for a national maternity improvement strategy. No equivalent commitment has been made by this Government. Let us try again: will the Minister commit without any equivocation to implementing the inquiry’s recommendation to produce a national maternity improvement strategy?

[Karin Smyth]

To be clear for the shadow Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is continuing to look at all those recommendations and consider how best to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

The Health Service Journal reports that officials have acknowledged that the first draft of a high-level plan for merging NHS England and DHSC has been delayed. When we ask any written question about the merger, the standard answer seems to be:

“Ministers and senior Department officials will work with the new transformation team at the top of NHS England, led by Sir Jim Mackey, to determine the structure and requirements needed to support the creation of a new centre for health and care.”

Even when we ask a question specifically about the size of the transformation team, the answer is virtually identical. The Government either wilfully decide not to answer, or simply do not know. As with so many things, the Government go for the headline-grabbing announcement and talk the talk on reform, without having done the actual work to deliver it. My question to the Secretary of State is simple: when will that first high-level plan for the merger, with a full assessment of costs and savings, be published?

[Wes Streeting]

Honestly, the right hon. Member had his chance—he was the Minister who took forward the last reform Act, under the Conservative Government. He failed in that task, and now he turns up without a shred of remorse or a shred of humility, attacking this Government for cleaning up the mess that the Conservatives left behind. They are not a party of government—they are not even a party of opposition any more. They are a total irrelevance.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I am conscious of time, so I will be brief. I recognise the sincerely and strongly held views on both sides of the debate, which has played out with courtesy in this Chamber and in Committee, where Members have shown respect for one another and for differing views. I want to put on record my gratitude to all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I congratulate the Minister on being thrown in at the deep end and taking through a piece of legislation with courtesy, very swiftly after she was appointed.

I thank the Clerks, the Whips and those who served on the Bill Committee. I do want to single out the phenomenal work done by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and her staff, Angus Forbes-Cable and Joey Ricciardiello, who did so much on the Bill, especially in Committee. As ever, even though there are strong feelings on both sides, the House has shown itself able to grapple with difficult issues with courtesy and thoughtfulness.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.