Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. The Bill deals to an extent with cases that would fall under the category she describes, in particular through reforms to community treatment orders. However, it would not necessarily cover the full extent of the sorts of people who might find themselves in that position, which is where I think we can use technology—which is not the answer to every problem in the health service, by the way. However, through better use of data, patient records and analytics, we will be better able in the future to predict risk and prevent tragedies as in the case the hon. Lady describes, which are a tragedy not just for those whose lives are cut needlessly short, but for those who live their lives with that intolerable grief and loss for the many years that follow.

It is a shameful truth about our society that people with a learning disability or autism are detained, sometimes for years, with little or no therapeutic benefit. The Bill will put an end to that injustice, limiting detentions so that people with a learning disability and autistic people are no longer detained beyond 28 days unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition that would benefit from treatment in hospital. This will require the necessary community provision in place to support people with a learning disability or autism, and we are working to set out what strong community services look like and on the resources required to implement them, so that there are robust alternatives to hospital care.

To help to plug the flow of inappropriate admissions to hospital, the Bill places a duty on integrated care boards to improve monitoring and support for people with a learning disability or autism who may be at risk of future detention. The Bill will introduce statutory care, education and treatment reviews to ensure that patients are safe and receiving the right care and treatment when detained, and that a plan to discharge them to the community is being worked up. We will also remove prison and police cells from the definition of “places of safety”. Police cells are for criminals, not patients in desperate need of medical help.

Throughout the development of these reforms, we have maintained the central purpose of the Mental Health Act—to keep individuals and the wider public safe. The vast majority of people with mental illness, including severe mental illness, present no risk to themselves or others, and, for the majority of people, treatment can be provided without compulsion. However, there are some people whose illness, when acute, can make them a risk to themselves, and sometimes to others.

No one knows this better than the families of Ian Coates, Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, the victims of Valdo Calocane’s violent rampage in Nottingham, whose campaign for justice and accountability has been truly awe-inspiring, or indeed the family of Valdo Calocane, with whom I have also spent time, listening to their experience of feeling badly let down by health services. As the independent investigation into the murders found, both he and his victims were failed by the health service, and their families have been left to live with the consequences with a level of pain the rest of us can scarcely imagine. I would like to place on the record my thanks to all four families for meeting me as my team and I worked on the Bill.

Thanks to the amendments that we are making to the Mental Health Act, decision makers will have to consider the risk of serious harm when making decisions to detain. That will ensure that any risks to the public and patients are considered as part of the assessment process. We will also introduce a new requirement for the responsible clinician to consult another person when deciding whether to discharge a patient, putting in place robust safeguards against the release of potentially dangerous people.

Finally, as I have said, legislation alone will not fix the wider issues of increasing mental health needs and long waiting times. To do that, the Government are investing in earlier intervention to meet patients’ needs and prevent them from reaching crisis point.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Wes Streeting]

I am just coming to my conclusion, I am afraid.

In the past 10 months, we have met the mental health investment standard for 2025-26; invested an extra £680 million in mental health services this year, which is a real-terms increase; funded mental health support teams in schools for almost an extra 1 million pupils; invested an extra £26 million to build new mental health crisis centres; funded NHS talking therapies for an additional 380,000 patients; and begun recruiting the 8,500 mental health professionals we promised in our manifesto. That is all part of the additional £26 billion this Labour Government are investing in health and care services—investment that was opposed by every party on the Opposition Benches; investment that is happening only because we have a Labour Government.

Mental health reform is not just about changing laws; it is about changing lives. The action we are taking will provide support and care to people at their most vulnerable, modernise our mental health services to keep us all safe, and create a safety net that any of us might need one day. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Despite having worked in healthcare for most of my career and serving on the Health and Social Care Select Committee, having listened to the speeches thus far this evening, I feel in awe of the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I also commend the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), who I know is supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), for his extraordinarily powerful speech.

This Bill is essentially about the duty of care not only to those who have mental health issues, but to the public, including the family, friends, carers, public servants and everyone else who interacts with those individuals. The duty of care also exists to protect those individuals from themselves. As many Members have said, our hope and ambition should be that as few people as possible find themselves in a crisis situation. I therefore entirely endorse and support the comments about ensuring that we have proper and well-funded mental health services, both in the community and in the acute setting.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member mentions support for the person needing help—to help themselves, and also to help society. Does he agree that more and more people are getting into situations where they do not feel that they are being helped, and that they just feel incarcerated and restricted?

