(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the adequacy of Jhoots as a pharmacy provider.
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important urgent question.
Pharmacies play a vital role in our healthcare system. They are at the heart of our high streets and are the cornerstone of communities up and down the country. That is why this Government have given pharmacies a funding boost of almost £500 million this year, which is more than any other area of the NHS and the biggest uplift in years. Indeed, we have provided a 19% uplift over the two-year period.
The vast majority of pharmacies provide excellent care to their patients, but unfortunately there are some that fall short of the standards we expect. Sadly, the services provided by Jhoots are falling well below the mark. Hon. Members will know that several integrated care boards have been deploying contract management actions against Jhoots, initially in the form of breach notices. Integrated care boards enforce the NHS terms of service on pharmacies for such things as their opening hours, and the General Pharmaceutical Council regulates pharmacy premises and pharmacy professionals. Both ICBs and the General Pharmaceutical Council have powers to address problems in pharmacies and they are actively using those powers, including in relation to stores that are part of Jhoots.
I have written to the hon. Gentleman about this case. As he will understand, it is difficult for me to go into detail about one pharmacy chain, at least on the specifics of the measures we are taking, but I can tell him that where there are problems with access to medicines, ICBs are supporting affected patients in the short term, for example by allowing local dispensing doctors to provide dispensing services to those patients. Where pharmacy stores regularly breach their terms of service, ICBs can give them notice that they are being removed from the pharmaceutical list. This power applies to any and all pharmacies, including, of course, Jhoots, and means that pharmacies would no longer be able to provide NHS services. Such notices can be appealed against, so it does take some time to work through the system. I stress to hon. Members that pharmacies are private businesses and must be responsible business owners. We can regulate what pharmacies should and should not do as part of their NHS terms of service, but it is not possible to prevent pharmacies from, for example, not paying their staff.
In conclusion, if pharmacies breach their terms of service, for example by not being open when they should be or where there are patient safety concerns, we take action. The General Pharmaceutical Council is taking regulatory action. ICBs are taking regulatory action and are supporting patients with access to medicines where necessary. This is aimed at improving pharmacies’ behaviour, but can ultimately lead to pharmacies being forced to close their business. I have also asked my officials to explore whether we can strengthen the regulatory framework to be able to deal more quickly with pharmacies that do not play by the rules. My officials are working on that as a matter of urgency. My office is also setting up a meeting with the hon. Gentleman to discuss this matter further and I will keep the House updated in the usual way.
I would be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for his response.
The collapse of service provision in some places, the constant closures in others and the general governance at Jhoots pharmacy, which operates 150 branches across England, demands immediate ministerial intervention. In West Dorset, Jhoots branches in Lyme Regis and Bridport have been closed for months, leaving thousands without access to essential medication and placing a huge strain on overstretched neighbouring pharmacies. Jhoots staff have gone months without pay, despite payslips being issued, tax deductions made and pension contributions not deposited. I have been contacted only this morning by staff who have not been paid for the third month. Many are unable to buy food or pay rent. They are relying on food banks and the amazing communities that have stepped up to support them. There have been reports of staff recruited by Jhoots under skilled worker visas being left without income or resource. I have also been made aware of deeply troubling reports of controlled drugs being removed without proper documentation or process, which if proven true may constitute a breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
I have raised my concerns with the General Pharmaceutical Council, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the NHS Business Services Authority, the ICB and the Minister, whom I thank for his response. I understand that processes must be followed, but this situation requires immediate action. Jhoots staff are not being paid and people across the country do not have access to vital medicine. Will the Minister please confirm what steps are being taken to ensure that all Jhoots staff are paid without delay? What discussions have taken place with the NHS BSA, the General Pharmaceutical Council and other regulators about Jhoots’s business practices? Finally, will the Government commit to urgently reviewing Jhoots’s suitability as an NHS pharmacy provider, outline what safeguards will be introduced to prevent this from happening again and review the pharmacy funding model?
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.
I call our very own pharmacist, Sadik Al-Hassan.
Order. Questions should not be statements.
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.
Only this weekend, the National Pharmacy Association chief executive, Henry Gregg, said that he is concerned that
“reports of Jhoots Pharmacy branches across England failing patients risks damaging community pharmacy’s reputation and could imperil its ability to secure a good 2026-27 funding settlement.”
Communities across the country have been left without functioning pharmacies. Doors have been locked without notice, patients have arrived to find no pharmacist, no prescriptions and no stock, and staff have gone unpaid and been threatened with the sack. Jhoots Pharmacy faces allegations of not paying wages, having premises repossessed and serious regulatory breaches. The General Pharmaceutical Council has already intervened several times, yet for many patients it is too late—they simply cannot get their medicines. This is not an isolated business failure; it exposes a deeper fragility in the community pharmacy network on which local people depend for basics and often lifesaving care.
