Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock
It is really good to hear about the fantastic work going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are working with systems to move to a neighbourhood health model by building on existing good practice, particularly around the development of multidisciplinary teams. Aylesbury is an outstanding example of that. Ahead of the 10-year health plan’s publication, local communities can continue to make progress by utilising the neighbourhood health guidelines that were published back in January.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Dental patients with untreated need end up in hospitals. In places like Hedon in my constituency, we have seen more and more dental practices moving away from the NHS. I have a constituent who found it took her three years to get her child their first check-up, and that dental practice has now ceased to look after NHS patients. She also cannot get the NHS treatment she deserves herself, even though she had a child in February. What in the 10-year plan will change that and ensure that everyone can get access to NHS dentistry?
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Member is right to point to children’s dental health. After we won the election in July, I looked across my portfolio and it was pretty much a car crash in every aspect, thanks to the incompetence of previous Governments. Perhaps the most shocking statistic of all is that the biggest reason five to nine-year-old children are admitted to hospital is to have their rotten teeth removed. That is a Dickensian state of affairs. We are working with the British Dental Association on contract reform. We have got to incentivise NHS dentistry, do away with the false economy set up under the last Government and get dentistry back to where it needs to be.
Spending Review: Health and Social Care
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Chancellor’s statement and our commitment to the NHS. I know he has been working so hard on this issue on behalf of RAAC hospitals and Frimley Park hospital since he became a Member of Parliament last year, and we are four-square behind that work getting on. It is at the beginning of a very long queue in the new hospital programme. It is one of the things we inherited—we wish it was a better inheritance, but we are working with what we have. We have put the new hospital programme on a firm financial footing, and Frimley Park is at the beginning of that queue. We are very keen that people get on with it very quickly, because there are very many other people waiting behind them.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) is absolutely right about social care. We have a system in which healthcare is dependent on social care—Lord Darzi says so, and I think even Ministers have said so—yet all funding is going into the NHS, not into social care. We are fundamentally pouring the money into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. The Minister pretends the exact opposite of the truth. Will she share a more honest assessment with the House? What went on? Labour had 14 years to think about it, and here we are with the funding going into the NHS. As the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), said, the Minister is following on from the last Conservative Government and pouring more and more money into an unreformed NHS with a social care system underneath it that is broken, and she is not doing anything about it.
Karin Smyth
I have already given a history lesson about some of those 14 years. When the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were in the coalition together, we had a commitment, a promise and a cross-party agreement; the Conservatives then got into government by themselves and broke it, so we are where we are. We want to invest in social care, which is why we have announced the £4 billion. We are seeing a very interesting alliance going on between our Green and Conservative colleagues; they agree on something, as we saw in the Lobby last week.
Parkinson’s Disease
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered care for Parkinson’s patients.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like many colleagues across the House, I was proud to mark Parkinson’s Awareness Month last month. This annual observance is more than a symbolic gesture; it is a vital opportunity to raise awareness, challenge misconceptions, and advocate for the thousands of people across the UK who live with Parkinson’s every day. It is also a time to reflect on the progress we have made and, more importantly, the work that still lies ahead.
Parkinson’s is a condition that touches every corner of our society. It affects over 150,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 172,000 by 2030. In my constituency of Colne Valley, there are an estimated 253 people living with Parkinson’s. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, our friends and our family members, and behind each number is a story of resilience, of daily challenges and of hope.
Parkinson’s is a progressive neurological condition. It is complex, degenerative and life-limiting. It affects movement, speech, cognition and mental health. There is no cure, and while treatments exist to manage symptoms, their effectiveness often diminishes over time. The condition manifests differently in each person: some may experience tremors and stiffness, while others struggle with depression—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree—the role they play is vital in terms of supporting this community. To be truthful, the people I have met in those groups are inspirational, as is the work they do, so I thank them for that.
NHS England’s medicine safety improvement programme, running from 2024 to 2027, is a welcome step. It aims to ensure that time-critical medications are administered promptly in hospitals, but we must ensure that the programme is fully implemented and that its findings are acted upon across all NHS trusts. Timely medication is a basic right for Parkinson’s patients, and we must treat it as such. In England, people with Parkinson’s still face prescription charges, unlike in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These charges can be a significant burden, especially for working-age patients, who may already face reduced income due to their condition. Research shows that eliminating these charges could reduce hospital admissions and save the NHS money, but Parkinson’s remains absent from the list of conditions exempt from charges—a list that has not been meaningfully updated in more than 60 years. It is time for a review. We must ensure that no one is forced to choose between their health and their finances.
New treatments such as Produodopa, which was approved for NHS use in 2024, offer hope for those with severe symptoms. This medication could be life-changing for patients whose symptoms are not well managed by the existing treatments. However, due to staffing and funding constraints, many hospitals are unable to offer it. We must ensure that all patients who need innovative treatments, such as Produodopa, can access them, and that the NHS is equipped to adopt new therapies quickly and equitably. Innovation must not be a postcode lottery.
I will now turn briefly to my constituency. Since being elected, I have had the privilege of meeting Dr Chris Ryan and Mrs Liz Ryan MBE. Over a cup of tea in February, they shared their experiences and highlighted the urgent need for better Parkinson’s care in Kirklees. Liz, who received an MBE for her services to education, continues to be a pillar of our community despite her diagnosis. Together they have organised local events, including a Parkinson’s choir that brings joy and support to many.
Following our meeting, I wrote to Kirklees council and Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust to ask what more can be done. I also contacted the Department of Health and Social Care regarding regular consultations and better medication management, and the Minister informed me that the neurology service specification is being updated, and will be published later this year. Although remote consultations are helpful they are not always suitable for Parkinson’s patients, who require regular, holistic in-person care. I urge the Government to consult with Parkinson’s UK during this review.
I also had the pleasure of attending the Big Sing for Parkinson’s on World Parkinson’s Day. The event was organised by the “Movers & Shakers” podcast, and it was a celebration of community, resilience and hope. As I said earlier, it was absolutely inspirational; to witness that community, and the strength of community spirit and determination to drive through with their lives, was incredible. The group also published the Parky charter, outlining five key needs for people with Parkinson’s—needs that are still unmet. This year, two Big Sings were held: the one I attended in Huddersfield, and the other in London. They brought together people in solidarity and song.
