NHS Capital Spending

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: this is about not just buildings, but equipment and digital and technical infrastructure, all of which are crucial to getting the NHS to operate in the way it should. She also highlights how we need to upgrade ageing equipment to a very basic level, let alone take advantage of all the opportunities that the latest innovations in new equipment could provide us with, if we were able to purchase those.

I mentioned that maintenance backlogs are soaring. They have doubled from around £6 billion in 2015 to over £13 billion in 2024. The critical thing to stress is that it did not have to be this way. The UK invested around a third less in health capital during the 2010s than other comparable nations. According to OECD data, the UK has 10 CT scanners per 1,000 people compared with an average of nearly 20 per 1,000 across Europe. We have 8.5 MRI scanners per 1,000, compared with an average of 12 per 1,000 across other EU nations, and our bed capacity is pitiful. We operate at around 2.4 per 1,000 people, compared with an OECD average of 4.4. The issue has not only been a lack of money; it has also been a lack of certainty and flexibility.

The approvals process for capital bids is slow and cumbersome. Even when capital is available, trusts often receive final sign-off so late in the year that they physically cannot begin procurement, get survey work done and start construction in time. The money therefore goes unspent not because of poor planning locally, but because the system itself creates delay.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

On that point, my local authority is currently sitting on £50 million of developer funds that it was paid, but those funds are not being spent in the local community because there is not the total money needed to invest in health, infrastructure, schools and other things. Does the hon. Member agree that that is something we must look at, to make sure that money set aside for development is spent with urgency in our communities?

[Bobby Dean]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the complexity in putting together large capital projects. Funding is not often from one source. It is from multiple sources, and everybody providing the capital needs to have greater flexibility for the schemes to become deliverable, or the funds end up getting clawed back and put elsewhere, as has been done in the past.

The yearly cycle that I speak about is important because, in the past, capital departmental expenditure limits rules—Treasury CDEL rules—have meant that any unspent capital must be returned to the Treasury at the year end. Not being able to carry it forward punishes good financial management, prevents multi-year planning and leaves trusts scrambling to spend money before deadlines, rather than investing it strategically. The result is a system where underspends exist at the same time as record levels of urgent capital need. Trusts want to invest and start work, but the system ties their hands.

The effect of all that has not been abstract. The buildings maintenance backlog includes high-risk failures: operating theatres closed due to ventilation problems, leaks near electrical systems, sewerage failures and outdated wards where modern clinical standards simply cannot be delivered. A 2022 British Medical Association survey found that 43% of doctors reported that building conditions negatively impacted patient care.

[Bobby Dean]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to the new hospitals programme, as my constituency stands to benefit from it, too—if it comes soon enough. In the meantime, as she says, we are paying twice to pay for the repairs and patchwork, and never keeping up with the investment we need.

Ageing diagnostic equipment also means fewer scans, longer waits and more delayed diagnosis. Last year I had the pleasure of visiting my local hospital’s nuclear medicine unit, where I was shown a new machine that was driving down diagnosis times from hours to minutes. Obviously that is a fantastic sign of good capital investment, but when I spoke to the trust I was shocked to discover it is one of the only hospitals in the country with that particular piece of kit, and I thought to myself how much more productive the NHS would be if such equipment was rolled out routinely across the country as soon as it became available.

Then there is the infamy of poor IT systems. More than 13.5 million clinical working hours are lost every year due to poor IT. We have all heard shocking stories of hospitals running on Windows operating systems that we were talking to a paperclip on 20 years ago. As the age of artificial intelligence promises to transform the workplace, it would be great if the NHS could catch up with the last decade or so.

I recently met an AI developer who thinks they have come up with a solution to the elective surgery booking system. His system auto-calls patients and offers them a choice of appointment, making hundreds of calls in just minutes. They say it beats the old system on two counts. Patients usually receive a date by post without a choice, but the trial in the midlands saw “did not attend” numbers drop by 50%, which they put down to patient choice in the appointment time, and delivery was guaranteed because they had answered the phone. Think of the potential productivity gains if such technology was picked up at scale.