I have four questions for the Minister. First, when was NHS England first made aware of these closures, and has the Minister met the Jhoots leadership? If not, why not? If he did, what was the outcome? Secondly, has the Department assessed how many people have been left without local pharmacy access as a result of Jhoots’s actions, and what is the Minister doing to remedy this, considering it is happening across the country? He mentioned ICBs, but there are several involved. Thirdly, what mechanisms exist to ensure continuity of care when a contractor collapses or walks away? Again, he mentioned ICBs, but is there a national contingency plan? Finally, will the Government now review whether the current model, under which chains are expanding rapidly through acquisition and debt, is fit to safeguard community pharmacies in the long term? Linked to that, can the Minister definitively confirm that the funding settlement has not been compromised?
The 10-year NHS plan states that it wants to move more care into the community, yet it is completely missing a delivery chapter on how to achieve that. At the same time, we have issues such as Jhoots. I hope the Minister will be taking steps to investigate this issue in its entirety and to safeguard against this type of incident happening again, and will spell out the delivery aspect of the 10-year plan.
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asked about first awareness of what was happening with Jhoots. He will be aware that it entered the market through the purchase of a number of Lloyds pharmacies that were no longer a going concern in 2023, so the question about due diligence on Jhoots as an operator is probably something he should be asking one of my predecessors from his party, which was in power at the time. Since those purchases, Jhoots has expanded rapidly, and that has been where we have seen the question marks around its ability to operate and the serious downgrading of services.
I have not met the management of Jhoots. We are looking at a whole range of legal and regulatory enforcement procedures, and the decision we have taken is that it is better not to interfere in any way in those processes, but I am certainly monitoring that very closely. If we receive legal advice that suggests that such a meeting would be a good idea, I will of course be open to it. However, the current legal position based on the advice we have received is that it would not be appropriate at this time.
On local pharmacy access, integrated care boards have a statutory responsibility to ensure adequate pharmacy provision. Some ICBs, for example, have allowed dispensing GP practices to provide dispensing services to affected patients, while others have worked with local GP practices to advise patients to nominate alternative nearby pharmacies for their prescriptions. We have looked at the impact geographically, and our view is that in most cases there is alternative pharmacy provision to Jhoots within striking distance. However, there are four or five areas of the country where that is not the case, including in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), who secured this urgent question. I am very conscious of that. In those cases, extra provision needs to be made through ICBs and GPs—that may be through distance selling or by other means—to ensure that patients have pharmacy access.
The shadow Minister asks about continuity of care and national contingency. The situation is challenging because, as I mentioned in my remarks and as officials have said, we have not seen this rapid decline in service before. We are working at pace to strengthen the regulatory framework and we are looking at contingency plans. I do not see any reason why the overall funding settlement for pharmacy should be undermined. We will continue to protect community pharmacy as a crucial part of our NHS.
I thank the Minister for his response. Community pharmacies, such as Lodge pharmacy in Perry Common in my area, play a vital role and offer an excellent service, and that is why I am concerned when places such as Jhoots pharmacy close or, maybe, fold. The winter months are coming, and I am passionate about winter measures. How will we ensure that our pharmacies can offer the winter vaccines needed this year if we lose large chains, such as Jhoots?
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.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for raising this appalling issue? Pharmacies are at the heart of our communities and are relied upon by millions. They are under increasing pressure across the country, where we are seeing irregular opening hours and unannounced closures. Families living in communities that rely on Jhoots pharmacies, such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend and many other parts of the country, will be deeply concerned that they and their loved ones could be about to be left without medicines that they desperately need. Staff have been placed in an intolerable situation.
The National Pharmacy Association’s chief executive has said, as we have heard, that Jhoots risks damaging the reputation of community pharmacies. The Government urgently need to grip this issue and ensure that patients and the staff of these pharmacies are not being let down. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State agree to meet all the Members in this place whose communities are affected by potential closures? Will he update the House at the earliest opportunity as to what steps he is taking to stabilise the crisis in community pharmacy across the country? Is he confident that integrated care boards, which are distracted by 50% cuts to their budgets and top-down reorganisation, have the capacity to deal with this urgent situation as they head into planning for the next winter crisis?
I thank the hon. Member for those questions. I would certainly be happy to meet Members who have Jhoots in their constituency and are affected. I will update the House. We are looking at strengthening the regulation, but there are some constraints on what I can say, because so much of this is now going through legal process. There is pushback, and we do not want to do anything to jeopardise the legal action we are taking through the appeal process, so I will have to be relatively circumspect in what I say. I am happy to have those discussions and to update the House.
