Jhoots Pharmacy

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Stephen Kinnock

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said. It is completely and utterly unacceptable if a business such as Jhoots is not paying its staff. If there are indeed these reports that controlled drugs are not being handled properly, I would strongly recommend that any mishandling of drugs be reported to the General Pharmaceutical Council, which regulates pharmacy professionals and premises, so that appropriate action can be taken.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the payment of staff. Pharmacy staff are vital parts of the NHS part of what a pharmacy does. Pharmacy staff provide vital services to our communities and should be paid according to their contracts; any failure to do so is completely unacceptable. Of course, pharmacy staff are employed not by the NHS, but by the businesses they work for, so any dispute between staff and a pharmacy business should be raised with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, ACAS. I am also in touch with the Pharmacists’ Defence Association—the PDA—which is doing important work representing its members. I will be meeting them soon as well. Of course, we have responsibility for the NHS part of the work, but it is up to individual businesses to ensure that their employees are treated fairly.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the review of suitability to operate, and we are now looking at that across the board. We are looking at the role of the General Pharmaceutical Council and what is taking place with ICBs taking contract action. Where there is no sign of improvement and pharmacies continue to be in breach, the next escalation is to strike them off the pharmaceutical register, which takes some time, because certain pharmacies—I am not going to name names, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman can imagine who—are trying every single thing they can to appeal, push back and stop the actions that we are seeking to take, which is elongating the process. However, I want to be clear: if there is clear breach and action is not taken to remedy that breach, pharmacies will be struck off the pharmaceutical register.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call our very own pharmacist, Sadik Al-Hassan.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Questions should not be statements.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s direct professional expertise and experience as a pharmacist. He is right to point to the fact that the regulatory framework is not as strong as it needs to be. I have spoken with officials in my Department who have worked in the pharmacy sector for many years, and they have never seen behaviour like this before. It is quite unprecedented. Nevertheless, it is shining a light on the fact that we do not have a strong enough regulatory framework. We need to look at the way that business owners are regulated. There is strong regulation of pharmacists and pharmacy staff such as technicians, but business owners are not regulated as strongly as they could and should be.

My hon. Friend is right that speed is also important, which is why we need to look at ways of fast-tracking particular cases where there is clear breach, because sometimes the appeal process can be very slow indeed. We are looking at all of this in the round, and I have commissioned urgent advice from my officials to see how we can beef up the regulatory framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on the Select Committee. NHS England is assessing the situation and preparing contingency plans in case Jhoots becomes insolvent. Such plans involve working with other local pharmacies and dispensing GP practices to ensure that patients continue to have access to medicines. Continuity of care, as she rightly points out, must be at the heart of our response, and we are working at pace to ensure that is protected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend has put her finger on an issue within all this, which is that if we are looking to bring in other pharmacies to replace Jhoots or, indeed, to take over a Jhoots store, we cannot do that in the latter case until such time as there is an insolvency and that business is no longer a going concern. There is a process, set out in legislation, for opening new pharmacies. Potential new pharmacy contractors can apply to open in an area and evidence how a new pharmacy can provide benefits for patients, but it is a challenge for them to make such a case if a Jhoots pharmacy is still listed as open and providing services. It is something of a Catch-22 situation. We first have to resolve the issue with Jhoots and take the necessary action, and then we can see where we are with potential gaps in the market.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Stephen Kinnock

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am really struggling for time. I am sorry, but I cannot take any more interventions, because it is not fair to Members who have tabled amendments.

Amendments 41 and 42 would prevent children with competence from choosing a step-parent or kinship carer as their nominated person if that is the most appropriate person for them. A nominated person can be overruled or displaced if acting against the child’s best interests. Parents will always maintain their rights under the parental responsibility.

Many amendments concern statutory care and treatment reviews designed to help to ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive the right care and treatment while detained and barriers to discharge are overcome. Reviews will happen within 28 days of detention, and at least once a year during detention. This can be more frequent, depending on needs. Patients’ families and advocates can request a review meeting at any point. In respect of new clause 32, we have consulted on making some restrictive practices, including long-term segregation, notifiable to the Care Quality Commission within 72 hours.

Let me now deal with amendments 14 and 26 and new clauses 31 and 37. I acknowledge the importance of having a clear plan to resource community provision for people with a learning disability and autistic people to implement these reforms. We have committed ourselves to an annual written ministerial statement on implementation of the Bill post Royal Assent. Following conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), we will work with stakeholders, including people with lived experience, to shape our road map for commencing changes to clause 3. The written ministerial statements will give updates on progress, as well as setting out future plans. It is not possible at this stage for us to commit ourselves to the specifics of implementation and community support, which depend on the final legislation passed, future spending reviews, and engagement with stakeholders to get implementation planning right.