As we move forward, let us remember that Parkinson’s Awareness Month is not just about raising awareness, but taking meaningful action. It is about listening to those with lived experience, supporting families and carers, and ensuring that our health system is equipped to meet the needs of every person living with Parkinson’s.
Parkinson’s is a condition that demands our attention, compassion and action. By addressing workforce shortages, supporting patients from diagnosis, ensuring timely medication, removing financial barriers, and embracing innovation, we can dramatically improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
We have five Back-Bench speakers. I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so I will let hon. Members make a judgment on that. We will start with the ever-succinct and effective Ed Morello.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart—especially after that flattery. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate.
Parkinson’s, as has been said, is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. But behind every statistic is a family, a carer, a friend—someone whose daily life is shared by this illness. My constituents have written to me about their experiences of loved ones living with the disease. The stories they have shared are heart-breaking, with long waits for specialist care, difficulties accessing the right medication on time, and exhausting battles for financial and social support. I know I speak for many here when I say that we must do more.
Parkinson’s is a progressive condition, with more than 40 possible symptoms affecting movement, sleep, mental health, speech, eating and swallowing. Nearly half of those living with it will experience anxiety or depression, and more than half will develop psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Across the country, there are long waits for specialist care, a lack of multidisciplinary teams with Parkinson’s experience, and serious difficulties in accessing vital medication in a timely and consistent way.
We urgently need to overhaul the way that care is provided for people with Parkinson’s, particularly in rural areas. That begins with primary care. GPs are the front door to the NHS, yet we know that continuity of care is beginning to be eroded. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for everyone with a long-term condition such as Parkinson’s to have access to a named GP—someone who can understand their history and needs, and can advocate for timely referrals and co-ordinated care.
This is not just about funding more; it is about funding smarter. Primary and community care can prevent some hospital admissions and provide medication and essential support for those who cannot easily travel. That is especially important in rural areas like mine, where distance, isolation and sparse public transport already pose significant barriers to treatment.
Care services are struggling with conditions like Parkinson’s and have been stretched to breaking point by Government decisions and a lack of funding. Weldmar Hospicecare in West Dorset is a lifeline for so many families. Earlier this year, NHS Dorset announced a £400,000 cut to its fast-track funding, starting next April. Weldmar also faces a £600,000 increase in costs as a result of rising national insurance contributions and other pressures. It already raises 60% of its NHS-commissioned care through charitable donations, and that is unsustainable in the long term.
The same goes for our community pharmacies, which are vital for people with Parkinson’s, especially in rural communities. They are not just dispensaries; they provide healthcare consultations, medical reviews and early advice, often acting as the first point of contact for worried patients. Yet the funding model they rely on is outdated and inadequate, leaving many rural pharmacies on the brink of collapse. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities, we must ringfence funding for essential services and not allow it to disappear into ever-wider budget allocations.
We owe it to everyone living with Parkinson’s, and to the families, the carers and the health workers supporting them, to do better. That means listening to the voices of those people affected, ending the postcode lottery and making sure that no one, wherever they live, faces this devastating disease alone.
Eating Disorder Awareness
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I will bring in an informal guide for Members: if everyone speaks for about four minutes, we can hopefully get everybody in.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for his deeply moving and courageous speech.
As with many mental illnesses, eating disorders often present first in children and young people. Like other hon. Members, I am alarmed by the NHS England statistics that show that in 2023, 12.5% of 17 to 19-year-olds in England were living with an eating disorder. According to YoungMinds,
“Young people can use their behaviour around food and eating to try to cope with…difficult thoughts, feelings and experiences.”
YoungMinds also states:
“Over time, these kinds of thoughts and behaviours around food become very fixed and difficult to change—and may start to take over daily life.”
Early intervention for a young person struggling with an eating disorder is clearly critical if we want to support them to live a healthy, fulfilling life.
I was politicised at school by the disparities in the mental health support received by my peers, and we know that young people today are at the sharp end of the mental health crisis. I, too, have had friends who struggled with eating disorders and disordered eating, and during the general election last year I was contacted by a young woman who had waited four years for her first child and adolescent mental health services appointment. Sadly, that has become the norm, rather than the exception, for young people with mental illnesses.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to cutting NHS waiting lists and investing in talking therapies. I also welcome the commitment this Government have made to getting mental health support into our schools and delivering a network of Young Futures hubs with trained youth workers and drop-in mental health support, so that we can address eating disorders and mental health conditions early, and support our young people.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister, and I would be grateful if he could address them in his response. First, could he set out what the Government are doing to improve the early identification of eating disorders? For example, in 2023, Place2Be called for every professional working with children and young people, including in the healthcare workforce, to be trained to identify young people with potentially impairing eating behaviours. Has the Department had considered that?
Given the huge impact of the pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of young people, could the Minister further set out what action the Government are taking to specifically support individuals who developed an eating disorder or mental health condition during that time? Finally, could the Minister set out what cross-departmental work the Government are undertaking to ensure a joined-up approach to supporting young people with eating disorders?
Those struggling with eating disorders deserve support and they need action, and we must treat eating disorders as the emergency that they represent. I was particularly moved by the words of the hon. Member for Bath, given her important work on the issue over a number of years, about the frustration of seeing things get worse, not better. I reflect on my experience as a young person going through school and watching my peers struggle with eating disorders and mental health conditions. Now I come into this place to represent my community, knowing that young people today are struggling so much more. That makes the urgency of the task even greater, so I thank the her again for her work and for securing the debate.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Last but not least on the Back Benches, I call Luke Charters.
Access to Dentistry: Somerset
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I will call Anna Sabine to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister—that is often forgotten. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to dentistry in Somerset.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. My grandfather might not have been a toolmaker, but he was dentist. He worked near Slough, and as a child I loved visits to the dentist because we got to play in the electric chair and dissolve bright pink mouthwash tablets in plastic cups, and we always got a Lambrusco and lemonade afterwards, which was of course entirely appropriate.