I have explained a little about the past state of NHS capital spending and will now turn to where the Government are today. Part of the reason for this debate is to find out where the Government think they are. It is worth saying that the Government’s stated intention has been a step in the right direction. There has been more certainty, more money and more flexibility. After the initial one-year capital settlement for 2025-26, with assurances that things would continue, the spending review confirmed capital budgets through to 2029-30. Those decisions will provide some stability, though it is still uncertain whether the Treasury clawback system remains in place on an annual basis or over the spending review period.

There was a substantial uplift of money in the year 1 allocations, but that is followed by a relatively flat commitment going forward, albeit at a higher level due to the initial uplift. I do not think we should be churlish about that—an increase in investment is inarguably good—but equally, we should not kid ourselves that investment is now at the required level. It does not fully address the inadequacy of past investment, nor does it bring it in line with international comparators. The King’s Fund has described the failure to reverse the historical underfunding by the previous Conservative Government as “extremely disappointing”. The NHS Confederation is asking for the commitment over the spending period to be doubled in real terms, from £3.1 billion to £6.4 billion.

There has also been greater flexibility, with Treasury approval now only required for capital projects in excess of £300 million, up from the previous, pitiful £50 million. The new delegated authority will cut out layers of bureaucracy and speed up delivery on the ground for ward refurbishments and equipment purchases. It will not address issues inherited in the largest NHS capital schemes, however, which brings me on to the new hospitals programme.

The programme was imagined by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson—I say “imagined”, because for some time the only place it existed was in his imagination. Conservative leaflets in my patch were emblazoned with a promise that the money had been secured for a new hospital building that would be delivered by 2024. I am sure that experience holds true for many in this room. When 2024 came, hardly a brick had been laid across the country. When the new Government came in, they told us no money had ever been allocated for those schemes.

The programme was reset by this Government, with an updated timetable and revised waves of projects. My local hospital’s building was put into the second wave, meaning that work will not begin until the 2030s, which was a bitter disappointment. Since the announcement of delay, things have gone a little quiet overall. A year or so on from the announcement, people are wondering how the programme is getting on. There are rumours that are some in the first wave are not keeping pace and could already be underspending allocations. Mostly, that is put down to the adaptation period of the hospital 2.0 model, an attempt to homogenise design across the country that is broadly welcome.

Any delays will spark questions about what will happen to that allocated spend. Hospitals such as mine will want to be at the front of the queue for any reallocation, if such an opportunity should arise. I have already mentioned my local hospital, but there is no clearer case of capital neglect than St Helier hospital in my constituency. It is as old as the NHS itself, overcrowded and cramped, and the specialist emergency care functions are simply not up to modern-day clinical standards.

Let me be clear: staff at St Helier are working heroically and patients are safe, but they are in a building that is not designed for 21st-century emergency care, with patients routinely treated in corridors. Key recommendations for improving service delivery simply cannot be implemented because there is physically not enough space. Despite tens of millions having been spent on basic repairs in recent years, the building is deteriorating faster than the trust can fix it.

The new hospital programme promised to resolve many of those issues with a new building for emergency and maternity care but, with that delay well into the 2030s, my constituents are left facing another decade of care in a building that is visibly past its lifespan.

[James Naish]

I am based on the outskirts of Nottingham, and already this year we have had three critical incidents at Queen’s medical centre, which is the main hospital in the city. They have all been based around A&E, and they were all the exact situation that the hon. Member describes. A&E has capacity for 350 patients, but it has routinely been seeing over 500. Does he agree that, in addition to the pressures he describes, there is a reputational risk to the NHS when such incidents are being declared because of physical capacity issues?

[Bobby Dean]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that, like me, he hears constituents say that they do not want to attend their local A&E because they do not trust that they will be seen in time. I am sure that the figures he is describing are an undercount of the people who should be in there. Like me, he will have received emails about corridor care for some time. I had hoped that corridor care was a peak crisis moment and that it would subside, but it has become the norm and that is extremely worrying. It is not acceptable for patients, it is not fair on staff, and it is not a sustainable way to run our NHS.

If the Government are to reconsider which schemes should be in which waves of the new hospital programme, let me assure the Minister that my local trust is ready to go. Plans have been drawn up, land has been secured, and teams can move at pace. We need this, we want this, and we are ready. If that is not possible, but other pots of capital to be reallocated still remain, I make a separate plea: extend St Helier’s emergency department now. That is a smaller ask than delivering a whole new building, but it will make a big difference. The only thing more full than the corridors at my local hospital right now is my inbox, which is filling up with constituents describing their traumatic experiences.