As for the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) about the detention criteria in the Bill, it is vital that the work “likelihood” is included in those criteria to set clear expectations of what clinicians need to consider. However, we are clear about the fact that our intention is not to set a threshold for detention. Under the new criteria, a harm does not have to be likely to justify detention. The criteria require likelihood to be considered holistically, alongside the change, nature and degree of the harm.

I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is keen for me to deal with the question of public safety. The key point is that there are detention criteria in clause 5, which makes a clear reference to harm either to the patient or to other persons. That is clearly a consideration of public safety, and we therefore believe that amendment 40 is surplus to requirements.

I trust that, on the basis of the assurances I have given, Members will be content not to press their amendments and new clauses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Zöe Franklin, is it your pleasure that new clause 2 be withdrawn?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Since the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed, and since it was updated in 2007, attitudes towards mental health have shifted dramatically, and our understanding has grown, but the law has been neglected. That is why this Government were proud to announce this Bill in our first King’s Speech, fulfilling our manifesto commitment and taking the first steps towards ensuring patients are consistently treated with dignity and respect—promise made, and promise delivered.

It is clear that adults and young people with mental health issues have been let down for years, which is why we are transforming the current mental health system through our 10-year health plan, including through recruiting more than 8,500 additional mental health workers, delivering more NHS talking therapy appointments than ever before, increasing the number of mental health crisis centres, and providing access to a specialist mental health professional for every school in England.

Today, we are another step closer to delivering the reforms to dealing with people with severe and acute mental health disorders, a step closer to strengthening and clarifying the criteria for detention, and a step closer to better supporting clinicians to make the right decisions around appropriate care and treatment, including community treatment orders. We want to make sure that patient choice and patient needs are at the heart of decision making. That is why we are introducing these reforms to enshrine in law measures such as the clinical checklist, the use of advance choice documents, the role of nominated persons and the expansion of advocacy services.

We are increasing the scrutiny and oversight of compulsory detention. We are making sure that those patients who are detained have a clear path to recovery and to discharge. We are introducing statutory care and treatment plans for all patients, so that their needs are met both during and after their hospital stay. To reduce reliance on in-patient care and ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people get the right support, we are limiting the scope for detention. We are also introducing a package of measures to improve community support, including statutory care, education and treatment reviews and dynamic support registers. We are introducing stronger safeguards for people who lack capacity or competence to consent to treatment—a potentially highly vulnerable group. Those patients will receive a second opinion-appointed doctor at an earlier stage in their treatment.

This Bill has been the product of years of work predating this Government, and it is right that we thank hon. Members and peers for their scrutiny and support over many years. We should particularly note the work of the former Prime Minister Baroness May for launching the independent review that paved the way for this legislation, along with the review chair, Sir Simon Wessely, and his vice-chairs, Steven Gilbert, Sir Mark Hedley and Baroness Neuberger.

I thank Members who served on our Public Bill Committee, including the Chairs, and the clerks and all the parliamentary staff who have worked hard to ensure that the Bill was subject to the proper scrutiny while ensuring smooth and quick passage. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and particularly Lord Alton for its report and recommendations. I am grateful to the devolved Governments for their support during the Bill’s passage and to the Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly for granting legislative consent. I thank the Bill team, my private office and all the officials and stakeholders over numerous years who have worked hard to get this legislation to where it is today.

Above all, thanks go to those with lived experience who have bravely shared their personal experiences with us through the independent review, through our consultation with stakeholder groups and through Members across both Houses. The Bill is the product of sustained effort over a number of years. That work will continue following the Bill’s Royal Assent, but none the less it is an important moment to acknowledge and pay tribute to those who have got the Bill to where it is now.

The work continues as we look to implement the legislation. The first priority once the Bill gets Royal Assent will be to draft and consult on the code of practice. We will engage closely with people with lived experience and their families and carers and with commissioners, providers, clinicians and others to do that. Much has been done, but there is much more to do. This Government are delivering on our commitment to modernise the Mental Health Act, and the work begins now to deliver that change on the ground. The Bill will of course now go to the other place, and I thank peers for their previous extensive consideration. I hope the noble Lords will be able to agree to the changes made in this House, so that the Bill can make swift progress to Royal Assent. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Rare Cancers Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Stephen Kinnock

Report stage
Friday 11th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for bringing this Bill before the House, and I congratulate him on getting it to Report. Amendment 1 allows amendment 2 to be inserted into the Bill. Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State, having carried out the review described in clause 1, to set out a timetable for implementing changes to the law recommended by the review. However, it would not be appropriate to presume the outcome of the review of orphan drug regulations that is outlined in clause 1. Amendment 2 presupposes that the review will recommend changing the law, and that there are changes the Secretary of State would be willing to support, following a legal consultation. That is not considered appropriate at this stage.

