Dementia Support: Hampshire

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered dementia support in Hampshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. We all know someone who has been impacted by dementia. My much-loved mum died in 2024 after a seven-year struggle with Alzheimer’s, so I know first hand what it is like to have to fight for the care and support that dementia sufferers need.

One in three people born today will develop dementia in their lifetime. Across Hampshire, more than 22,000 people are currently living with dementia. If national trends continue, that number is expected to rise to more than 31,000 by 2040. Dementia already places high pressure on families, the NHS and social care, and without decisive action that will only intensify. It is vital that we get the system right.

According to Dementia UK, 1,323 are living with dementia in Eastleigh, which is approximately 1.41% of the local population—higher than the national average.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a massive issue for each and every one of us. The hon. Lady has referred to figures in her constituency, but given Northern Ireland’s ageing population, the figures there are expected to almost double, rising from 22,000 to 43,000 by 2040. That poses major challenges for health and social care. Does she agree that to be forewarned is to be forearmed, and that the Government must make preparations to deal with the growing numbers by implementing changes to the system right now?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

The average wait time for a dementia diagnosis in Eastleigh is 91.7 days, and post-diagnostic support is inconsistent and often inadequate. We must get to a position where dementia care is built around a clear, joined-up pathway that families can rely on from the very start and where a person can receive early diagnosis followed immediately by assessments, access to specialist advice, dementia-trained professionals and consistent points of contact, such as Admiral nurses. Drug treatments, where appropriate, home-based support, respite care and, where needed, smooth transitions into care homes, would all be part of one coherent system, not a maze of disconnected services. We need more support to stay at home and more support in the community, and family carers should be informed about available support and given greater access to regular respite. Diagnosis must be the gateway to timely, specialist and sustained support; too often it is not.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech about an incredibly important subject. It affects my constituency, too, where we have 1,500 people living with dementia. On top of that, as she was referring to, around a third of the people currently living with dementia do not have a diagnosis and, staggeringly, the NHS does not have a target to tackle that. Will she join me in urging the Minister to meet with Alzheimer’s Research UK to discuss its call for a national 18-week target from when people are referred by their GP for assessment to when they receive diagnosis and a treatment plan?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

I heard from a constituent whose wife has Lewy body dementia and has lived in the same care home for several years. She is settled there and knows the staff. They know her needs, her routines and her personality. It is, by any reasonable definition, her home. Yet my constituent has been told that when money for his wife’s self-funded care runs out, she will not be supported to remain there because the home is not on Hampshire county council’s approved list. She will be forced to move away from familiar faces into an unfamiliar environment at precisely the stage when stability and familiarity matter most.

Families impacted by dementia frequently find themselves navigating a fragmented system, unclear funding decisions, delayed assessments and a complete lack of continuity of care. One of my constituents told me that his mum, who is in her 90s, has been informed that her savings have now fallen below the financial threshold. He requested a review from the county council months ago. Despite repeated chasing, he has been told that it may be many months before their situation is reviewed. In the meantime he has been placed in the impossible position of having to somehow find the funds to continue to pay care home fees that he cannot afford or risking financial instability for the care provider. That is not how a compassionate system should function. Continuing healthcare funding must be urgently reviewed. Too many families face flawed assessments that fail to recognise the complex needs of people with dementia, leaving them to shoulder enormous financial burdens at the most vulnerable moments of their lives.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s mother, and the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituents. Many people in my constituency of North East Hampshire face similar challenges. I have personal experience with a relative who could not get a diagnosis in Hampshire despite many of us, as her family members, trying very hard to help her to do so. She ended up having to fund all her care herself, and did not get treatments that she might have needed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must prioritise this care so that people with dementia can have continuity and the support that they need?

[Liz Jarvis]

Of course, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is too much confusion and delay around accessing assessments for dementia patients and their carers, and too much focus placed on ticking boxes rather than determining the most cost-effective options available to families.

Hospital discharge is another major pressure point, as up to one in four beds are currently filled by someone with dementia. I have been contacted by families whose loved ones have spent weeks in hospital only to face discharge into home environments with minimal support. My constituent Nicola told me that the consultant and occupational therapist caring for her father said that he should not be discharged because of his high risk of falls, but that their hands were tied by the county council. She said that the family were told to supervise, rather than to provide care, and to wait for carers to arrive. That meant her father would be left at risk of falls and accidents, or left sitting in soiled clothing, because no one was allowed to intervene. Family carers should not have to go through such endless battles, facing constant uncertainty about support and being stretched to the limit just to get their loved ones the care they deserve.