St Helier hospital emergency department sees around 250 patients a day, with routine overcrowding leading to the trust being placed into national oversight measures. Kirsty, one of my constituents, was left anxiously waiting for her 83-year-old mum to be seen, witnessing elderly patients crying, vomiting, screaming and walking around in severe pain in the corridors. The father-in-law of Muhammad, another constituent, waited over 13 hours only to return home without seeing a doctor at all. Others have shared deeply personal details of their stories; their conditions were explained to them alongside countless others in the same corridor. It is undignified, unjust and unsafe.

The trust has come up with a plan. It believes that it can redesign the existing estate, creating a new urgent treatment centre and expanding the same-day emergency care service. By doing so, it would dramatically increase the number of patients it can see. The urgent treatment centre would be able to handle up to 30% of patients—up from 14%—and SDEC could get to 20%, up from 8%. That would prevent unnecessary overnight stays, free up hospital beds, speed up ambulance transfers, and reduce delays for patients needing hospital admission. The plan would also address £15 million of the trust’s ageing estates backlog. It is immediately deliverable; the trust believes that work can begin as early as autumn 2026. It would make an incredible difference, so I ask the Minister to make use of any influence she has over the matter to help the proposal get over the line.

Before I conclude, let me raise one further point about NHS capital expenditure that I suspect will not make me popular, but that I believe is right. The Government have tentatively re-entered the world of public-private partnership models with their announcement of neighbourhood health centres late last year. We all know how disastrous that model of financing was in the past, with the long-term costs to the taxpayer far outweighing the short-term benefits. Britain was among the first in the world to pilot such a scheme, and it failed fast.

It must be said, however, that other nations have learnt the lessons of our failures and successfully delivered social infrastructure at scale, on budget and on time. Indeed, I believe that is one of the reasons why we have fallen behind so badly. As a member of the Treasury Committee, I recently guested on a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into PPP, which concluded that if we get procurement, contract management, and the risk allocation of projects right, then we can massively accelerate the delivery of infrastructure in our country in a way that delivers real value for money for the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Western. An MP Josh Taylor—that would be a beast, would it not? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) for introducing this incredibly important debate. He and I have written op-ed articles for our shared local newspaper in recent weeks, describing our constituents’ despair at the state of emergency care and facilities at St Helier hospital.

When I posted my article on Facebook for local residents to read, somebody commented on my post to say that they were fed up of the endless discussions on the topic, and they rightly pointed out that St Helier has been a totemic issue in Sutton for decades. They angrily demanded action, not words, from us all to get something done about it. The truth is, I could not remotely fault my constituent for their outrage at the imbalance of words and action that they, and everybody in Sutton, have had to live with for far too long. This is what happens when Governments fail to act; people lose faith that the system and their politicians can deliver results. When people hear grand words but see no action, it is no wonder that politicians are the least trusted profession in the UK.

Before I was elected I was an engineer, which is one of the most trusted professions. Then, with the support of more than 16,000 of my constituents, I instantly became a member of one of the least trusted—it is a funny old world, is it not? When the policy area at hand is something so visceral as whether people and their families can go to their local hospital safe in the knowledge that it is equipped to care for them properly, that loss of faith is absolutely corrosive to all faith in politics.

[James Naish]

The Minister will know the health centre I am about to mention. It is in East Leake in my constituency of Rushcliffe, and it has been talked about for over 20 years. It has clinical rooms that are out of action because there has not been the appropriate investment. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) represents a relatively affluent part of the country, but does he agree that there is something called building deprivation? The reality is that health centres are not in a good enough condition for our constituents and, irrespective of the relative affluence of an area, we still need to invest in our infrastructure.

[Luke Taylor]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member’s point. When the condition of an asset does not attract staff, particularly in more deprived areas, the challenges will be greater. Those compounding challenges are borne out visibly through the physical asset, and everything becomes much more difficult.

I should not have to be here making points about political faith and delivery—or the economic arguments that have been made by other Members—but I will make the important humane case, based on the experiences of my constituents. I recently did a health survey where residents wrote in and told me their stories. One of them was a woman whose husband spent 54 hours in A&E with sepsis, lying on a trolley in a room so small it could have been a broom cupboard. Another, who is in her late 80s, sat waiting on a chair for 10 hours after a suspected heart attack, while another woman, who was unable to sit on a chair because of her pain, had to lie on the floor crying and wait for several hours.