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more can be done to help people in crisis. What I would say, however—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also made this point—is that there are people who are at such a point that, unfortunately, they need to be incarcerated in order to be able to help themselves. Hopefully, they spend their time incarcerated not just away from society but being treated effectively and appropriately.

That brings me to the point that this is a balancing act and a difficult situation. I think all of us of all parties are clear that the current Act is no longer fit for purpose, especially when we think about forensic mental health. As such, I am glad that the Government are taking forward this legislation, which was started under the previous Government. The cross-party consensus we have heard this evening reflects the fact that this piece of legislation has come from both of the major parties. I am likely to be on the Bill Committee after the Whitsun recess, so I will not test the patience of the House by going through every single bit of the Bill I have some interest in or concerns about, but I will briefly raise three important areas, which I am pleased were raised by Members in the other place. A number of Opposition amendments were tabled in the other place which would have strengthened the Bill, and I hope they will be made in Committee in this place.

The first area is reducing unnecessary police involvement. The noble Lord Kamall and Baroness May tabled some amendments that in my view represent a very significant and much-needed shift in how detentions and removals under the Mental Health Act can be managed. Under the current framework, the power to detain individuals and move them to a place of safety—particularly under sections 135 and 136—is largely restricted and falls under the responsibility of police officers. Although those provisions are designed to protect the public, they can often result in the criminalisation of people in acute mental health crisis, even when there is no threat of violence or risk to others.

The amendments tabled in the other place would have allowed authorised and qualified health professionals such as paramedics, approved mental health professionals or specialised nurses to carry out those detentions and to move individuals under sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Act. That would relieve police officers of responsibilities that fall outside their core expertise while reducing the stigma and trauma associated with police-led interventions. It would streamline the process, ensuring that individuals were supported by professionals trained specifically in mental health care and would maintain police involvement only where there was a clear and present risk to safety. That would significantly change and strengthen the system, placing mental health crises more firmly within the domain of health rather than law enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for their extremely informed, personal and moving speeches in support of the positive elements of the Bill, and for making extremely important, constructive suggestions about how to make it even better than it is.

I stand today to speak in strong support of the Bill, and the urgent and long overdue reform of our mental health legislation. The Mental Health Act 1983, now 40 years old, was designed for a different era. While it has provided a legal framework for detaining and treating individuals in crisis, it no longer reflects our modern understanding of mental illness, patient rights or best clinical practice. As we have heard, the Act governs both civil patients and those involved in the criminal justice system, and it includes powers such as community treatment orders, but it is clear that the system it underpins is no longer fit for purpose.

The need for reform is stark and obvious. Patients detained under the Act often have little say in their treatment or about who is involved in their care. As we have heard, racial disparities are deeply entrenched, with black or black British people 3.5 times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a community treatment order. The journey towards reform began with the 2018 independent review, led by Sir Simon Wessely, which identified rising detention rates, poor patient experience and systemic disadvantages for people with learning disabilities and autism. A draft Bill followed in 2023, and I commend the Government for taking forward the proposed Bill.

Each year, approximately 54,000 individuals are detained under the Mental Health Act. Alarmingly, as I have mentioned, black individuals are nearly four times more likely to be detained and 11 times more likely to be placed under a CTO. Furthermore, nearly 1,000 young people are detained annually, yet over half report that their hospital stay did not aid their recovery. These statistics are not just numbers; they are a call to action. There are serious concerns about the treatment of people with learning disabilities and autism. While the Bill rightly ends inappropriate detentions under section 3 of the Mental Health Act when there is no co-occurring mental illness, the delay in implementation due to the lack of resources raises fears of criminalisation, misdiagnoses, and exclusion from aftercare. We need a fully costed plan, with clear targets and accountability, to support this vulnerable group.

Mind, the leading mental health charity, has identified a further three critical areas in which the Bill must go further. The first is tackling racial disparities. The disproportionate detention of black individuals under the current Act is a glaring injustice. The Bill must include measures to reduce this disparity, such as limits on the use of community treatment orders, and the introduction of a “responsible person” to oversee treatment decisions. Additionally, a statutory duty to monitor and report on progress against these inequalities is essential. I therefore support the creation of a dedicated role to monitor and act on racial disparities in detention and treatment.

Secondly, the principle of least restriction is central to the Bill, yet it remains aspirational; there are no enforceable rights. Patients should have a statutory right to assessments and treatment, the ability to appeal treatment decisions, and expanded access to advocacy services. These rights are about not just legal protection, but respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals facing mental health challenges.