The ambition in the Government’s 10-year health plan is to move care from hospitals into the community, with greater access to neighbourhood health centres. That ambition is welcome but it will succeed only if dementia specialist support is embedded at its core. Neighbourhood health services must include dementia-inclusive multidisciplinary teams with access to specialist dementia nurses. Changes to the Hampshire carer support and dementia advice service have compounded those challenges. For 12 years, that service was delivered by Andover Mind, which provided advice, guidance and vital emotional support. It was changed with very little notice, as part of Hampshire county council’s ongoing savings programme, which is addressing a projected shortfall of £143 million for the coming year. Chronic underfunding of local government has meant that such non-statutory services are often cut back, despite being lifelines for so many people across the county.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I can empathise with my hon. Friend’s experiences of caring for her mother. My father also died of dementia; we cared for him at home for many years. On a more positive note, I recently visited the St John’s dementia group in Winchester. It is a fantastic group with loads of activities—I joined them in singing “Sweet Caroline”, badly—and it provides vital support for those with dementia and for their carers by giving them some respite. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do all we can, at the local and national levels, to support such community groups, which provide light relief for people in very stressful, chronic situations?

[Liz Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When my mum was first diagnosed with dementia, one of the most important things for her was going to Singing for the Brain sessions, where people are encouraged to remember old songs. That was brilliant for her, but obviously it is not enough. When the condition starts to progress, it becomes harder and harder, yet the care that is needed is often not available, as I am setting out.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

In a similar vein to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), it is important that families know where to access these voluntary sector services. The East Hampshire dementia services directory is a great initiative, as are voluntary groups such as Dementia Friendly Petersfield and Dementia-friendly Alton. The Alton group now has its own dedicated building and a full programme of activities; I have invited the Secretary of State to visit, as it is an interesting initiative to see. Will the hon. Lady join me in commending all the wonderful voluntary sector groups?

[Liz Jarvis]

Absolutely. Community-based activities that keep people active, stimulated and social must be protected and expanded. Those services delay deterioration, reduce hospital admissions and improve quality of life for people living with dementia, and for their fantastic family carers.

At present, there is no Admiral nurse service in Eastleigh, leaving my constituents reliant on acute services, such as Wessex neurological centre or Winchester hospital. Admiral nurses provide specialised, dementia-specific care, offering expert guidance and continuity to families navigating a terrible disease in an increasingly complex system. Without that local, in-person support embedded in community care, families are more likely to face prolonged uncertainty at the very moment when specialist help would make the greatest difference. I urge the Government to adopt a new national dementia care pathway, backed by clear minimum service standards, that includes guaranteed support across the entire journey—from pre-diagnosis through to end-of-life care—standardised wait times and a meaningful post-diagnostic support plan for every person with dementia.

Improving dementia outcomes must also include wider access to new treatments. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has ruled that the drugs lecanemab and donanemab will not be provided on the NHS due to their cost. As a result, people with early stage Alzheimer’s disease in England and Wales will not have NHS access to medicines that have been shown to slow the progression of the disease. Will the Minister support an update to the NICE guidelines to reflect the growing pipeline of disease-modifying treatments, so that people who cannot afford to pay privately do not have to face long waits for innovative treatments?

I also highlight the need for greater consideration of the specific needs of people living with early onset dementia. According to Dementia UK, an estimated 70,800 people in the UK have early onset dementia, where symptoms develop before the age of 65, but diagnosis can take significantly longer for younger people and many are left with very limited post-diagnostic support. At their most vulnerable, they are forced to navigate health and social care systems that are designed for older people and take no account of mid-life responsibilities, such as dependent children, while facing the financial and psychological consequences of leaving employment early, as well as facing a terminal illness. That is why every integrated care system must be required to develop a clear, co-ordinated early onset dementia pathway.

We must also address the needs of people living with rarer forms of dementia, those for whom English is a second language, and those, such as veterans, whose dementia is shaped by trauma. I have previously raised the fantastic work carried out by Veterans Dementia Support UK in my constituency, which provides vital help to former service personnel and their families, and recognises the complex relationship between dementia, post-traumatic stress disorder and past trauma. That specialist understanding must be reflected across the system.