That regularity of dental treatment means that, at 45, I am lucky enough to have no fillings at all, and I am not particularly scared of dentists. Many children growing up today in my constituency of Frome and East Somerset are not so lucky: one in five children in Somerset has tooth decay by the time they are five. Although we know that difficulty in accessing an NHS dentist is a nationwide challenge, data reveals that the south-west is particularly neglected. The most recent Office for National Statistics data shows that it has the worst access problems of all regions in England, with 99% of people without a dentist failing to secure the NHS treatment they needed in the last month.
Furthermore, only 32% of adults in Somerset saw an NHS dentist in the two years to June 2024, which is much lower than the national average of 40%. The picture for children in Somerset is equally shocking: only 42% were seen by a dentist in the year to June 2024, well below the national average of 55%, and way below pre-covid averages.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ashley Dalton
The system we inherited has been failing to meet the needs of children with SEND for far too long—that became clear in what happened at the Accy Vic. Through the 10-year health plan, we will consider all those policies, including those that impact on children and young people. We are working closely with the Department for Education to support the delivery of the opportunity mission. I also hosted a roundtable recently with children and young people, including those with SEND, so that they can feed directly into the 10-year plan. They will be at the heart of our thinking and planning on these issues.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Mr Speaker, your heart would have been gladdened last week to see colleagues from across the House coming together to support my debate calling for the Down Syndrome Act 2022 to be implemented three years on. The Minister for Secondary Care said in response that Down syndrome-specific guidance would be produced, which is welcome. Will the Minister ensure that the consultation group is restricted to organisations that represent Down syndrome people only, and will she promise that, after three long years, that statutory guidance will finally be issued before the end of this calendar year?
Ashley Dalton
Work to develop the Down Syndrome Act statutory guidance is being taken forward as a priority, with a view to publishing it for consultation by the summer. It does involve people with Down syndrome, as part of a wider group.
Down’s Syndrome
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Down’s syndrome.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I assume that the Minister responsible for this area of policy is still the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock)—the Minister for Secondary Care is nodding. I understand that he has to be somewhere else, but it is great to see the Minister in her place.
I organised the debate to call on the Government to implement the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which received Royal Assent three years ago, as Members will be interested to note. Here in the mother of Parliaments, an Act was passed with the democratic engagement of Members from both sides of the House, but three years later it has still not been implemented. It is therefore about time that it was; we need it.
The first requirement—the first command—of the Act is that the Government should issue guidance because of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. They were supposed to issue such guidance for local authorities, health authorities, education authorities and everyone else engaged in the support of people with Down syndrome.
Various versions of draft guidance have been produced, but none of them even completely covered what was required, let alone adequately. In 2022, the then Minister for Care and Mental Health, my former right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, assured us that the guidance would be “fit for purpose” so we can ensure that people with Down syndrome can access “the support they need”, and that the final guidance would be published in the next year. The previous Government did not fulfil that pledge, and as we sit here today, people with Down syndrome still have not seen that historic Act fully in force.
As I said, the draft versions of the guidance so far, according to my understanding—although I do not claim any great expertise—are flawed in a number of ways. Instead of recognising the unique needs of people with Down syndrome, they simply reduce Down syndrome to a subset of a type of learning disability. That limited perspective does a disservice to those with Down syndrome.
For instance, individuals with Down syndrome often require tailored speech and language therapy, yet the most recent version of the guidance, published in December, makes only vague references to specialist therapy. My friend, my former right hon. Friend Sir Liam Fox, who was the driving force behind the Act, put it perfectly. He said:
“This legislation was specifically for those with Down Syndrome as a definable collection of predictable medical conditions and specific life challenges.”
The Act says that it is
“to make provision about meeting the needs of persons with Down syndrome; and for connected purposes.”
In trying to cater for all individuals with learning disabilities, the guidance misses the mark, failing to provide for the very people it was meant to support when the Act received Royal Assent three years ago.
There are reasons to be optimistic. The Prime Minister has rightly pledged to lead a Government of builders, not blockers. Members on both sides of the Chamber, from all political backgrounds, can all stand united in a shared consensus that the guidance needs to be built and issued, and that we need to get the blockers out of the way. We can agree that people with Down syndrome must be recognised as having specific needs, not just generic ones, and that support must be in place to ensure that they have equal access to opportunities to thrive in all aspects of life.
What is truly disappointing is that the blockers of progress are not really elected representatives or indeed Ministers, but, I fear, civil servants—those entrusted with carrying out the will of Parliament. Too many of them have obstructed the efforts of Ministers in two different Governments to implement the Act. Despite repeated promises, we still have not seen the creation of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce. I hope that the Minister will comment on that, because if there is blockage and resistance within the Government machine, Ministers need to come together. There would not have to be a permanent taskforce, but there should be one, two or perhaps three meetings at maximum where Ministers get together and ensure that the will of Parliament is brought to fruition.
Engagement with key stakeholders has been less than adequate. When the stakeholder group was formed to lead on this work, there was no consultation with Sir Liam Fox, the promoter of the Bill that became the Act, or with Rachael and Ken Ross, the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, who also should have been included, and who were a driving force behind the thinking around the Act. That is not good enough—it is not a party political point. The Prime Minister has my full support to ensure that the Minister here today and her colleague the Minister for Care are empowered to do what they were partly appointed to do, which is to fully implement the Act.
I will say a little more on Down syndrome, which is a genetic condition caused by a chromosomal anomaly. While most people have 46 chromosomes, individuals with Down syndrome have three copies of chromosome 21 in each cell, rather than two. There are an estimated 47,000 people living with Down syndrome in the UK, making it the most common chromosomal condition. The good news is that people with Down syndrome are achieving more than ever before: attending mainstream schools, gaining meaningful employment and making invaluable contributions to our communities, as well as living longer.
There is a risk, however, that we see that progress as a reason to rest on our laurels. Instead, it shows the huge potential of people with Down syndrome, if only we can unlock it, and the urgent need to do more. There should be no limit to our ambitions for people with Down syndrome, which is why we should not wait one day more than we need to in order to deliver the guidance promised in the Down Syndrome Act.
