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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this incredibly important debate. I begin by paying tribute to all those who had their life destroyed by the infected blood scandal, and everyone who has campaigned for justice. They include my constituent Gary Webster. For those who are not familiar with his story, Gary was born with haemophilia, and at the age of nine he was sent to Treloar’s college, a specialist boarding school in Hampshire. His parents hoped that the school’s on-site medical facilities would enable Gary to lead as normal and happy a childhood as possible. All the boys at the school and their parents trusted the doctors who saw them implicitly, but in fact, the boys were being given contaminated factor VIII blood products imported from the US. Gary was in his final year at school when he was told that he had been infected with HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, and that there was no guarantee that he would be alive in six to 12 months. Of the 122 haemophiliac boys who attended Treloar’s between 1973 and 1986, 80 have since died.

The infected blood inquiry report by Sir Brian Langstaff found that

“deaths, illness and suffering were caused needlessly to people with bleeding disorders by…Treating children at Treloar’s with multiple, riskier, commercial concentrates, prophylactically and as objects for research”

and

“Treating children unnecessarily with concentrates (especially commercial ones) rather than choosing safer treatments.”

One can only imagine the pain of the survivors and all the families, and it beggars belief that it has taken so long for them to get justice.

The thousands of victims of the infected blood scandal and their families from across the UK have been waiting far too long for justice, accountability and compensation. The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of the infected blood compensation scheme. We are glad that it will bring the victims of this gross miscarriage of justice, including those who were infected and those who have been affected, closer to the justice that they deserve. It is crucial that this compensation scheme is implemented as quickly and effectively as possible. We are also backing calls by the survivors for a duty of candour on all public officials.

The infected blood scandal campaign organisation Factor 8 has highlighted that the guidance on the Infected Blood Compensation Authority website states:

“Should an eligible affected person die during the application process to the Scheme, their compensation award will not be paid. This is in line with the Inquiry’s recommendation.”

However, Factor 8 has examined the inquiry’s second interim report, and in the summary of conclusions, on page 14, at conclusion t), Sir Brian Langstaff says:

“Where an affected person who has not made a claim dies, the sums that they might have received if they had claimed should not become part of their estate.”

The key wording is

“who has not made a claim”.

Will the Government update their policy and ensure that all affected persons who make an eligible claim have their claim honoured? That is important for those affected who are elderly or ill, and are concerned that they may not live to see the end result of the claim process. I hope the Minister will look at that as a matter of urgency.

The infected blood scandal has highlighted the importance of robust blood safety measures and tools. Will the Government look into the merits of pathogen inactivation technology to ensure that no one else unnecessarily suffers from infected blood, and that we have a safe, reliable supply of blood products?

I spoke with Gary Webster on Friday, and as he put it,

“the whole process needs speeding up”.

After so many years of secrecy, deceit and delay, the Government must ensure full transparency about the progress of the scheme, and open, ongoing communication with all those affected. As for the families who have been impacted by this appalling scandal, please give them a national memorial, and reassurance that measures will be put in place to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Michael Payne to make his maiden speech.

Income Tax (Charge)

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Over the past few days, I have been contacted by GPs from St Andrew’s surgery in my constituency, whose busy practice looks after 13,200 patients. They include Dr Katie Popplewell, who told me that the proposed increase to employer national insurance contributions is likely to cost the practice a whopping £27,000—the equivalent of two GP sessions a week—before other staffing costs are factored in. As she puts it:

“At a time when the Government has promised to repair and invest in the NHS, this decision to place a further burden on practices must change, or we will see an adverse impact on patient care on offer in Eastleigh and more practices closing their doors for good.”

Every Liberal Democrat Member recognises the challenges facing the country after years of Conservative mismanagement, but I hope that the Chancellor will consider exempting GPs, small businesses, pharmacies, dentists, care homes and charities from the proposed increase to employer national insurance contributions.

Although I was pleased to see a commitment to more funding for breakfast clubs, there was no mention of the two-child benefit cap in the Chancellor’s statement, and frankly I am at a loss in understanding why. The Conservative Government trapped hundreds of thousands of children in poverty with their cruel and counterproductive two-child limit. As numerous charities and the Liberal Democrats have pointed out, scrapping the two-child benefit cap would be the quickest and most effective way of lifting children out of poverty in my Eastleigh constituency and across the UK, with huge long-term benefits for our society and our economy.

In Eastleigh, we are also facing a local transport crisis. Hampshire county council has withdrawn funding from multiple routes over the past year, which has had a huge impact on my constituents, particularly in Chandler’s Ford and Valley Park. The bus fare hike will impact those in my community who can least afford it, and could result in yet more routes being cut with no alternative public transport provision.

Thousands of women in my constituency who were born in the 1950s have been impacted by the DWP’s failure to communicate changes to their state pension age. It was incredibly disappointing that the WASPI women did not get a single mention in the Chancellor’s speech. It has been eight months since the ombudsman found that the DWP had failed to adequately communicate the changes. I implore the Chancellor to make the resolution of that issue a priority. Do not leave it until the next Budget; those women have already waited long enough.

Access to Primary Healthcare

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am so pleased that we are having this very important debate this afternoon.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), I wish to highlight the issues facing dentistry. Eastleigh is facing an acute NHS dental crisis, with many of my constituents unable to access basic dental care. By the end of 2023, more than 48% of children in Hampshire had not been seen by an NHS dentist in the previous two years. According to the NHS website, only a third of dentists in my constituency are taking on new NHS patients. I have heard from residents who are desperately trying to find an NHS dentist, but, after calling surgery after surgery, they cannot find one taking on new NHS patients.

Some 62% of adults in Hampshire have not been seen by an NHS dentist in the past two years. That leaves them with very limited choices: go without any treatment at all, try to find the money for private treatment, or resort to DIY dentistry. One resident told me that their NHS dental appointment was cancelled at very short notice, with no alternative offered, because their highly skilled dentist from Poland left after Brexit and now there is no NHS dentist available at his local practice.

Another constituent told me how his dental practice is struggling to keep appointments, and now has only one NHS dentist available, and that is on Saturdays only. Patients are being asked to sign forms agreeing to private treatment at NHS prices, without the protections that they would usually receive under NHS care.

The previous Government pushed NHS dentistry to the brink of collapse. I hope the new Government will reverse that trend by increasing investment in dentistry, using unspent funds to increase the number of NHS dental appointments and removing VAT on children’s toothbrushes and toothpaste to make oral health more affordable. As a local NHS dentist told me, the dental contract is not fit for purpose. His colleagues are leaving the NHS in droves.

My constituents in Eastleigh would benefit from an emergency rescue plan for NHS dentistry. Proper investment to tackle this crisis would offer more NHS dental appointments and deliver free check-ups for children. This is the kind of direct action that we need to prevent more children from suffering and to ensure that everyone, regardless of their income, can access high quality dental care.