Care home quality and workforce training are also critical. An estimated 70% of care home residents aged over 65 are living with dementia, yet only around a third of staff receive any dementia training. A statutory duty for dementia training across all Care Quality Commission-registered care providers is long overdue.

Dementia care is not just about systems, funding and targets, but about people, and what we would want for our own parents, partners and friends. I have seen the difference that inclusive, enriching care makes, whether through meaningful activities, music, poetry, or simply someone taking the time to understand the person behind the diagnosis. On constituency visits to Sunnybank House care home in Fair Oak, Brendoncare Knightwood care home and the HC-One Chandlers Ford care home, I have witnessed the professionalism and commitment of staff first hand. It is always a privilege to join Dementia Support Hampshire and Isle of Wight for its Christmas carols at St Andrews church in Eastleigh. It is a reminder that joy, connection and matter right to the end.

With our rapidly ageing population, it is crucial that more support is given to families coping with dementia, so that they do not have to jump through endless hoops to get support, and that those living with dementia are treated with the specialist care, compassion and dignity that they deserve.

I have previously spoken in this House about the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s on my family and how, when a loved one is diagnosed with that terrible disease, you lose them twice. My constituent Nicola, whose father has dementia, has asked me to urge Members to

“think about how they would feel if it were happening to their loved one and how they would feel if their loved one had no-one to advocate for them to get the right help and support.”

I urge the Minister to listen to the experiences of families in Hampshire, to act on these recommendations, to work closely with Alzheimer’s Society, Dementia UK and Alzheimer’s Research UK, and to ensure that dementia care in this country is finally given the priority it demands.

NHS 10-Year Plan

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her consistent campaigning on this issue, which has done so much to keep it on the national agenda. We will support more eye care services being delivered in the community, helping to create capacity within secondary eye care services too. Patients can be assured that optometrists have the training to manage a wide range of eye conditions safely in the community. We will also support improved IT connectivity between primary and secondary care, which has been shown to improve the referral and triage of patients, and enable the better use of technology to support local services.

Of course, there are still challenges: ophthalmology is one of the largest out-patient specialties, representing 8% of the total NHS waiting list, and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists workforce census found that 76% of units do not have enough consultants to meet demand. We will address those issues; we are working across both the public and the independent sectors to ensure that people receive the care they need, when they need it. A lot has been done but, as my hon. Friend says, there is so much more to do.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I welcome this plan. As the Secretary of State is aware, my constituents Charlotte and James Bassett have been fighting for answers since the death of their baby daughter Norah in 2019. What assurances can he give my constituents that any recommendations by the national maternity and neonatal taskforce will be implemented quickly?

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the hon. Member for the outstanding way she has represented her constituents since she arrived in this House—not only on this issue, but on many others. I reassure her that we will work with families in a spirit of co-production to ensure that we identify what has gone wrong, so that families receive truth and accountability for failures and the reassurance of knowing that improvements will be made so that other families do not have to suffer in the way that they have. Things have gone so badly wrong, but I am confident that, with the approach we are setting out, we will be able to make rapid improvements, and I will keep the House regularly informed.

Dementia Care

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. Dementia care is in crisis. One in six hospital beds is currently occupied by someone with dementia, and by 2040 it is estimated that the figure will be one in four hospital beds. We need the Government to take bold, radical action to introduce a system that provides the best possible support for people with dementia and their families—support that is easily accessible every step of the way.

I have heard from many carers in my constituency who are stretched to their limit, and adding to that pressure is the constant uncertainty over support. People with dementia often fall through the gaps in the health and social care service, as many assessments are not designed for people with dementia. That is why I support Dementia UK’s call for the Government urgently to review the NHS continuing healthcare process. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering a specific focus on how cognitive and behavioural needs are assessed, and say whether dementia specialists will be involved in the continuing healthcare assessment process?

Support for carers is also incredibly important. In May 2024, Hampshire county council changed a local support service, after 12 years and with very little notice. One of my constituents described how the previous provider, the charity Andover Mind, had been a lifeline for him and his wife who was diagnosed with early-onset dementia. The charity offered care advice, legal guidance and hosted social events that helped to build supportive networks at an incredibly difficult time. My constituents feel that the new service is focused on short-term emergency response rather than comprehensive support.

At present, the care system relies heavily on unpaid carers, who are usually family members, and people with dementia often rely on a combination of unpaid and formal social care. Two thirds of unpaid carers are women, and a third provide more than 100 hours of care a week. This is a full-time job with no pay, little rest, and far too little recognition. As my constituent Julia said,

“post diagnosis, there was just very little help”.