I am confident that ICBs can take this forward. In most cases across the country, our assessment is that there is a pharmacy within striking distance of a Jhoots, but certainly in those areas where there is not, that may require particular follow-up action. My officials and I will be following up with those ICBs to ensure that the appropriate action is being taken.
Five members of staff from Jhoots pharmacy in Laceby Road have been to see me. They have been going into work, but they have not been paid since July. It is absolutely appalling. Can the Minister set out what pressure he and the Department can bring to bear on this chain, which has now unfortunately closed its doors for good?
I agree with absolutely every word that my hon. Friend has just said. It is completely unacceptable that people are coming into work, doing an honest day’s work and then not receiving an honest day’s pay. Unfortunately, there is a limit to what we can do, because pharmacies are private businesses and each employer is required to fulfil their legal obligations to pay their staff. I recommend that the members of staff she mentions contact ACAS and their trade union the PDA, if they are not already in touch. For those who are not members of that union, I strongly recommend joining a trade union and seeking legal advice from it. That is a vital part of what trade unions do. They need to take action to force Jhoots to do the right thing.
I thank my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), for securing this urgent question. I have exactly the same problem as he and the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), but in Shaftesbury in my constituency. I thank the staff of Boots, who are picking up such a huge amount of slack because Jhoots is not there. There is a danger to the member of staff who is on duty, because there are prescribed drugs on the premises, and she is the only person there, and I worry for her safety. What additional support can the Department give to existing providers, such as Boots, that are picking up the slack, particularly during the winter peak, in terms of advice to patients and administering vaccines?
This is a clear breach of contract, but I am told by our ICB that it does not fall within contract law. The regulations are moot on this point, because the circumstances that Jhoots finds itself in were never envisaged when the regulations were written. That is the problem that the Minister has identified. There seems to be some timidity among officials and others on the overhanging threat of a judicial review, were the Government to act in extremis to introduce some urgency. I urge the Minister to take that risk on behalf of all our constituents. I certainly welcome his offer, following the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), that all Members of Parliament with constituents affected by this dire problem should be involved in meetings. I look forward to that, so that we can provide timely advice, updates and support to our constituents, who are rightly worried.
I pay tribute to the Boots employees in the hon. Member’s constituency where Jhoots is not providing the service that is required. We appreciate that. I can assure him that nothing is off the table. He has rightly identified the problem with the regulatory framework, which is strong on pharmacists, pharmacists’ premises and pharmacy staff, but there is something of a gap when it comes to regulating pharmacy business owners. That gap has been identified, and I have commissioned my officials to work on that at pace. I will happily keep him updated on that work.
I thank the Minister for the context and the responses he has provided so far. Jhoots in my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham has provided an incredibly poor service, not paying staff, not dispensing vital medicine and often not opening on time. However, any replacement pharmacy or provider cannot come in, because the local pharmaceutical needs assessment suggests that there is functioning provision. Will the Minister consider a review of the criteria surrounding PNAs so that they not only list those pharmacies that are available, but also look at failures, such as the ones we are seeing with Jhoots? By recognising that, other providers can take their place, if needs be.
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.
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
The case of Jhoots is clearly hugely unfortunate given the incredible work that community pharmacies do up and down the country for our constituents. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this case will not negatively affect the funding settlement, but it is set against the backdrop of a very precarious sector where actors who want to do good by our communities and do a high-quality job often find that they simply cannot make ends meet, and bad actors find a way to move in. When the Committee looked last at this issue, the workforce was a key plank to why the sector is not sustainable. What update can the Minister give us on the inclusion of pharmacists in the workforce plan?
I thank the hon. Lady and pay tribute to her work as Chair of the Select Committee. I am very proud of the fact that we delivered a £500 million uplift to pharmacy—19% across the two-year period. It was the highest uplift of any sector, not just of my portfolio but the entire NHS. I am also very proud of the fact that we are taking forward hub-and-spoke legislation to enable pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to operate at the top of their licence. The day before yesterday we signed off on a statutory instrument to improve the ability of technicians to do more in the area of dispensing. We are looking to empower the workforce and enable them to operate at the top of their licence. That is a fundamental part of the shift from hospital to community that is at the heart of our 10-year plan.