Thirdly, young people detained under the Mental Health Act often find themselves without adequate support or a voice in decisions about their care. The Bill must include a transparent decision-making test, tailored for children and young people, to ensure that their best interests are at the forefront of all treatment decisions. There should also be safeguards and the standardisation of advance choice documents. The Government say that the implementation timelines could be up to a decade, but I urge them to implement each element of the Bill as soon as is practically possible.

This Bill is very welcome, and this is a pivotal moment in the history of mental health care in our country. It is a huge step forward, but it could go further. To truly transform mental health care, we must ensure that the legislation is not only progressive in its intentions, but robust in its protections. We have the opportunity to create a system that upholds the rights, dignity and humanity of every individual. Let us therefore not pass up this chance to make all the necessary changes. Let us amend this Bill to reflect the values of equality, autonomy and respect, and take this once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a fit-for-purpose mental health system that is fairer, more compassionate and more effective. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to address the gaps, take heed of the recommendations and concerns, and make the Bill right and proper.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I welcome the direction of the Mental Health Bill. It marks a long-overdue shift in how we treat some of the most vulnerable in our society, recognising that people deserve more than crisis care—they deserve dignity, choice and autonomy. It has been a real privilege to be in the Chamber for this important debate, and to hear the very moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and by so many others across the Chamber who shared their constituents’ stories, and their own.

The Bill rightly puts patients at its centre. It gives them more say in their treatment, improves the complaints process and introduces personalised care plans. Replacing the outdated “nearest relative” with a nominated person reflects a broader move toward a more respectful, person-centred system that listens, empowers and supports recovery. But here is the uncomfortable truth: however well-intentioned, the Bill will achieve little unless we confront the funding crisis already engulfing our mental health services. The Bill asks overstretched and underpaid staff to deliver changes that demand time and care when many are already at breaking point. My constituents across Guildford see that every single day. Jennifer came to me in despair over the care that her daughter Leah is receiving at a local mental health unit. Chronic understaffing and a lack of support mean that concerns go unanswered. Underfunding has created a cycle of inadequate care—treatment refused, early discharges to free up beds, and inevitable readmissions when Leah’s needs are left unmet. I have heard from Samantha, whose son suffered a psychotic episode that ended in tragedy—a stark reminder of what happens when crises go unsupported. I also want to mention the story of a young woman whom I will not name, but who made a series of attempts on her life until she tragically succeeded, after gaining access to a poison from overseas. I know this is not a unique story, and that multiple coroners have written to the Secretary of State for Health and his predecessors on this issue. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the case and whether it may be possible to use the Mental Health Bill to prevent further similar deaths?

There is also the fact that across the country people are waiting months and sometimes years for mental health care. Children and young people are falling through the cracks, as CAMHS is overwhelmed and referrals are delayed; patients are sent miles from home due to local bed shortages; and police are left to respond to mental health emergencies because there is no one else to call. Our system is not just stretched; it is at breaking point. Yet the proportion of NHS funding going to mental health care is falling—despite soaring demand, despite mental illness making up a fifth of the NHS’s burden, and despite the Government’s promises. These are not just gaps in the system; they are failures of political will.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

As well as NHS funding for direct mental health services, does the hon. Lady agree that we should invest in preventive steps to help children to avoid the mental health anguish that they are suffering today?

[Zöe Franklin]

Absolutely. I know from my own caseload of too many stories of where if young people had received preventive care and support, they would not be facing the tragic situations they and their families are now living through.

This Government have scrapped key mental health targets, including goals for early intervention, therapy access and physical health checks for people with mental illnesses. I am sorry, but this signals a retreat at the very moment we need to advance.

I support the vision outlined in the Bill, but its success depends entirely on the foundation on which it stands. Without adequate investment, even the very best intentions will struggle to take root. Ensuring that people can exercise their rights and that staff can support them demands more than legislation; it demands real resources and sustained commitment from this Government.

We need a national effort to rebuild mental health care from the ground up, with early intervention for young people, trained professionals in schools and communities, continuity of care and a culture shift that treats mental health with the same urgency and seriousness as physical health. Failure is not an option—not for the thousands still waiting, not for the staff stretched to their limits, and not for the communities left to pick up the pieces. We can and must do better.

Maternity Services

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate. We are here today because maternity services are not at the level that they need to be at. There are many, many fantastic services across the country, but we are here to highlight those that need urgent improvement to improve outcomes for all mothers, not just some.