While caring for her husband, she found that she had to do her own research and reading to get him the care he needed. She is concerned, however, that her husband is better off than many others who do not have family advocating on their behalf. Clearly, there is a growing need for a minimum standard of good quality, post-diagnosis support for people with dementia and their carers.

I urge the Government to commit to providing guidance and ringfenced funding to ensure that there is a specialist dementia nurse service in every NHS acute trust. I support the demand for a bold, new diagnosis target, urgent action to reduce waiting lists, and improved dementia diagnosis data collection and publication to drive greater accountability. There is also a discussion to be had about dementia-specific training for care workers. Last year in England, only 45% of care workers received dementia-specific training, which highlights the scale of the problem. Will the Government implement the Alzheimer’s Society’s recommendation that dementia training should be mandatory across the adult social care workforce?

I have spoken in this Chamber on previous occasions about the impact of dementia and Alzheimer’s on my own family, and how after a loved one is diagnosed with this terrible disease, we lose them twice. With our rapidly ageing population, it is critical that more support is given to families coping with dementia, so they do not have to jump through hoops to get support, and so that those living with dementia and Alzheimer’s are treated with the specialist care and dignity they deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I will absolutely undertake to share the approach we are taking with my counterparts across the United Kingdom. The approach I have always taken is one that understands the importance of biological sex, that recognises, understands and supports that someone’s gender identity may not always match their biological sex, and that seeks to navigate a way through what has been an extremely toxic and sometimes harmful debate in a way that protects the sex-based rights of women and protects trans people and their identity. I know that my colleagues across Government are taking an equally sensitive approach, and I think it would be in everyone’s interests if we saw a similar approach across the whole of the United Kingdom. It is important not just in the provision of services, but in accurate data and research, that we make that distinction, which does not in any way undermine respect for people’s gender identity.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

The inquest into the tragic death of a young woman who lived in Eastleigh has highlighted the importance of continuity of specialist care for vulnerable people who move home. My constituent, Alex, is still waiting for an appointment for ongoing specialist care three years after moving to Eastleigh. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the provision of mental healthcare in my constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

This question is about sex and gender. Do not worry; I am sure that the Secretary of State has the message.

I now call the shadow Minister.

Maternity Services

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate, which is particularly important to my constituents Charlotte and James.

In April 2019, Charlotte gave birth to a daughter, Norah. Norah was given the all-clear by a doctor but quickly became poorly. Despite concerning oxygen saturation results, Norah was not rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit. She died very suddenly that same night. Charlotte and James are still fighting for the truth about why their daughter died.

The UK should be the safest place in the world to have a baby. However, according to the Care Quality Commission’s most recent figures, nearly two thirds of England’s maternity services are not safe enough. We must see an end to understaffed maternity units, and I am sure the Minister will agree that addressing disparities in obstetric care is essential for a fair society.

Women and their babies deserve better. All pregnant women in my Eastleigh constituency and across the UK should have access to safe and fully resourced maternity care. However, according to NHS data and the Royal College of Midwives, the number of people in the maternity workforce is shrinking. Midwives and maternity support workers are working in excess of 100,000 hours a week in unpaid overtime. The result is that many staff experience stress and burnout, with some midwives saying that they feel uncared for at work, unable to take breaks to get a drink of water or use the loo, and—with the best will in the world—unable to deliver the kind of maternity care that women expect and deserve. How can the NHS be expected to deliver a higher quality of care with fewer, already very overworked staff? Health outcomes for mothers and babies will only decline if commitments in the workforce plan are not ambitious and funded.

I also highlight the often overlooked factor of mental health in maternity care. According to the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, one in five women experiences a perinatal mental health problem, and 70% will conceal or underplay maternal mental health difficulties. Tragically, suicide is the leading cause of maternal death in the first year after birth.

As we have heard, on average a baby is born in England every 56 seconds. The Royal College of Midwives states that no other NHS service has as much contact over a prolonged period with so many normally healthy individuals. With a properly staffed and resourced maternity service, there is great potential to use this period to ensure that, after leaving hospital, mothers are mentally in the best possible position to care for their newborns. I fully support the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto commitment to transforming perinatal mental health and offering more support for those who are pregnant, new mothers and those who sadly experience miscarriage or stillbirth.