Almost half of those who responded to the survey said that they had waited for more than four hours in A&E at St Helier hospital. We have the NHS numbers, too: across the Epsom and St Helier trust, 18,600 people waited for more than 12 hours in 2025. That is sickening; it is an example of a system that is not working. “Sickening” is the right word: like thousands of people across Sutton, I am sick to the back teeth with the endless delays that have got us here.

There is another important angle. In almost every one of the stories I was told, there was nothing but deep appreciation for the dedicated staff on the estate, many of whom the respondents credit with saving their lives in spite of—not because of—the conditions that they find themselves in. How can we keep recruiting into the NHS or uphold its public image if these are the conditions that we are expecting staff to work in? This is normally the part of the speech where I talk about the Government’s awful inheritance from the Conservatives, but I do not feel like making that point any more, because the people of Sutton have had enough context-setting and this Government is almost two years old now.

I thank the Minister for her discussions of this topic with me and other colleagues. I feel that we are engaging openly and positively, and I want to make that very clear for the record, but I ask the Government to listen to the pleas of our constituents, and to please provide the money to expand our emergency department. At risk of returning to my point about trust, if we do not fix this, we risk a catastrophe in Sutton that might undermine the faith of my residents and the broader public in the entire model of the NHS.

My speech has been about expanding, refurbishing and fixing St Helier hospital, but there is the separate issue of the real and urgent need for the specialist emergency care hospital that our NHS and residents were promised by the previous Government. We need that too, and we need it quickly. The expansion of our A&E would complement the provision in Sutton, and it needs to be brought forward.

Pharmacy First: Withholding Payments

James Naish Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ahmed]

I can assure the hon. Lady of our commitment to an effective primary care system up and down the country, in both rural and coastal communities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Care, whose portfolio includes pharmacy, takes his responsibilities seriously and is exploring all avenues to ensure equity of access and funding, including through the Carr-Hill formula.

The hon. Lady asks what mitigations can be employed to ensure that payments are made in extraordinary circumstances. I can assure her that I have had those discussions with my officials this morning, and they reassured me that there will be a degree of flexibility, particularly in circumstances outwith the control of individual pharmacies.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the fact that this urgent question was granted, because pharmacies have been in touch with me about their concerns. I must put another thing on the Minister’s to-do list: independent prescribing. Evans Pharmacy in my constituency has been part of the independent prescribing pathfinder programme, and only 5% of patients seen by the prescribers subsequently require GP prescribing. However, no clear funding or arrangement will be in place after March this year. Will he provide Evans Pharmacy and similar prescribers with clarity about what will happen next?

[Dr Ahmed]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Independent prescribers are a key and expanding part of our workforce, providing a sustainable primary care service. I am very happy for the Minister for Care to write to him with the exact funding plans for the next financial year.

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I will put one family at the heart of my response: my constituent Catherine and her son Matthew, whom I mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions last February, 12 months ago.

When she was pregnant, Catherine did what any parent would do: she trusted the medical advice that she was given. She was prescribed sodium valproate, a medicine used to treat epilepsy. Matthew is now 24 years old, and as a result of that medical advice he has lifelong needs and a learning disability. He has done incredibly well, securing a part-time job and maintaining a level of independence while walking around the village where he lives.

Matthew was also incredibly proud to take part in the 2024 general election, and he voted in the hope that there would finally be redress for those affected by the valproate scandal. Matthew has since written to the Prime Minister; I put on the record my frustration at seeing how his correspondence was passed from pillar to post. It was only after several chases by me that Matthew received a response—a response entirely inappropriate for somebody with a learning disability.

Catherine and her family provide significant support to Matthew, and his life is all the richer for it. But that is not the case for all children impacted by sodium valproate, and there will come a point in time when Catherine will not be able to provide that support any longer. Catherine, and other families in the Public Gallery today, fear that day, and they want the state to ensure that specialist assessments, therapies, adaptations, lost earnings and round-the-clock care are provisioned for now, so that a secure future for their children is guaranteed.

That is why the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report is so important. It sets out a clear and workable route, and it is the responsibility of this Government to acknowledge that. Every month of delay is another month when parents are left to patch together support, fight for diagnoses, battle through fragmented services and carry costs that should never have landed on their shoulders.