The excellent report that the all-party parliamentary group for birth trauma produced last year is to be commended for the way that it highlighted the fact that, for a minority of women, the experience of childbirth is traumatic and has long-lasting consequences. The section about stillbirth and neonatal death includes a submission from one mother who reported:

“The scenes in theatre can only be described as chaotic and these along with subsequent events have left me traumatised and suffering with PTSD.”

I pay tribute to the Brontë birth centre in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, a midwife-led birthing centre in the Dewsbury and District hospital. It recently reopened in April after having been closed for two years because of staff shortages. Two of my children were born there more than 20 years ago, so it will always have a special place in my heart. I would not want my comments to be misconstrued as criticism of the services it provides.

We have heard about the difference between midwife-led and consultant-led services, and we have heard about positive examples of where midwife-led services are more appropriate and can deliver better care. I am not making a point about midwife-led versus consultant-led care: the APPG report also cites horror stories from women in childbirth where consultants were present. Rather, my point is that, in reviewing maternity provision and seeking to minimise the risk to women during childbirth, we should also ensure seamless obstetrician provision for midwife-led care if required. If mothers giving birth in the Brontë birth centre encounter complications that require more in-depth medical care—God forbid—they would need to be moved from Dewsbury to Wakefield, which is a journey of more than half an hour. That increases the risks to the mother and the unborn child, so I would like the Government to address that issue.

For many who have experienced emergency situations, the image painted earlier of sheer terror and panic is all too real. It is likely that maternity services will fail to meet the national maternity safety ambition to halve the 2010 rate of stillbirths by 2025—indeed, recent figures suggest the 20% decline in stillbirth deaths achieved between 2010 and 2020 is in reverse—so it is imperative that we explore every aspect of maternity provision to ensure it is as safe as it can be.

Although almost 61% of maternity services are rated good, only 1% are rated outstanding, and just under 38% are still rated as requiring improvement for safety. Improving maternity services in the NHS is a critical priority, and the many reports since 2010 have made several key recommendations to enhance care quality and safety. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Government are taking, or will take, to address workforce gaps where the need to recruit and retain more midwives and maternity staff is essential to provide adequate support for mothers and babies. What steps are the Government taking to reduce health inequalities, to tackle disparities in maternal health outcomes, particularly for black and ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas? How will the Government ensure that adequate funding—including the reinstatement of the bursaries for midwives and nurses—is available and allocated to deliver the best quality maternity services?

Enhancing maternal mental health support for women with long-term mental health conditions is crucial. Listening to women’s experiences is also key; the continuous gathering of feedback and acting on it are essential to improve care. What are the Government doing to implement anti-racism strategies so trusts can set clear standards of behaviour to support both staff and patients? If implemented, these improvements will help ensure that all mothers receive safe, high-quality care during pregnancy and birth.

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Before being elected to this House I worked for nearly 20 years in the pharmaceutical regulation and compliance industry. I know from first-hand experience the critical role that the MHRA must play in protecting the public and its indispensable role in ensuring public trust in the medical sector. My comments, therefore, come from a place of wanting to ensure that that trust, so painstakingly built up, continues to be strengthened.

A recent survey by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry found that 80% of respondents felt the MHRA’s lack of capacity was undermining industry trust and deterring domestic investment—problems compounded by Brexit, which has created obstacles to co-operation in the European Union. Faced with a large backlog of clinical trial applications, one would imagine the obvious solution is to make more resources available to recruit and train new staff, and to rebuild relationships with our European partners. However, the Prime Minister seems more determined to demonstrate his commitment to slashing red tape and the need to, as he says, “regulate smartly and regulate creatively”. I must admit I get very nervous when I hear that kind of language used in relation to the pharmaceutical industry, because it is normally code for measures that threaten safety standards even further.

The need for openness, transparency and regulation is probably greater than ever before. Recently, I have had constituents raise with me why the animal feed additive Bovaer, which is given to cows to reduce methane, is not tested or approved to MHRA pharmaceutical standards and why it is not even listed on milk cartons. Constituents have raised concerns with me about the use of carcinogenic chemicals in our food. We know that a host of chemicals that are banned from being used in food in the European Union are permitted in the United States. It is perfectly understandable for people to fear that, amid the bonfire of red tape that the Government are planning to set alight, some things that better protect us might go up in smoke.

Constituents have also raised questions with me about the latest impact of the covid-19 vaccines. Before anyone starts accusing me of being an anti-vaxxer, I took both covid vaccines and agree that they saved many lives, but it is also the case that legitimate concerns have been voiced about long-term side effects. We now know that in the largest vaccine study to date, two very rare side effects—a neurological disorder and inflammation of the spinal cord—have been detected. Other studies have confirmed side effects including inflammation of the heart muscle and the lining around the heart, particularly in young males, as well as blood clots in the brain’s venous sinuses.