It is welcome that maternity services are important to the Government, but I share the view of the Royal College of Midwives that this priority must be reflected in how maternity services feature in the 10-year health plan, with a decade of ambition and focus, as well as a commitment to proper funding.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Johnson]

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Fixed penalties: use of proceeds

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert—

“be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.

This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives, determined by Local Health and Wellbeing Boards.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, in clause 38, page 20, line 20, leave out from “before” to the second “the” and insert—

“such sums are allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”.

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.

Clause stand part.

[Liz Jarvis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to speak to these amendments.

The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research. However, under the previous Government the UK only became sicker, and now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the new Government take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives. The previous Government squandered numerous opportunities to make the UK a healthier place to live and failed to take easy steps to improve the nation’s health. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the new Government’s early steps to tackle ill health. We believe that supporting people to lead healthier lives should be a priority for the Government.

[Gregory Stafford]

As all Liberal Democrats do whenever they stand up, the hon. Lady has just castigated the previous Government for everything they did. Did she not welcome the fact that the previous Conservative Administration brought in a Bill very similar to this one to improve the nation’s health? Is there nothing she can find to praise the previous Government for?

[The Chair]

Order. I ask that we stick to the amendment.

[Liz Jarvis]

That brings me to amendments 2 and 3 to clause 38. As the Bill stands, fines collected for breaches of licensing regulations are directed to the relevant Consolidated Fund after deducting administrative costs. We believe that this misses an opportunity to create tangible benefits by empowering local health and wellbeing boards to increase the health and wellbeing of their local populations. Amendments 2 and 3 propose a constructive change: those fines should be redirected to support public health initiatives, to be determined by local health and wellbeing boards.

Local health and wellbeing boards bring together leaders from across the care and health system to improve the health and wellbeing of their local populations. They are well placed to identify and prioritise local public health challenges. Keeping money from the fines in the community would empower local health and wellbeing boards to determine public health initiatives tailored to their communities’ needs. Our amendments are centred on the need for community-led solutions to public health concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis]

I do not know the answer to that, so I will refer that question to the Minister.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

They are your amendments.

[Liz Jarvis]

I am sorry; I do not know about that.

Our amendments would also promote transparency and accountability by giving those with skin in the game a direct role in deciding how fines are used to address public health priorities in their area. They would strengthen the Bill’s public health focus while retaining the integrity of its enforcement mechanisms.

[Mr Barros-Curtis]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Liz Jarvis]

I have one sentence left.

The amendments would ensure that the penalties imposed for regulatory breaches contribute directly to mitigating the broader harms caused by tobacco and vaping.

[Dr Johnson]

My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case.

I understand the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health. There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent. In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

I will first discuss the clause and then move on to the amendments. Clause 38 sets out how proceeds from the new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales must be used. I will also discuss the amendments that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

The clause states that funds received from fixed penalty notices issues in relation to the licensing offences in the Bill must be returned to the relevant Consolidated Fund once the costs of investigating the offences and issuing the notice have been deducted. That will ensure that these fixed penalty notices remain cost-neutral and will not cause local authorities to incur additional cost burdens for enforcing a future licensing scheme. For all other offences, which carry a fixed penalty notice of £200, proceeds will be retained by local authorities and must be used in connection with their functions under this Bill, part 1 of the Health Act 2006, part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Tobacco and Related Product Regulations 2016. That means that if local authority trading standards issue a fixed penalty notice—for example, to a retailer selling to someone under age—the local authority may retain the funds from the fixed penalty notice, and those funds must be used by the local authority to support the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. That will allow local authorities to cover the enforcement costs for issuing fixed penalty notices and to reinvest any remaining funds into their enforcement regimes.

The amendments to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh seek to ringfence the proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notice for licensing offences for public health projects. They would achieve that by making it mandatory for any proceeds received by local authority trading standards from these fixed penalty notices to be allocated by local health and wellbeing boards to public health projects. Although I admire the hon. Lady’s ambition to further support public health—and who would not?—it would not be appropriate to enable local authorities to retain the fixed penalty notice proceeds in that way.

Councils already have a ringfenced budget for public health in England. The proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notices for licensing offences were never intended as a revenue-generation mechanism. The fixed penalty notice is introduced to support the enforcement of the future licensing scheme and tobacco and vape sales regulations. It should continue to be the choice of trading standards officers to determine the appropriate enforcement action to take in a given case to achieve compliance. Enabling retention of fixed penalty notice proceeds for a different purpose risks distorting the operational priorities of the licensing scheme.