The first step towards meaningful change is the improvement of healthcare. People with learning disabilities die, on average, 24 years younger than those without, and are twice as likely to die from treatable conditions. Whether due to significant delays in diagnoses, unsafe hospital discharges or poor co-ordination between the NHS and other services, one thing is clear: many of those deaths are preventable. Doctors certainly do not mean to harm people with Down syndrome. Instead, it is likely that poor healthcare results from a lack of specific knowledge and training needed to give people with Down syndrome the tailored support that the condition requires.
Following the passage of the Act, NHS England issued statutory guidance in 2023, mandating that every integrated care board appoint a named executive lead at board level to drive better outcomes for people with Down syndrome. That was to provide accountability within the system, so we could say that the Ministers are responsible, not civil servants. However, in the implementation —in the delivery on the ground across the country—of course civil servants are responsible. That is why it was an explicit part of the campaign around the Act, and an explicit promise from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, that we would see people appointed—not so that they could be hidden, but so they could be publicly available, contacted and asked what they are doing within their area.
That was so that we could challenge not only the health system, but schools on what they are doing and why, in so many parts of the country, a Down syndrome child is automatically assumed to need to go to a specialist school when a lot of the evidence is they do better in mainstream—but only, of course, if the people in the schools have been given the support and skills to deliver that improvement. A few days ago, however, when I sought to find out who those named accountable individuals are to allow the Down syndrome community to hold the Government and the system to account, I was able to find a publicly nominated lead in only three of the 42 ICBs in England, and two of those leads are called David Jarrett.
I ask the Minister, what is going on? Can we make sure that those leads are publicly named and prominent on the websites of ICBs; that lists are issued and kept up to date; and that everyone in the Down syndrome community can easily find out who is responsible for the delivery of those services? That would ensure that not only health, but the wider community of public services is a servant of people with Down syndrome, rather than turning a person with Down syndrome into a supplicant.
After healthcare, I turn next to education, which is crucial to the life chances of people with Down syndrome. As I have said, research suggests that people with Down syndrome often achieve better outcomes in mainstream education than in specialist schools, provided that it is appropriate for their specific needs. Officials in the Department for Education are best placed to offer guidance on that, which highlights the importance of an effective cross-ministerial taskforce.
The Minister will have already discovered in her relatively short time as a Minister—we all know what it is like—that Departments other than where such Acts are made tend to be quite resistant to them. Sometimes the only way to cut through and make sure that sufficiently senior civil servants take on board these Acts of Parliament and do what they are obliged to do on a statutory basis is for Ministers to be called together to issue such an instruction and push the system to do what it is supposed to do. Otherwise those Departments will sit in their own lane, following the particular priorities of their Secretary of State, and utterly ignoring their statutory obligation to deliver on an Act of Parliament.
Some progress has been made, but there is more to do. Statistics from NHS Digital reveal that only 6% of working-age adults with learning disabilities who receive long-term social care are employed. In other words, 94% are not. When we meet the people who are and see what they can do, we ask, how many more are there? If only we put in place the right co-ordinated system, how many more could have much more fulfilling lives?
We should get the incentives aligned. If there are fears now about a person with Down syndrome losing benefits, it might not be them deciding—they may not even be spoken to—but members of their family or their social worker might decide, “Oh, it is best to take no risks and just keep them on benefits,” rather than supporting them into a job where they can be full members of society, contribute and benefit from that activity.
Even more troubling, 68% of those who are employed work less than 16 hours a week. Those figures are not just numbers; they reflect the deep systemic barriers that still limit opportunities for people with Down syndrome in the workforce. Despite a range of initiatives, it is clear that we need stronger, sustained efforts to ensure that people with Down syndrome can access fulfilling long-term employment. Only then will we truly break down the barriers to their independence and potential. I hope that it is by now clear to the Minister why we must break down those barriers, and why it is critical that the will of Parliament, in the form of an Act of Parliament that is now three years old, is upheld and implemented, and that change is delivered without further delay.
The time for action is now, so I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When will the promised cross-ministerial taskforce be created? At the very least, could she speak to her colleague the Minister for Care and push for one? I know that it is hard to get Ministers to turn up for some other Department’s cross-ministerial taskforce, so it often takes personal contact, an agreement that it is not going to run on forever, and someone saying, “Look, this is important. Let’s get this over the line. Please come along.” We need to get the right Minister at the right time, with sufficient seniority around the table and a real will to enact change and make a difference. If that could come out of this debate, it would be fantastic.
Will the Minister ensure that the consultation group contains only Down syndrome-specific organisations, so that the legislation supports people with the condition, as is set out in the Act? There has been a tendency to open up consultations to everybody engaged with learning disability, so people with little or no understanding of the specifics of Down syndrome have been engaged in the consultations run by civil servants. The whole thing has run into the ground and lost the specific focus of the Act.
The National Down Syndrome Policy Group informed me that the draft guidance issued to sector groups contained significant omissions. I always find it much easier to commit to meetings on behalf of colleagues than to commit myself, so I hope I can tempt the Minister to do so. Will the Minister commit the Minister for Care to meeting Rachael and Ken Ross—I would also love to attend—as soon as possible? They are the founding officers of the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, and they do exceptional work for people with Down syndrome. They are in the Public Gallery alongside Millie, who recently gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group. Millie is always available to correct any of us when we get our policies wrong, as she will attest. Given that it has been three years, will the Minister provide a clear date—an aspiration from the Government —for when we will get comprehensive guidance? When can we get it ready, in a final version, to go through all the sign-off processes of Government? When can we expect it to be officially issued? Those are not just procedural questions; they are vital to ensuring that the promises made to people with Down syndrome are delivered, and that we move forward with the urgency and specificity that this issue demands.
Hon. Members in this Chamber will speak for themselves, but I am sure they all stand with the Minister in this effort. On behalf of the 47,000 people with Down syndrome across the country, we urge the Minister to ensure that a suitable and proper version of the guidance is produced quickly, and that is truly reflects the experiences and needs of people with Down syndrome, specifically. If alongside that exercise someone wants to produce separate, more generic guidance, that is fine; but can we ensure that the guidance described in the Act is delivered for people with Down syndrome, and that it is published and fully implemented without delay?