Today I ask the Minister directly, as I asked the Prime Minister 12 months ago: will the Government commit to a clear timetable for implementing the Hughes recommendations? For Catherine and Matthew, the argument that the situation is complex simply does not land. Their lives are already complex—more complex than most of us can even imagine. What they are asking the Government to do is simple: accept responsibility for the scandal and act now while the redress can still be meaningful.

The question today is whether this Government—the Government who both Catherine and Matthew were desperate to see when I first met them, as a candidate—will match that urgency with action. I hope that the Minister will take seriously all the representations made today.

NHS: Winter Preparedness

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

This Labour Government are investing more in the NHS—£26 billion, rising to £29 billion over the spending review period. Urgent and emergency care is improving. Ambulance response times are improving year on year. I recognise that there are particular challenges with the West Midlands ambulance service. We are going as hard and fast as we can to repair the damage done by 14 years of Conservative Government. We are able to do that only because people chose to vote Labour at the last general election.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

At a Hanukkah event in Nottingham last night, I spoke to a medical undergraduate who welcomes the Government’s commitment to halving competition, and the offer that was put to the BMA. Lots of medical professionals, be they hospital doctors, GPs or allied health professionals, are struggling to find work. Will the Secretary of State outline how this offer, and the Government’s other work, would have helped those individuals?

[Wes Streeting]

This is the futility of the BMA’s position. The steps that we were proposing to take—both increasing the number of specialty places and bringing forward emergency legislation to deal with UK prioritisation—would have reduced the competition ratio from around 4:1 today to less than 2:1. That would have kicked in during the current round. We would have been able to bring forward emergency legislation and a new application round in the spring. The BMA has rejected that approach, and we will not proceed on that basis.

It is for the BMA to explain what its dispute is all about. We were told that it was all about jobs. What it seems to be about in substance is that the BMA wants a 26% pay rise, in addition to a 28.9% pay rise. I think the BMA is missing a degree of perspective about not just the state of the public finances but the pressures on other parts of the NHS and the public sector. The Government are committed to improving, consistently and year on year, the pay, terms and conditions of staff, and, crucially, the conditions in which patients are seen and treated. We cannot fix it all at once.

In fact, when this and previous Governments have floated the idea of raising extra money, BMA committees have sometimes been among the first to complain about the prospect of higher taxes, including on pensions, and other issues. It seems that their view is that everybody else should pay higher taxes for their higher salaries, and no one else matters. For me, those Agenda for Change staff who have been left behind are the first priority.

Budget Resolutions

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Let me say two things in response. I am almost certain that my hon. Friends will be delighted that he has intervened in defence of their plight at the hands of the Labour Whips, but he knows as well as I do that the Whip was removed from some of my hon. Friends not because of the substance of the issue they were raising but because we never, ever accept people voting against a King’s or Queen’s Speech. [Interruption.] That was the issue. He asked me a fair question, and he has got an honest answer. He should take it on the chin.

The hon. Member also asked why many people in our country believe that the two-child cap was right. It is because our Conservative predecessors peddled the myth and the lie that people in receipt of welfare are on the take, and are just looking for handouts, rather than help. We Labour Members take a different view; we recognise, as I have set out, that so many people affected by the two-child cap are in work and in poverty. That is one of the many scandals of the damage that more than a decade of Conservative rule did. The Conservatives broke the link between a hard day’s work and a fair day’s pay. In addition to the measures that we are taking on child poverty to remove the two-child limit, we are also increasing the national minimum wage. We are increasing it even higher for young people. We are doing this because this is the party of work, the party that wants to make work pay, and the party that is genuinely committed to waging war on poverty.

Just as we must win the argument for lifting children out of poverty, we must win the argument for the founding principles of our NHS. Having left the NHS in the worst crisis in its history, the right now argues that it is unaffordable and should be abandoned. The NHS was broken, but it is not beaten, and Labour is already breathing new life into our health service. Waiting lists are falling for the first time in 15 years. Ambulances are arriving 10 minutes faster in stroke, sepsis and heart attack cases.

Patient satisfaction with GPs is up from 60% to 74%, and nearly 200,000 more patients were given a cancer diagnosis or the all-clear on time.