Amendment 3 is unnecessarily restrictive, introducing wording that confines the review unnecessarily. We want to ensure that a thorough review is conducted, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care will be working with her officials to ensure that that happens. For amendment 4, the three-year timeframe to prepare and publish the review and the necessary resourcing requirements have been discussed with officials in my Department and at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. I remind Members that the text in the Bill reflects the statutory deadline, but we will endeavour to publish a report ahead of the three-year timeframe, which has been put forward to be consistent with the MHRA’s overall workplan.

On amendment 5, there are different definitions of a rare cancer, and we worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West to agree the definition in the Bill as a cancer that affects not more than one in 2,000 people in the UK. However, a level of discretion for the Secretary of State is required over what falls within that definition, since the facts underlying and the data on diagnoses are constantly changing. The amendment would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms.

Amendment 6 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion as to how their duty would be discharged. This is not considered appropriate, since it makes the operation of clause 2 less workable in practice, and would lack the Government’s assessment of what in all the circumstances would be the most appropriate manner of implementation. Amendment 7 would introduce a specific timeframe—just six months—to allow the appointment of the specialty lead. Although I agree that we will need to appoint the specialty lead promptly, introducing a statutory timeframe is not considered workable for practical reasons. There could be unforeseen delays; for example, recruitment processes might delay the appointment beyond six months.

On amendment 8, as mentioned previously there are different definitions for a rare cancer. That is because the data on cancer diagnoses is constantly changing, and decisions on whether the criteria for a rare cancer are met will inevitably involve an element of judgment. The amendment would make it difficult to implement the clause in practical and operational terms.

I turn finally to amendment 9. It is essential that information relating to people’s health and care is shared appropriately, lawfully, and in line with their reasonable expectations. Amendment 9 would remove the provision confirming that any sharing of information pursuant to the powers created by the Bill, and under NHS England’s existing powers, must be in accordance with data protection legislation. That includes compliance with key principles such as lawfulness and fairness. That layer of assurance is essential for the protection of patients, and clause 3 is a standard provision that makes that explicit.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to withdraw all nine of his amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Sir Christopher, is it your pleasure that amendment 1 be withdrawn?

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Stephen Kinnock

Money resolution
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.

The Government are of the view that the Bill is a matter for Parliament rather than the Government to decide. In order for the Public Bill Committee that is now scrutinising the Bill to consider the clause that would have spending implications, the Government must first table this money resolution. This is purely to allow the Bill to be debated in Committee, and the Government have taken the view that tabling this motion does not act against our commitment to remain neutral. Only the Government can table such motions, so tabling it allows further debate to happen. To assist that debate, the Government will also assess the impacts of the Bill, and we expect to publish the impact assessment before MPs consider the Bill on Report.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister, Dr Kieran Mullan.

NHS Dentistry: Rural Areas

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Stephen Kinnock

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions should be short, and the Minister must respond to the Member whose debate it is.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We are working at pace, and I will say more about that shortly. I share my hon. Friend’s reflections on the complete absence of the Conservatives. They made a complete mess of our public services, called an election and ran for the hills.

On 4 July, we inherited a broken NHS dentistry system. It is a national scandal that tooth decay is the leading cause of hospital admission for five to nine-year-olds in our country. It is truly shameful and nothing short of Dickensian. In the area served by the NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire integrated care board, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Chippenham, 33% of adults were seen by an NHS dentist in the 24 months up to March 2024. That compares to a 40% average across England. In 2023-24, there were 44 dentists per 100,000 of the population there, whereas the national average was 50.

When we look at the problem in the round, it is not so much that we do not have enough dentists, but that not enough of them are doing NHS work, and they are not in the parts of the country that need them most. That challenge is compounded by the fact that some areas of the country are experiencing recruitment and retention issues, including many rural areas, where the challenges in accessing NHS dentistry are exacerbated. That of course includes Chippenham, where Hathaway dental practice has recently had a request granted to reduce its NHS activity, as the hon. Lady pointed out. I understand, thanks to a freedom of information request by the British Dental Association, that the practice had a £4.2 million underspend on its NHS contract. That is precisely the problem that hon. Members have pointed out. There is a quantum of funding, but the way in which it is structured makes private sector dentistry far more attractive than NHS dentistry. That is the root cause of the problem; we are alive to that issue.

Overall, it is clear that we have a mountain to climb. It is a daunting challenge, but we are not daunted, and we are working at pace. The golden hello scheme, for example, will see up to 240 dentists receive payment of £20,000 to work for three years in one of the areas that needs them the most. Integrated care boards have already begun to advertise posts, as we have accelerated that process. In the ICB area of the hon. Member for Chippenham, there have been seven expressions of interest, five of which have been approved. Providers can now include incentive payments when they advertise vacant positions.

Alongside that, we will deliver a rescue plan that gets NHS dentistry back on its feet. That will start with providing 700,000 additional urgent appointments as rapidly as possible, as set out in our manifesto. Strengthening the workforce is key to our ambitions, but for years the NHS has faced chronic workforce shortages, so we have to be honest about the fact that bringing in the staff we need will take time.