A great opportunity lies ahead for all of us. We can be part of delivering meaningful, lasting change for thousands of people, now and for generations to come. I am sure support will come from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and I hope we will send the Minister out from this debate determined to ensure that her colleague, the Minister for Care, does the right thing.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate and thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this debate, and for giving us all the chance to mark World Down Syndrome Day on Friday. No one has done that better than my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) this afternoon. Her child is the beating heart of her family, and that joy is absolutely with all of us. She has spread that joy today and we are grateful to her.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness for his support for the Down Syndrome Act. As he highlighted, I was pleased to support the Act with his right hon. Friend and my constituency neighbour at the time, the former Member for North Somerset, Sir Liam Fox. It was a marvellous thing to be part of. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, it was a simple but quite brilliant piece of legislation. I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Luke Evans) for quoting my comments from different times at the Dispatch Box; hopefully they were all carefully chosen.
This Government want to see a fair Britain where everyone lives well for longer. I absolutely recognise the importance of the Down Syndrome Act in helping to achieve that. The Act gives people with Down syndrome the building blocks they need for a healthy life, and we have heard about some of those today: access to the health and care services they need, receiving the right education, securing living arrangements that work for them and being supported into employment were mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, as well as the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller).
By raising awareness and understanding of the needs of people with Down syndrome, we can help ensure that every person with Down syndrome has the opportunity to live a full and fulfilling life. Today’s debate is an excellent opportunity to come together to mark World Down Syndrome Day. I commend those in the Public Gallery, and the many people who have been in contact with or are known to Members. This year’s theme is “improve our support systems”, which is incredibly important. It is something that we are striving to achieve through developing the statutory guidance under the Down Syndrome Act.
We are committed to ensuring that people with Down syndrome receive the care and support they need to lead the lives they want to in their community. However, as we have heard this afternoon, there is significant work to be done to make that a reality. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), is working hard to implement the Act. Under the Act, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is required to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care, education and housing services on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome.
As Members have highlighted, the Act was formally commenced on 18 March 2024 by way of regulations. That brought into force all the provisions of the Act, and it was a necessary step towards the publication of the guidance. I do not think it has been mentioned today, but shortly after that point we had the general election, and I appreciate that the delays are frustrating for campaigners and people involved. The Minister for Care has written to sector partners and the all-party parliamentary group on Down syndrome with an update on the guidance and next steps. That includes our intention to put the guidance out for consultation by the summer.
Engagement with people with Down syndrome, their families and supporters, sector colleagues and experts has been invaluable throughout the development of the guidance. Over 1,500 responses were received to a national call for evidence, which is being used to inform the guidance, in addition to sector engagement and a review of the evidence to gain a better understanding of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome and how those can be best met by relevant authorities.
On 26 November 2024, the Minister for Care convened a roundtable of partners to discuss how we can improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome, and the opportunities that the guidance presents in support of that. We are grateful for the collective efforts and insights of individuals and organisations across the country, which have enabled us to make great strides in our development of this important piece of guidance. We recognise that some time has passed since the Act became law in April 2022.
Graham Stuart
Several colleagues have mentioned the need for specificity—if the Minister is coming on to that, then great. Would it be fair to say that it is the intent of the Government—I am not looking for cast-iron promises, because we know how challenging these things are—that we should see the guidance issued before the end of this year, all things being well?
Karin Smyth
We want to ensure that the guidance is published as soon as possible, and we appreciate patience while we make that happen. It is important that we continue to work with people and organisations with lived experience to develop the guidance. We hope that the update we provide will assure everyone of the priority attached to that important piece of work.
As for the scope of the guidance—with regard to other genetic conditions or learning disability—a commitment was made during the Bill’s passage through Parliament to consider the links and overlaps with other genetic conditions and/or a learning disability. Therefore, the guidance will be Down syndrome-specific, in line with the Government’s statutory duty—which we are clear about—under the Act. It will also include references to where it could have wider benefit. We want to take the opportunity of the guidance to help as many people as possible and to provide examples of good practice to support relevant authorities to implement improvements in practice.
On employment, we heard through engagement with our partners that employment is crucial to improving life outcomes. People with Down syndrome can bring many skills and strengths to the workplace. We want every person with Down syndrome who can and wants to work to have the right support and opportunity to do so. That is why a dedicated chapter on employment will be included in the guidance.
On implementing the guidance, we know that ultimately much depends on how the guidance is put into practice across our communities. To support implementation, NHS England published statutory guidance on 9 May 2023 to require that every ICB had a named lead for Down syndrome. I think that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said that there was only one, and I recognise the name, because it is my own area—well done, them. That might not have happened, but it was said in 2023.
The executive lead on Down syndrome will lead on supporting the chief executive and the board to ensure that the ICB performs its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down syndrome. We recognise the importance of ensuring that people with Down syndrome are able to make complaints, if they have concerns about the quality of and access to care. We expect the named lead to ensure that concerns are acted on at the local level.
Graham Stuart
We have had 10 speeches in this debate, which is fantastic. I think we all agree that the stand-out speech was that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). It is great to have the whole House coming together in this way—a number of colleagues focused on that—and to have the pledges from the Minister. I think we can move forward with enthusiasm and engage with the Minister for Care. Led by the co-chairs of the APPG, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), we can ensure that we have a streamlined meeting or meetings to ensure that the Minister’s time is best used, the voices of the community are heard and the guidance is swiftly produced.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Down’s syndrome.
Health and Adult Social Care Reform
Graham Stuart Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting
I warmly congratulate Professor Richard Field on his clinical leadership, which has made a difference to countless lives, not only in my hon. Friend’s part of London but because of the national example that he set, which many others followed. That confirms my strong conviction that the best innovations will come from great clinicians. It is our determination to make sure that senior leadership in the NHS and in government back great clinical leadership and innovation, and take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State said that 12,000 patients had to stay in hospital beds because of a lack of social care, yet we have it kicked down the road once again. What will Louise Casey tell us that we do not already know about the tough political trade-offs that have led successive Governments to fail to create a truly coherent health and social care system, and what will he do to make sure that we meet needs today, as he exemplified in November?
Wes Streeting
Once again, the arsonist is complaining that the fire brigade is not doing a quick enough job. We are a bit sick of it on the Government Benches, but we are at least rolling up our sleeves, getting on with the job and making improvements, and we will continue to do that. I heard the same complaints about Darzi: “What can Darzi tell us that we did not already know?” Quite a lot, actually. The Conservatives should hang their heads in shame for it.