With Labour, the NHS is on the road to recovery. That is in no small part because the Chancellor is reversing 14 years of austerity and investing in our NHS. We promised an extra 2 million appointments; we have delivered 5 million. We promised to recruit an extra 1,000 GPs; we have recruited 2,500. We promised to end the 8 am scramble; we have widened the window that patients have to request appointments and have made booking available online. A lot done and a lot more to do.

At this Budget, we announced the next steps on the road to recovery: 250 new neighbourhood health centres with the first ones in Birmingham, Barrow, Truro and Southall, and £300 million more to invest in technology to modernise healthcare. Next year, we will receive recommendations from Baroness Casey on laying the foundations to build a national care service.

The NHS does not just face an existential political challenge from the Conservatives and Reform UK; it faces a sustainability challenge.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I appreciate the announcement about the 250 new neighbourhood health centres, but I am concerned for my constituency—a more affluent constituency that has health centres that were built in the ’60s. They are genuinely falling apart and need significant investment to ensure that GPs can continue to deliver outstanding service to my constituents. Could the Secretary of State provide some reassurance, or agree to meet me to discuss how we can ensure that deprivation is not the only aspect considered in that excellent initiative?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, we want to ensure that investment is deprivation linked. We want to reverse the damage the Conservatives did when they pursued what I would characterise as the Royal Tunbridge Wells strategy, when our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), declared with pride to Conservative party activists that he had taken funding from the poorest communities in the country and funnelled it to the richest. There could be no shorter or clearer exposition of Conservative party values and politics in action than that claim.

To my hon. Friend’s point, he is absolutely right that within many affluent communities there are also pockets of deprivation, and we have to ensure that the NHS is there for everyone in every part of the country. We are dealing with enormous undercapitalisation in the NHS, totalling some £37 billion as identified by the noble Lord Darzi. It will take time to address that challenge, but I think my hon. Friend’s constituents know from his assiduous hard work and visible campaigning as a constituency MP that he will ensure that their needs and interests are not forgotten or overlooked by this Government.

Of course, as we improve the health of our health service, we also need to address the health of our nation. Children in England face some of the poorest health outcomes in Europe. Obesity in four and five-year-olds is reaching record levels—a health time bomb that leaves them at greater risk from cancer and heart disease later in life. What kind of start in life are we giving our children, and if we allow it to continue, what kind of future are we leaving to them? Our children will lead shorter, less healthy lives; our NHS will buckle under a tidal wave of chronic conditions; and our economy will suffer because businesses will be denied the potential of the next generation.

This Labour Government are tackling the sickness in our society. Whether it is the extension of the soft drinks industry levy, free school meals, a warm home discount that reaches millions more, the generational ban on smoking, Awaab’s law, cutting pollution and cleaning up the air that our children breathe, we are combating the drivers of ill health in children’s lives: poor diets, damp homes, dirty air and a lack of opportunity. In short, we are tackling poverty, because every child deserves a healthy start in life, and prevention is better than cure.

The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton, says we should instead be educating people to make healthier choices—I assume that he will not be leading from the front on that campaign. But we know that Reform and the Conservatives oppose our agenda to improve public health. They oppose our investment in the NHS. They should just be honest and admit that they now oppose the NHS itself. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like it, but I challenge them to dispute a single claim I just read. Let me repeat the charge sheet for their benefit: they oppose our investment in the NHS. Have they not opposed every budget spending review since Labour came to office? [Interruption.] Honestly, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who does not want to intervene because I think he knows he is leading with his chin on this, wants to suggest that somehow the Conservative party left a legacy that they could be proud of. They inherited the shortest waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in history. They left us the longest waiting lists and lowest patient satisfaction on record. No wonder so few of them have turned up to defend that shoddy record.

The Conservatives oppose our public health agenda, do they not? I thought this was an area where we had built consensus, but not under their present leadership. I have already quoted what their leader, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said. Maybe they were not listening—the country certainly is not. I would have thought, though, that their own side would at least listen to what she said. She says she wants a debate about charging for healthcare. I do not know whether they have heard that or whether they stand by it. Maybe we could just see a simple show of hands—how many of her own side want to see charging for healthcare in the NHS? Not a single hand has gone up. That does not bode well for the future of the Leader of the Opposition, but let’s leave the Conservative party to revel in its irrelevance.