The £200 fixed penalty notice introduced by the Bill for offences such as under age sales are an exception. We worked carefully with His Majesty’s Treasury during the development of the Bill to enable trading standards to retain that relatively small value in order to support their procedures. To ensure that the future licensing scheme can be sustainably implemented, we have established that local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee to support them in covering the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing scheme, and that trading standards can deduct the costs of investigation and issuing fines from the FPN proceeds before returning the remainder to the Consolidated Fund.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West also mentioned the fact that the provision is not compliant with the reality of seeking to apply to both England and Wales, in that it makes specific reference to bodies that do not exist in Wales, namely the health and wellbeing boards, which only appertain to local authorities in England. I want to be clear that local authorities are receiving not just their public health grant but, in the financial year 2025-26, an additional £70 million from central Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to support local authority-led stop smoking services in England. We expect that investment will support our aim to help around 360,000 people to make quit attempts, and up to 198,000 successful quits a year.

Decisions for future years are subject to the spending review process, but that money, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, in part comes from the Consolidated Fund. So there is a virtuous circle of the kind that the hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly wants to see, in that there are direct correlations between money that my Department gets from His Majesty’s Treasury and money that the Treasury will get from not just those fixed penalty notices in the future, but other sources of income generation, including fines and penalties.

That money, in one form or another, almost certainly will be recycled into public health measures determined by Ministers and by Parliament and given to local authorities to determine how to spend at their local level. That could be through the public health grants, or through direct grants such as the smoking cessation or the drugs and alcohol grants that we make available to local authorities. But rest assured, there will be investment in public health, and that will come from money that my Department receives from His Majesty’s Treasury through the usual routes. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw her amendment.

[Liz Jarvis]

I will not be withdrawing the amendment.

Amendment 2 negatived.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Power to change amount of fixed penalties

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. Can we be clear? If Members want to speak in the debate they should bob, just like in the Chamber. If you wish to intervene, Ms Jarvis—I assume you do, but I do not know—you could bring your request for the intervention to the person who is speaking.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Mr Dowd, I was just going to ask the shadow Minister to speak up because I cannot hear her at all.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have one more question, which I am afraid is probably the last one to this set of witnesses, from Liz Jarvis.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Q I would like to understand more about how you think the gradual change in age of sale will affect tobacco and vaping behaviour, compared with increasing the age of sale in one go. If a child has an older sibling or someone who may be bringing the products into the home, or has older friends, I do not see how this will change the behaviour or the desire to try the products.

Professor Sir Chris Whitty: It is important to be realistic about the fact that—as I suspect you will all remember from your schooldays, and if you have children, you will know from them—people do not stick exactly to the current law as it is. The idea that, magically, there will be a cut-off and people will exactly follow it strikes me as flying in the face of lived reality. However, as the age of sale moves up over time, I am very confident that it will lead to a significant reduction over time in the number of children buying cigarettes, because it will be illegal for people to sell them to them. It will not be illegal for them to possess cigarettes—that is an important distinction—but it will be illegal for people to sell them to them. If you are a 17-year-old you can usually pretend to be an 18-year-old, but pretending, or even wanting to pretend, to be a 30-year-old is a different thing completely. Over time this measure will become more effective.

The impacts will be seen first in things such as children’s asthma and developing lungs. It will probably next be seen in birth effects, because the highest smoking rates are in the youngest mums: the rates are up to 30% in people who have children before they are 20, but much lower in people who have them in their late 20s or early 30s. In that younger cohort, the effect on stillbirths, birth defects, premature births and so on will be the next big impact that the Bill will have, and gradually it will roll over time.

It is not a perfect mechanism—I do not think any piece of law that has been designed is a perfect mechanism—but, as a way of gradually driving smoking down in a way that does not take away anyone’s existing rights, it seems to me a reasonable balance between those principal aims. To go back to my first point, in reality the borderline will probably be a bit fuzzy, because it always is, but over time the effects will be very substantial.

[The Chair]

I have about three minutes left, so I will ask Mary Kelly Foy to ask a very brief question with a very short answer, because we will be finishing spot on 10.25 am.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne]

Q In an earlier answer that you gave to the shadow Minister, you talked about the two priorities of preventing new smoking and tackling youth vaping, alongside supporting the 6 million to quit. The Bill seeks to reduce youth vaping. How do you think we best achieve that while not deterring adult smokers from quitting?