Income Tax (Charge)
Graham Stuart Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
This Budget will improve the lives of so many of my constituents in Rochester and Strood. They will see the benefit in their wage slips, see the things they care most about in their community, such as the local pub and their high street, supported, and see their public services finally invested in again.
Investment in the NHS through this Budget is key. It was the No. 1 issue raised on the doorsteps in the election and is perhaps best exemplified by the struggle to book a GP appointment. The simplest of tasks—for someone to seek help from a medical professional when they are ill—was made into what felt like an impossible task after 14 years of Conservative government. I reminded voters many times during the election that the NHS is always safer in Labour’s hands, so I am delighted to see that our first Budget sets us up to meet that promise so quickly. As others have mentioned, we have a record-breaking £22 billion increase in day-to-day spending, a £3.1 billion capital boost to pay for new technology and improve our buildings, and a landmark public consultation to set out a long-term plan for how the NHS develops over the next decade.
I am proud that we are a Government who have been transparent and honest with people about our priorities to fund that investment. The Chancellor has delivered a Budget that protects working people and instead asks big businesses and the well off to contribute. The Budget does not dodge the tough choices just to get through the next media cycle, but instead is informed by Lord Darzi’s thorough point-in-time assessment of the state of the NHS that was handed back to us by the Conservatives. It lays the foundation to take the NHS from the analogue to digital, from hospital to community-led care and from treating sickness to focusing on prevention and promoting good health.
Those approaches will take different forms across the country, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the potential for an elective care centre in the former Debenhams store on Chatham High Street in my constituency. I have written to the Secretary of State about this proposal, and I would welcome a conversation about its merits, particularly as it is a good example of the invest-to-save model that is promoted so well in the Budget. It would not only free up space at the Medway Maritime hospital and help tackle waiting lists, but would have further benefits by supporting town centre economic regeneration.
I welcome provision in the Budget for a £600 million increase in local government spending to support social care. Like many MPs, I have a background in local government and I understand all too well how much the uplift is needed.
Lauren Edwards
I have only 20 seconds left, so apologies, but I will not. We all know that the social care sector needs to be transformed, and I hope that over time we can move to a more fully integrated health and social care system in this country. Future Budgets may be able to apply the same exemptions to charitable care homes as happens for the NHS. That would be to the benefit of places such as Frindsbury House in my constituency, which is run with great care and compassion by the Mortimer Society.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I have three minutes and three quick points, on which I hope I have the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. My first point relates to the NHS. I welcome the introduction to the debate by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care today. Certainly the Government have inherited the worst crisis in NHS history, and they have a massive challenge on their hands. I like how the 10-year plan has been framed in relation to moving from hospital to home, from sickness to prevention and so on.
The Prime Minister was right when he said that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but the way this Government are raising tax through national insurance is, I am afraid, hitting some of those who will be struggling most. I hope that he will look again at that and how the Liberal Democrats have framed it. We propose to raise the money by reversing the tax cut for big banks and increasing taxes on the oil and energy giants and large social media multinationals. Surely that would be a far better way.
In responding to questions on the impact of the national insurance rise on GPs, hospices and care providers, the Secretary of State clearly recognised that a mistake was made, and I suspect that the impact was overlooked. [Interruption.] The Chief Secretary is shaking his head, but he really needs to address those issues, because a crisis will continue to occur.
Andrew George
I will, although the right hon. Gentleman has only just walked into the Chamber, so I think it is rather cheeky of him.
Graham Stuart
Cheekiness accepted. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the £600 million extra is for both children and adult social care, whereas adult social care alone is expected to have a £2.4 billion hit, so does he agree that if the NHS, however well funded, cannot move its patients into social care, that investment and expenditure will not work?
Andrew George
I do, although that is rather rich of the right hon. Gentleman when he knows that he and his party left the country in this state.
Another issue is the housing emergency, which we have not debated much today. I welcome the additional £500 million that the Government announced, which will supplement the affordable homes programme to 2026. That is much needed. I hope that the Chief Secretary will also address the large number of shovel-ready projects that have planning permission and pre-development work in place. I must declare an interest as a former chief executive of a registered provider. I hope that the Government will look at the impact of the significant construction inflation we have seen over the last four years, which is holding up many developments that could be addressing housing need in our communities. Only 9,500 social homes were built last year. We need a great deal more if we are to address the serious housing emergency.
I have a final question for the Chief Secretary—if I may have his attention for a moment—about the announcement of two layers of business rating that will apply to the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. Many holiday home owners have managed to abuse the system by using small business rate relief. I hope that such second homeowners will not have further opportunities to take advantage of loopholes. Will he investigate that and ensure that money goes into first homes rather than second homes? I am afraid that there is a loophole in the system.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the Budget to be a Budget for the NHS, so it was pleasing to see so much investment in our national health service. The boost in capital expenditure is particularly welcome, because Cheadle’s local hospital, Stepping Hill, is in dire need of support and investment. Only a few weeks ago, Stockport NHS foundation trust released figures showing that the maintenance bill required to bring the hospital up to scratch was over £130 million, up from £80 million just five years ago. The cost of the previous Government is there for all to see.
Last year, the hospital’s out-patients building was condemned and demolished. In March, the intensive care unit was temporarily closed because the ceiling was coming in. Since January, almost 10,000 people have had to wait for longer than 12 hours in A&E. Some 70% of Stepping Hill’s estate is now classed in the highest risk category. In fact, when I was there just a few months ago, the incredible nurses talked me through how on rainy days they had to place buckets down to ensure that water coming through the roof was caught. That is utterly shameful and my constituents are suffering.
One constituent contacted my office shortly after I was elected to tell me about their experience. After waiting months for a simple surgical procedure, the partial collapse of the ICU led to their surgery being delayed. It was then confirmed again as delayed. Then, after it was rearranged, there was a further delay because there were not enough beds for aftercare. Each time, the delay seemed to be imposed last minute and out of the blue, which of course drives uncertainty and worry not just for my constituent but for their friends and family.