In fact, I was probably one of the few people who paid any attention to what the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), said at the Conservative party conference. I noticed that he did not mention a single policy. I say to the Conservatives: if we are doing such a bad job, why would they not do anything differently? Would they cut the £26 billion this Labour Government are investing in the NHS, and if not, if they oppose this Budget, how would they pay for it? The Conservatives seem to think that the British people are so stupid that they will forget which party wrecked the NHS and led it to the worst crisis in its history.

To conclude, this is a Government who are cutting waiting lists, giving children a healthier start in life and lifting 500,000 children out of poverty. In doing so, we are restating the case for universal healthcare that is publicly owned, publicly funded and free at the point of use. We are showing that progress is possible after 14 years of decline, that things can get better. Abolishing the two-child limit is not a handout, it is a hand up. Our country cannot prosper while 6 million people languish on waiting lists, 4.5 million children grow up in poverty and 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. But if we protect people’s health, give them the opportunities to put their talents to use and give them a strong foundation, they will build a good life for themselves and a better Britain for all, and we can fulfil the lost promise that tomorrow will be better than today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

This was a Budget for young people. We are lifting the two-child benefit cap, bringing half a million children out of poverty; alongside free school meals, breakfast clubs, childcare and uniforms, we are reducing child poverty more than any Government ever. Our youth guarantee will make sure that every young person can access college, apprenticeships or job support, and SMEs will no longer have to pay towards apprenticeship training for under-25s, which is vital in Cornwall.

This was a Budget to tackle the cost of living, with measures to increase the minimum wage, cut household energy bills, freeze rail fares and prescriptions, extend the bus fare cap, and increase the state pension. It was also a Budget for growth. Our economy grew 50% more than the OBR expected in March. The Government have held fast to the decision to strongly invest in our infrastructure and worked to crowd in private investment and encourage companies to grow and list in the UK. I was pleased to hear the Chancellor confirm major investment in Truro neighbourhood health centre, which will be in the initial wave of centres to be upgraded and refurbished.

This was a Budget for Cornwall. The Kernow industrial growth fund is to be given £30 million over the next two years to invest in Cornwall’s economic potential. It reflects the fact that Cornwall has an important part to play in the UK’s industrial strategy. The Government have recently announced the critical minerals strategy and provided backing and investment for it. That is a brilliant example of a key industry vital to our national security being backed to the hilt by this Government. I hope they will do the same for the floating offshore wind.

Another key industry vital to national security is farming. The Government made a concession on inheritance tax by enabling automatic transfer of the £1 million allowance between spouses and civil partners. That will relieve pressure somewhat for older farmers who did not have time to plan. The Treasury says that few farmers and estates will be affected, but perception is everything when it comes to investment. I know that the Government have put a record amount of investment into farming.

I sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it is clear that as a country we need to set a firm direction of travel on food security. Since Brexit we have diverged, particularly in England, from other places on the way we treat food production. I hope that the publication of various reports, including that of Minette Batters, will help to provide more certainty, and that the new incarnation of sustainable farming incentives will encourage farmers to invest.

[James Naish]

Although the new measures for farmers announced by the Chancellor have been welcomed by the industry, as Labour MPs we were advocating not for reduced revenue but for ensuring that the wrong farmers were not hit. Does my hon. Friend therefore share my view that Labour Members have fought hard for farmers and that our voices should be listened to moving forward?

[Jayne Kirkham]

It is important that we look very closely at the measures, as we in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in our report. Family farms are obviously very important and we need to consider them deeply when thinking about food security.

This is a long game. Fixing what is broken will be a hard path, but this Budget keeps us on that course without deviation. We are moving towards growth and the systematic rebuilding of our public services step by step. We are focusing on making life less of a daily struggle and on pulling our children out of poverty so that they can thrive now and take all the opportunities that this Government will offer them as they grow.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I declare my interest as chair of both the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis and the all-party parliamentary group on long covid. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for bringing this important debate to the House; we work together on the APPG on ME.

ME and related conditions such as long covid are among the most devastating illnesses of our time, yet they remain some of the most poorly understood and most neglected. Unless we confront this misunderstanding head on, we will never deliver the change that patients so desperately need.