Professor Linda Bauld: If I can start with the second part of your question, in terms of not deterring adult smokers, we need to continue making the products available for smoking cessation. We are not banning vapes—that has happened in a number of other countries, as the CMO for England was saying—but we are recognising the things that make them appealing, attractive and affordable to young people, and taking action on those. It is fine for the adult smoker not to be able to see a wide array of advertised products on the shop front, on the billboard or at the point of sale, but to know they are there behind the counter and ask for them. I also do not think that the adult smoker who is trying to quit cares about gummy bears or Coca-Cola flavours—maybe they want some flavours, but not all of them. It is about striking a balance.

Finally, although we are not here to talk about the funding of smoking cessation services today—certainly in England, you have made previous announcements about that—it is important that in clinical settings and through stop smoking services we can give good information about vaping and other cessation aids, and support people to quit that way.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Q Do you think the Bill goes far enough to protect children and young people from the harmful effects of tobacco and vaping?

Professor Linda Bauld: It is very ambitious on tobacco. We will be the first in the world—after unfortunate events in New Zealand, from my personal perspective—to introduce the smoke-free generation policy, and the world is looking at us. That is good. In terms of protecting people from vaping, the Bill has a proportionate set of measures, but if I come back to the answer that I gave to the shadow Minister, we really need to keep our eye on the regulations and—going back to the Minister’s questions—make sure that we are striking a balance. Given the evidence that we have for much stronger regulations on vaping, I think this strikes the right balance, but we need to make sure that we do that in a proportionate way. Finally, to go back to the comments from the previous set of witnesses, we also need to make sure that local areas have the flexibility around some of the measures to adapt them for their local circumstances.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Professor Bauld, for sharing your extensive expertise with us today. I want to explore the intersection between poverty and health, and where you think the Bill will have an impact. We know that health outcomes are poorer where there are pockets of high deprivation, as in many areas of Scotland, including my constituency of Glasgow South West. What are your thoughts, both quantifiable and general, as to the impact of this legislation on those children and on those particularly deprived communities?

Professor Linda Bauld: Dr Ahmed, you know—as Sir Gregor Smith said earlier—that smoking rates in our most deprived communities in Scotland are about 26%, compared with 6% in the least deprived. That is a very big number, and we see that pattern across the UK.

The Bill will make a difference in several respects. First, on preventing smoking uptake by gradually raising the age of sale, the evidence that we have from studies done by my colleagues at University College London and elsewhere is that previous rises in the age of sale have not exacerbated inequalities but have had a benefit in terms of preventing uptake. We know from the evidence that we have that those measures should be useful and helpful, and should not exacerbate that. The other thing is that, to go back to my earlier answer to the shadow Minister, by preventing smoking uptake in the groups that are likely to be future parents who are already likely to smoke, which are highly concentrated in our most deprived communities, we are going to have an impact there.

I do not see any signs in the Bill, when I look across the measures, that we will be exacerbating inequalities with it. I think that we will probably have the biggest impact in the areas where we have the most smokers which, unfortunately, are our most deprived communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Looking at the number of Members who wish to ask questions and the amount of time that we have left, I ask Members to be short in their questions and the panellist to be short in his answers.

[Liz Jarvis]

Q One thing that I have picked up from my conversations with youth workers and police is that children are being given vapes outside school. For example, if they are not at school for any reason or if they are particularly susceptible or vulnerable to other influences, they might be given them in the playgrounds or wherever. Obviously you have the issue that it can be a gateway to county lines as well. How do you think this Bill will support education, encouraging children to turn away from vaping, and should the Bill be backed by a public health awareness campaign aimed specifically at children and young people?

Matthew Shanks: I would say yes to the second point, but I would aim the campaign at everybody, because we also need to educate parents to get them to understand. On the first point, I think people who want to find ways of rewarding people to get them to join things that are not appropriate will find something, and vapes are something that is being used at the moment. I am not saying that this Bill will stop that happening, because people will always find ways, but it will certainly help the majority of people to see that vaping is not something they should engage with.

[Dr Beccy Cooper]

Q Thank you for coming along this afternoon. I want to hear a little more about the online issue—children purchasing vapes or perhaps being influenced to purchase vapes there. Given your experience as a headteacher and working in schools, how influential do you think the online environment is? Would you like to see the Bill develop more to look at that as it goes forward?