I want to put on record that this is not the fault of the doctors and nurses. The doctors, nurses and other NHS staff do an incredible job in the worst circumstances, and they are suffering also. They are being forced to work in these conditions. They are the ones who have to break the bad news to patients when their surgeries and appointments are cancelled, although it is rarely their fault. Every day those staff show up and deliver the best service that they can for their patients. The fault lies with the Conservatives. For 14 years they sat back and watched as Stepping Hill, like many other hospitals, crumbled.
Mr Morrison
I will carry on; I am nearly done.
For 14 years, the Conservatives ignored health professionals and patients who were crying out for their hospitals to be fixed. As those cries were ignored, the problems became worse and worse. We are now facing a repair bill of £130 million, and without urgent action that will only become more expensive, so the new Government must act now. I am delighted that there is a commitment to our hospital, but they must act now and give the patients, the staff and my constituents the hospital that they need. If they delay further, costs will only rise and even more parts of the building will crumble.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
This Budget will deliver to communities such as mine. May I begin by welcoming the mineworkers’ pension scheme resolution? It means that £1.5 billion of miners’ pension payments to their fund will be distributed among 112,000 former miners and their families. It is absolutely right that an injustice has been corrected, for those people have waited far too long. It is also shameful that the last Government failed to budget for the resolution of the Post Office Horizon and infected blood scandals, and I applaud our Chancellor for correcting that now. I urge the pensioners who will not receive the winter fuel allowance—those who are just missing out—to apply for universal credit; in St Helens, £6.5 million remains unclaimed. I regret that we have been unable to remove the two-child cap, or deal justice to the WASPI women.
Let me now turn to the issue of local authority funding for adult and children’s social care. Local councils bore the brunt of austerity; successive Government cuts since 2010 have left them in dire straits, which disproportionately affects the people who are most likely to access social care. There have been increasing pressures to find savings, which has not only cut services and jobs but seriously limited the ability to invest in cost-effective preventive services. Some 73% of the budget of St Helens borough council is spent on adult and children’s social care. I welcome the Chancellor’s 3.2% real-terms increase in local government funding, including the £600 million to support social care—
Ms Rimmer
No.
It is good that, in the short term, a Labour Government will target additional grant funding at the councils that are most in need, but that needs to be the start of a process that will reverse years of financial decline. For too long, local council funding formulas have worked against underprivileged communities, and the areas that need funds the most often do not receive their fair share. Sadly, that creates a downward spiral, with an ever-increasing percentage of local government funding being spent on social care. This is not sustainable.
As I have said, 73% of our council’s budget is spent on social care. Moreover, the 48 members of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities are unable to invest in their local areas in the same way as their counterparts because of the funding formulas. One in four households in England live in a SIGOMA council area. At present, social care services are a postcode lottery, and that needs to be addressed. We need a methodology that takes actual needs into consideration, and ensures that the funding follows. However, I applaud the Chancellor for providing £250 million for children’s social care and £600 million for adults.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I want to start by saying that we cannot and should not ever underestimate the power and strength of the message that having our Budget delivered by the first female Chancellor in history sends to young women and girls across the country. There should be no limit to their ambition.
In Stevenage and across the country, 14 years of Conservative rule have left a crippling cost of living crisis, record NHS waiting lists, rapidly reducing school funding and worsening public transport. I could go on, but I represent a town of aspiration. The people of my town have had their ambitions and hopes dampened by decline and held back by a broken Britain. However, this Budget sends a clear signal that Labour has started the work of getting politics to work for working people again.
One of the Labour manifesto’s most fundamental promises was to fix the foundations of our broken public services. I recently attended a local older persons day hosted by Stevenage borough council, where we talked about pensioners’ priorities. The Budget maintains the triple lock, which will be worth an extra £470 for pensioners next year, on top of the more than £900 they are receiving this year from the same commitment.
I spend a lot of time speaking to carers in my area who are looking after loved ones in testing circumstances. This Budget delivers the largest increase in the carer’s allowance since its introduction, starting the work of recognising the huge sacrifice they make. However, I know that this work will be complete only when we fundamentally reform our broken social care system, and I very much look forward to that.
Kevin Bonavia
I am afraid not.
I represent a constituency with multiple borough and district councils that have borne the brunt of 14 years of Government cuts. This Budget delivers £1.3 billion extra for local councils to provide essential services that are vital to our communities.
Fifty per cent of patients in my local NHS trust wait longer than the target treatment times, and 31% wait over four hours to be seen in A&E. Despite the heroism and hard work of NHS staff, something simply has to change. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made the brave decision to stand up and fight for our NHS, boldly supported by our Chancellor. I greatly welcome the shift in focus from sickness to prevention, from analogue to digital, and from hospital to community. This crisis cannot be fixed in one Budget, and it may even take a few Budgets, but at least now there is hope where there was none before.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
This is not a Budget for growth. On the Treasury’s own figures, growth will decline from 2% next year for the rest of the decade. On the OBR’s analysis, this Budget is inflationary. It is not on small businesses that the responsibility should land. Small businesses employ people. Small and medium-sized businesses drive the UK economy. If we tax them, we tax growth. If we tax their greatest assets—the people who work for them—then we take away employment opportunities for hard-working people.
I will talk more substantively about the dire impact of the Budget on health and social care, including health and social care providers that are not part of the NHS. The increase in employer’s national insurance contributions will cause great difficulty and hardship for GP practices; charities, including hospices; dentists; pharmacies, which are crucial providers of health services; and social care providers. Those organisations, charities and businesses thought that they might have a friend in a Labour Government, but I assure Government Members that they do not feel as though the Labour Government are a friend right now. I have been speaking to those in GP practices in my constituency on the Isle of Wight. One said:
“Our increase in tax from this Budget is the equivalent of the salary of a practice nurse. There will be no new practice nurse for us.”
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that no one would think less of the Government if they listened to these arguments, heard the message and changed? For instance, there is the message about social care being hit by £2.5 billion of extra costs. The £600 million that has been given to local authorities will not cover those costs. If the Government simply listened and changed, people would think much better of them, and we would have a social care system that supported the NHS, rather than one that stops the NHS being able to do what it needs to do.
Joe Robertson
I agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, there has been one common theme running through this debate: GP practices, charities such as hospices, dentists, pharmacists and social care providers are all being taxed by this Government. At a time when they need Government most, these providers find increased pressure on their ability to employ and provide services to the British people. There would be no shame if the Labour Government were to do something about this gross problem with their own Budget.