Today we stand united in our commitment to safeguarding the health and wellbeing of our citizens. The motion highlights critical issues within the MHRA that demand our immediate attention and action. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review has shed light on persistent and exacerbated patient safety concerns since its publication in 2020, and it is our duty to ensure that the MHRA undergoes substantial revision to address those issues. The safety of our citizens must be paramount, and we cannot afford to overlook the shortcomings that have been identified.

In conclusion, let us not forget that our primary responsibility is to the people we serve. We must act with urgency and determination to rectify those issues with the MHRA. By implementing these recommendations, we can work towards a safer, more responsive healthcare system that prioritises patient safety and trust above corporate profits and interests

Hospice and Palliative Care

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Hospices and palliative care are not just about easing physical pain; they are about dignity, compassion and humanity. How we care for those approaching the end of their life reflects who we are as a society. As has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members, palliative care should be an integral part of our wider NHS. Over half a million people die each year in the UK, yet too many of them do so in conditions that fail to meet their needs or respect their wishes. Hospices, the very sanctuaries of peace and care, are stretched to breaking point. Palliative care teams staffed by dedicated professionals and volunteers do extraordinary work, but they are increasingly underfunded, under-resourced and overlooked in policy debates.

Those challenges are not the fault of those on the frontline; they stem from systemic issues in how we prioritise end of life care. Funding for hospices comes primarily from charitable donations, with only about a third provided by the NHS. That is not sustainable and nor is it fair. We would not dream of asking our hospitals or schools to rely on bake sales and fundraisers for their survival, so why should hospices be any different?

I do not have hospices in my constituency, but I want to pay tribute to the local hospices that care for my constituents. The Kirkwood hospice has budgeted for a near £1 million deficit for 2023-24 and it expects the same level of deficits to continue in subsequent years. The picture is the same for the Forget Me Not children’s hospice in Kirklees, which also faces a £1 million shortfall and has put out an urgent appeal for public donations.

Another issue is access. Palliative care should be a universal right, yet we know that availability varies widely depending on where we live, and one’s age and condition. Too many people, particularly in deprived areas or from minority communities, face barriers to receiving the care they need. That inequality is unacceptable in a society that prides itself on fairness and must be addressed by the Government.

In conclusion, we must ensure secure, long-term funding for hospices and palliative care services. That requires a shift in how we think about end of life care: not as an optional extra, but as a core part of our healthcare system. The Government must step up and provide the sustainable financial support these services need to thrive now and for the future, and be able to support all communities equally.

Income Tax (Charge)

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I congratulate hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches in the House today. The first Budget of a Labour Government in nearly 15 years is definitely an improvement on the 14 years of Tory austerity and waste, but it is a missed opportunity to bring about the transformative change that the country needs. I welcome the increases in the national minimum wage and carer’s allowance, but it is disappointing that those changes have been accompanied by cuts to social security and disability benefits.

I am grateful for the long-overdue investment in hospitals and the NHS. However, the Government must guarantee that those resources will go into our NHS and not into the pockets of private shareholders.

Some 4.2 million children are growing up in poverty and a quarter of a million people are homeless; meanwhile, we are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. Those crises demand bold solutions. The Government could have implemented wealth taxes and closed corporate tax avoidance loopholes to bring about a more equal and sustainable society. Instead, they have chosen to bake in decades of inequality by feigning regret over tough choices they do not have to make. Those include keeping the two-child benefit cap, cutting the winter fuel allowance and increasing the bus fare cap by 50%. At the same time, the Government have committed to an additional £3 billion of military spending.

I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the link between housing and health. While I welcome the measures in the Budget to increase funding for housing, I am concerned that they do not go nearly far enough. Real security is when everybody has a decent home, and we will solve the housing crisis only with rent controls and a huge council house building programme.

The Government will be aware that plans to freeze the local housing allowance will have a detrimental impact on hundreds of thousands of families struggling in temporary housing or facing eviction. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, if the LHA remains frozen over this Parliament, private renters on housing benefit will on average be about £700 worse off.

If the Government are serious about tackling child poverty and homelessness, they need to start by ending the LHA freeze and linking housing costs to housing support. While I welcome the commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister to deliver 5,000 new social and affordable homes, that is only scratching the surface.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On the winter fuel allowance, does the hon. Member agree that freezing pensioners will only increase the need for NHS resources when hospitals are already struggling?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I completely agree that there is a direct link between pensioner poverty and demands on the NHS.