Matthew Shanks: Yes, I think the online area is hugely influential for children. It is where they spend a lot of their time—a huge amount of their time—so it would be really good if this Bill could look at that as well. I do not receive any online marketing adverts for vaping, but I am not 13 years old. I bet if I was, I would, so I think that is an element to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have about 15 minutes left, and five Members wish to ask questions. Could they do that briefly, and could we have brief answers too?

[Liz Jarvis]

Q Lord Bichard mentioned Border Force. Will ensuring that it has enough resources to implement this Bill successfully be a consideration? In response to my question, Matthew Shanks mentioned a public health campaign. Are there any plans to have a public health campaign to back that up?

Andrew Gwynne: The short answer to both those questions is yes. We have committed to an investment across HMRC, trading standards and Border Force of £100 billion over the next five years to enforce these measures—sorry, it is £100 million. The Treasury will be having a fit; I am getting my billions and millions wrong. I wish it was £100 billion.

As far as public health campaigns are concerned, just this week we committed £70 million for smoking cessation. For this new year, I have signed off a concerted public health campaign for smoking cessation on social and broadcast media. As this Bill progresses and becomes law, there will be a huge public health publicity campaign so that everybody is aware of our Smokefree 2030 target ambitions.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q I have a couple of points, Minister. The first is to do with poverty and how the Bill will affect those who are disproportionately impacted not only by smoking but by second-hand smoke. We heard from our CMOs and Professor Bauld about the impact that smoking-related diseases have on those populations. It is not often in our lives that we get an opportunity to use an instrument that has the potential to change the trajectory of the lives of people who are at the lower end of the economic spectrum in society. What do you think will be the impact of the Bill on them?

Secondly, could you make a wider comment on the historical context of the Bill? In 2006, it was a Scottish Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament who set in train some of the processes that we are trying to finish today. Over those 14 to 15 years, we have seen many positive short-term and long-term public health outcomes. What do you think will be history’s judgment on this portion of that journey?

Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate and for the opportunity to speak about the devastating impact of pelvic mesh impacts and the systemic failures surrounding their use.

Among those affected is my constituent Rachel. In 2014, she was assured that a pelvic mesh implant was the best solution to her incontinence, but instead it led to years of unrelenting pain, infections and a diminished quality of life. Repeatedly dismissed by medical professionals, she was left self-catheterising and enduring ever-worsening symptoms. She eventually had to borrow £12,000 for private surgery to remove the mesh, only to find that her pain and nerve damage persisted. Today, she is in debt, relies on strong pain medication, and struggles daily with the physical and emotional toll of her ordeal.

Equally distressing is the experience of Suzi, the daughter of two of my constituents. After her initial surgery to relieve mild stress incontinence, she experienced severe complications, including debilitating pain and a hole in her urethra caused by the mesh. Over the years, she underwent multiple surgeries to remove it. Each time she was told that the problem had been resolved, but each time fragments of the mesh remained, prolonging her suffering and leading to permanent damage. Her pain was dismissed as psychological. Today, Suzi lives with chronic pain, relies on a wheelchair and battles PTSD. Her life, once full of independence, activity and joy, has been irreversibly changed.

Thousands of women have suffered avoidable harm as a result of pelvic mesh implants. The Cumberlege review described the health system that allowed this to happen as

“disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive”,

and recommended a comprehensive response, including the establishment of dedicated redress schemes. The recommendations have not been fully implemented, and there is still no redress scheme. Victims have been failed.

The Government must act now to implement the Cumberlege review in full. That includes accepting the call for a moratorium on pelvic mesh implants, ensuring appropriate care and psychological support, and urgently addressing the lack of redress for victims. The absence of a formal compensation scheme is a glaring failure. Even though the Patient Safety Commissioner reiterated the need for action earlier this year, no meaningful progress has been made.

We know the scale of harm is vast. At least 10,000 women in England have been affected, although campaigners suggest that the true figure may be closer to 40,000. These women trusted the healthcare system and were let down at every turn. They were misled, gaslit and left to suffer alone. They were promised a risk-free procedure, only to endure life-altering complications. When they sought help, they were ignored or dismissed and told that their symptoms were imagined. Women’s health must be taken seriously.

There has been a financial settlement for some women, but it came with no admission of liability. That is not justice. The Government must provide clarity on their plans and not leave my constituents, their families and women across the country in limbo any longer.