Moving on to social care, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that there would be no more money for the NHS without reform, yet the Chancellor provides £22 billion for day-to-day spending unattached to reform. She and the Secretary of State are giving the equivalent of just 2.5%—£600 million—of that £22 billion for social care. That is a tiny fraction, yet the biggest reform that our NHS needs is fairer funding for social care. Money would be better spent on relieving the pressure on hospitals, and getting people out of hospital beds who do not need or want to be there, but who have nowhere safe to go to. Through this Budget, social care providers not only face the full burden of increased national insurance contributions, as employers, but receive a small fraction of the funding that the NHS receives. I urge the Government to go back to the drawing board and provide for our GPs, dentistry, pharmacies, hospices and social care.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The theme of this debate is public services, but there has been a distinct lack of discussion from Government Members about what delivers the finances necessary to fund those services; this is the Budget, after all. The answer is simply the productive economy, and small businesses in particular.
The Government talk a good game about wanting better funded public services, and each and every one of us in this House would be hard pressed to find a constituent who disagreed, but the Government’s measures—particularly the jobs tax in the Budget, but also their wider agenda in the Employment Rights Bill, through which we are moving to French-style labour laws—are an attack on where that money comes from.
We must always remember that every single penny spent by the British state has to be earned in the private sector. Chucking money at an unreformed public sector while ballooning public sector pay, and doing that on the back of the productive economy and small business, shows a distinct lack of real world, private sector experience among Government Members. My first memories are of my parents going to night school on alternate evenings to get the qualifications they needed to set up their small business. Their aim was simple: to give my brother and me opportunities that they could never have dreamed of. In doing that, they paid hundreds of thousands of pounds—I ended up with quite a prosperous upbringing, I admit—into the Government exchequer. They created apprenticeships and skilled jobs in a tough part of urban Greater Manchester. They not only transformed our lives but improved the lives of children around them, and created opportunities for local people while paying for public services through their taxes.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence on the Government Front Bench of anyone with any experience of running a business, when businesses create the wealth that pays for public services, may explain why the Budget is so financially illiterate?
Jack Rankin
I thank my right hon. Friend. That absolutely shows, as we see from the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). Putting up taxes unsustainably may mean adrenaline into the public sector from an injection of cash, but the medium and longer-term result will be lower growth, which will mean that public services are just getting a larger slice of a smaller pie.
It is clear to me that the tax burden is higher than is necessarily sustainable. Tax rises now will not necessarily flow into greater revenue, particularly in the medium term. I ask the Government to check their approach, support small businesses first and foremost, and focus their public service efforts in the first instance on productivity reforms.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate about the Budget—a Budget I am very proud to support as the first Labour Budget in 15 years.
I also thank the various Members who have made their maiden speeches in this debate, particularly because like myself, so many of them have worked in the NHS. Many of us have felt the urge to get selected for, and elected to, this House because of our experiences over the past 14 years. I understand that among Opposition Members, there is a feeling that Labour Members do not understand business, but I can tell them that we understand the public sector, public services and our communities—and actually, that is a disservice to all the Members on the Labour Benches who have run businesses. It is particularly important to me that a couple of Labour Members have previous experience as NHS managers. In his report, Lord Darzi made it very clear that one of the problems the NHS has faced is an undervaluing of the management side, as opposed to the clinical side, so those Members’ voices will be really important in this debate.
This Budget gives us solid foundations for investment and rebuilding this country—of that, I have no doubt. This Budget is also what people in my constituency have been crying out for, because they know that our public services are frayed to a point that is almost beyond repair. Honestly, that is what people in my constituency keep telling me. Unlike some Members, who have apparently had some very negative responses to the Budget, I can tell those Members from canvassing at the weekend and from what is in my inbox that I have seen a really positive response to this Budget. People are really glad to see that the investment has started, and frankly, there is a sense of reality—a recognition that this is not going to be a quick fix.
On the health service and social care in particular, I applaud the fact that the Secretary of State has not just commissioned the diagnostic investigation from Lord Darzi, but has now commissioned a 10-year plan for the NHS.
Kevin McKenna
I do not think so.
That plan will be needed to get the NHS back on its feet, and as a counter to some of the comments about national insurance and burdens on businesses, the Secretary of State was very clear that he is going to look at the NHS allocations to GPs and other people supplying the NHS—that comes with the plan. Beyond that, it is really important to recognise the damage that has been done to businesses over the past 14 years by all the other costs that have been accrued. The mental health crisis damages recruitment and retention, and businesses have had to cope with all those extra costs across the board.
Government Policy on Health
Graham Stuart Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wes Streeting
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend here representing Bishop Auckland. The people of his constituency will be struck by the fact that this afternoon the Conservative party has chosen to create a mountain out of a molehill about a former Health Secretary coming in to lend his advice and experience to a Labour Government. On covid corruption, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to be angry, as indeed the country is, too. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very clear that, when it comes to cronyism and corruption in covid contracts, we want our money back and the covid corruption commissioner is coming to get it.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
There is just one standard and it applies to whichever party is in power, and that should be respected. All this whataboutery relating to what may have gone on under a Conservative Government! Anyone who has done something wrong should be pursued. Anyone in authority should be accountable. It is the failure of accountability, a failure of recognition, by the right hon. Gentleman that lets down the House today. Can he confirm to the House that Alan Milburn did not have access to official sensitive papers? Anyone who visits a Minister—they come in all the time—sits on one side of the table and the official sensitive documents are on the other side. Can he confirm that Alan Milburn did not have access that no other visitor would have?
Wes Streeting
In the meetings that I asked my right honourable friend to attend—I need to make sure that I get this absolutely right—I tend to think that I saw him on the other side of the table in the corner. I cannot guarantee that he sat at that point in every single one of the meetings, but he certainly was not sitting next to me. With regard to the papers for the meetings that he attended, they were discussion papers about the challenges facing health and social care. They were not Government decision papers or recommendations for Ministers. There is a distinction between those two things. I decide who attends meetings in the Department, and, when it comes to wide-ranging policy discussions, I decide what reading material people receive.