The Government’s proposals in the Budget do not go nearly far enough. The situation is simply not sustainable. The ability to provide the bulk of its citizens with a roof over their head is a litmus test for the success of any state. Unfortunately, that test has been failed by successive Governments. Without more radical measures to increase the stock of affordable housing, I fear it is a test that this Government will also fail.

Children’s Hospices: Funding

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this important debate. In preparing for it, I learned that more than half of children’s hospices around the UK reported a deficit in 2023-24. As a result of a lack of long-term and sustainable statutory funding, coupled with the increasing costs incurred when providing lifeline care to seriously ill children and their families, more than half of children’s hospices in England ended the year in deficit. Looking ahead to 2024 and ’25, the picture gets even worse, with nearly three quarters of children’s hospices forecasting a net deficit and with the total shortfall across 35 organisations estimated to reach £25 million.

In Kirklees, where my constituency sits, Forget Me Not Children’s Hospice is an essential part of our local health and care system. It offers vital palliative care and support to seriously ill children and their families. Despite that, however, the hospice is facing a turning point: crucial services, including respite and end of life care, will be cut if the Government fail to maintain the existing £25 million NHS grant funding for children hospices. For Forget Me Not, the impact of losing that grant would be catastrophic and result in a significant reduction in services in our area. That comes on top of already fragile sustainability as a result of historic underfunding, making it one of the least funded hospices in the UK.

Amid a year of high inflation and the growing costs of recruiting and retaining skilled and experienced staff, children’s hospices’ costs are rising. UK Government Ministers must act urgently to ensure that seriously ill children and their families can access the crucial hospice and palliative care services they need. I stand here and join other hon. Members in asking the Minister to maintain the £25 million as ringfenced, centrally distributed NHS funding for children’ hospices beyond 2025, and to ensure that that funding increases by at least the rate of inflation. I also ask the Minister to use the new 10-year plan for England to review the way in which children’s palliative care is planned and funded, and to ensure that those vital and critical services are funded in full and not left to rely on community fundraising.

Access to Primary Healthcare

Iqbal Mohamed Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Helen Morgan]

Flexibility of contracting is critical, and learning from best practice elsewhere in the country will help to address the problem.

I want to highlight how silly it is that people cannot find an NHS dentist when they need one, because NHS dental funding is actually going unspent. In Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, the area I know about, £1 million was clawed back in 2022-23 because dentists were unable to spend the money allocated to them; they do not have enough staff to work the contracts with them. I met someone last year who had not had a day off work—we were in October by that point—and he had to hand back his contract. The Government have proposed golden handshakes, but I have heard on the ground that they do not work, certainly in Shropshire. We need a reformed contract, flexible commissioning, a proper statutory requirement for workforce planning, and the ability for dentists to use their funding to manage their own practices in a way that allows them to make a bit of money out of treating patients on the NHS.

I also want to highlight the public health grant cuts by the Conservatives and how important it is to reverse them is. It is a complete false economy to cut programmes that help with oral health and prevent poor teeth and future dental problems, when we could spend the money up front so that it would cost far less in the future.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Morgan]

I will make some progress now, if that is okay, because I am conscious that lots of people want to get in and make full speeches.

We have called for a guarantee for urgent and emergency dental care. Check-ups for those people who are already eligible and those needing check-ups before things such as chemotherapy and surgery were also in our manifesto. It is only going to be possible to offer those guarantees if we deal with the issues in the dental contract and the flexibility of commissioning.

Primary care is the front door to the NHS, as I mentioned at the beginning, and Lord Darzi pointed out in his report that that is where we should be investing. At the moment, money is flowing to secondary care—to hospitals—yet most people’s experience of the NHS is with their doctor or dentist. We must ensure that that first point of call is a good point of call, and reduce the numbers of people going to A&E. That is so much more cost-effective, but it is also so much better for those people who could manage their health condition without a crisis and without ever having to go near a hospital.

We should also think of the knock-on impacts on those hospitals. We all have horror stories of ambulances queued up outside hospitals because so many people are in A&E and so few people can flow through the hospital. The issues around that are complex, and they link in to social care as well, but the reality is that if we can treat people in the community, we will save the lives of people who need emergency care. This is absolutely fundamental: we need investment in our GPs and in dental and pharmacy contracts because we cannot afford not to do it.