This issue is personal to me. In 2020, I contracted long covid. The infection was mild, but the aftermath was devastating, and it changed my life forever. With long covid, I developed ME, so I know the exhaustion, isolation and gaslighting that patients face. I cannot know for sure why I improved, but I believe that one reason was early recognition. I give a big shout-out to my friend Shelley Guest, who saw that my symptoms mirrored her own. She gave me books; she shouted at me, and told me to pace myself. I am forever grateful to her.

That raises a critical question: if diagnosed and supported early enough, could ME’s symptoms be managed to the point of recovery or partial recovery? My journey is not over yet. That is why research and recognition are not optional; they are essential.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work chairing the two all-party groups. My constituent Janet contacted me about her son Richard, who was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome six months ago. He is still waiting for a proper referral. Does my hon. Friend agree that an early pathway is vital, and would she encourage the Minister to outline what form that might take?

[Jo Platt]

I agree, and I recognise every single one of those issues. As chair of the APPG, I hear about the harrowing cases of what people are struggling with on the pathway to healthcare. It is simply not good enough.

Jhoots Pharmacy

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

This is absolutely urgent, as the hon. Member rightly says. I have commissioned officials to work on this matter at pace. We can clearly see that this is a matter of national significance simply by the number of colleagues in the Chamber. I can give the hon. Member that assurance, and I would be happy to update him once I have a better sense of the exact timeframe and deadlines. We will be insisting that things happen as a matter of urgency.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Over the recess I met the Singh family, who run two pharmacies in my constituency. The family were clear that, despite improved funding, they are still struggling with overly complex funding formulas, delayed payments, high energy prices and drug shortages, among other challenges. However, the positive initiatives of Pharmacy First and the independent prescribing pathfinder programme offer a ray of hope. Will the Minister commit to continuing to invest time and energy in expanding those programmes and meet my pharmacies from Rushcliffe to discuss them further?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We remain absolutely committed to the independent prescribing service and are working on the plans and strategy to make that a reality. We continue to support Pharmacy First, but sadly take-up of it has not been as good as we would have liked it to be. The way it was structured and incentivised has not enabled it to realise its full potential, and we are working on that as well. A number of errors were made by the previous Government, who did not set Pharmacy First up to succeed to the extent that it should have done.

Defibrillators

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this important debate.

I pay tribute to Dylan Rich, a Rushcliffe constituent who tragically passed away aged 17 from a cardiac arrest, during a game between West Bridgford Colts and Boston United in Nottinghamshire in 2021. He was an extremely talented footballer, and his family and friends have dedicated themselves to creating a positive legacy from his tragic early death, notably through the Dylan Rich Legacy, a registered charity that provides funding for charitable projects that, among other things, promote access to sport for young people in Nottinghamshire.

In addition, Dylan’s family and friends have raised money for the installation of defibrillators in the local area and for fantastic related charities such as Cardiac Risk in the Young. I am sure the whole Chamber will join me in paying tribute to their important work.

Despite that very high profile, tragic death in Rushcliffe, data from 2024 suggests that over 60% of my—admittedly rural—constituency is still not within a three to five-minute walk of a defibrillator. I acknowledge the work of the last Government on this matter, but I think everyone here would agree that our ambitions must go further and faster if we want to improve survival rates.

As so many Members have said—we have clearly read the same briefing note—every minute without a defibrillator being used reduces a cardiac arrest victim’s chance of survival by 10%. In other words, a lack of access to a defibrillator means a high chance of death, longer stays in hospital or more complex care needs in the long run. Greater accessibility and the quicker use of defibrillators will therefore save the NHS in long-term medical care costs.

I want to put on the record my support for the Heart Restart Tax campaign, which many Members have talked about. We already exempt from VAT defibrillators bought by the NHS and some small charities, but a cricket club, football club or small business in my constituency should not be discouraged from taking the same lifesaving action. This is a classic example of a small policy change that could go a long way. Many other examples have been mentioned, and I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, has listened closely to what Members have said in reiterating the importance of such small policy changes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

James Naish Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

Ministers would not be able to respond to future developments or clarify borderline scenarios without coming back to the House with further primary legislation. The amendment could also limit future Ministers’ ability to clarify how the system should work in real-world and evolving situations. Good regulation should be responsive and proportionate, not fixed to a point in time.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Covid: Fifth Anniversary

James Naish Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

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

[Edward Argar]

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

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

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

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

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