Jhoots pharmacy moved into the village of Knott End in 2023, and it was not long before constituents were getting in touch with me to explain that they could not access their prescriptions because pharmacies were closed and unreliable. We do have the very good Over Wyre medical centre, which has dispensing rights, but it is restrained by the one-mile rule, which means that it cannot dispense prescriptions within one mile of a pharmacy, whether that is open or closed. I feel like we are in a Catch-22 situation. What help can the Minister give my constituents to ensure that those who are within one mile of the Jhoots pharmacy that is never open can access their prescriptions from the dispensing Over Wyre medical centre?
My hon. Friend rightly puts her finger on the Catch-22 situation in which we find ourselves. It is patently absurd that a pharmacy that is not operating, as she just described, is blocking the ability of others to step in and fill the gap. That is something we have to resolve, and it is part of the work I have commissioned urgently. We clearly have gaps in the regulatory framework. This is an unprecedented situation, and we are working at pace to address it, but she has rightly put her finger on this Catch-22, which needs to be resolved. We need to move one piece out of the way so that we can deal with the situation.
The way Jhoots is treating its workforce, the community and suppliers is frankly appalling. It is failing communities who desperately rely on it. The Government are planning to introduce a health Bill at some point in the coming months that will see the abolition of NHS England. Can the Minister update the House on when the Bill will come forward and what provision it will contain to strengthen accountability for the delivery of community pharmacy?
I know that my colleague the Minister of State for Health is working hard on the drafting process for the Bill. I cannot give the hon. Member the exact date of its introduction, but I would be very happy to write to him with confirmation of the expected introduction date.
I am pleased that this urgent question has been secured, because I have written to the Minister about this company. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who has given me advice in the matter. I am pleased that the Government are taking regulatory action in respect of the quality, safety and availability of the service, but I was horrified to hear that several of my constituents working for this company have gone unpaid for several weeks. Please could the Minister reach out to the relevant Minister within the Department for Business and Trade to see what else we can do for those people, because it is simply not right that they are out of pocket?
That is an excellent suggestion; I will do that. We are hearing colleague after colleague say that staff are not being paid, and if there is clear evidence of a breach of employment law, we absolutely need to look at that. I will follow up on my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
We have heard again this afternoon the line from the Minister that pharmacy staff are employed not by the NHS but by pharmacy businesses, and that this is just a dispute between staff and the pharmacy business that should be raised in the first instance with ACAS. Holli Froggatt from Sidmouth, a former member of Jhoots staff, has written to me to say that staff have emailed Jhoots begging for their wages as they have empty bank accounts. In normal circumstances, the Government like to lean on pharmacies to take the pressure off GPs, with such schemes as Pharmacy First, so how can the Minister simply wash his hands of this situation when staff have gone for three months without pay?
I do not think that is an accurate characterisation of what I am saying. I am saying that we are taking action against Jhoots from the regulatory point of view, and there is clearly a glaring issue with the payment of staff. That needs to be taken forward through the industrial relations process, both through ACAS and the PDA. We will give all the support we can to both those organisations to ensure that Jhoots is held to account.
My constituents in Sedbergh, a rural market town, have suffered greatly from the terrible pharmacy provision by Jhoots. Medicines have been unavailable, the pharmacy has often been closed, and staff and locum pharmacists are going unpaid, yet pay slips are being issued, so it is very hard for them to claim benefits. I have written to the Minister and met with the integrated care board. Doctors and neighbouring pharmacists—I say neighbouring, but this is in Westmorland, which is a 40-minute drive away—have stepped in to help, as has the parish council. Can the Minister outline what action he is taking nationally to force Jhoots to provide a better service for my constituents?
We are actively working with integrated care boards, NHS England, the General Pharmaceutical Council and, indeed, trade unions to ensure that all of these issues are being taken forward and given the urgency that they require. Sadly, as I have pointed out, the regulatory framework is not adequate. It is very focused on pharmacists and pharmacy premises, and inadequately and insufficiently focused on business owners. That is something that must be addressed as a matter of urgency, and we are working on it at pace.
The failure of Jhoots is putting unsustainable pressure on other pharmacies across my constituency, but talks have not even begun on pharmacy funding beyond March of next year. Given the urgent situation with Jhoots, will the Minister review the timescale for those talks so that our pharmacies that are having to pick up this extra work can have some certainty about future funding?
This is absolutely urgent, as the hon. Member rightly says. I have commissioned officials to work on this matter at pace. We can clearly see that this is a matter of national significance simply by the number of colleagues in the Chamber. I can give the hon. Member that assurance, and I would be happy to update him once I have a better sense of the exact timeframe and deadlines. We will be insisting that things happen as a matter of urgency.
Over the recess I met the Singh family, who run two pharmacies in my constituency. The family were clear that, despite improved funding, they are still struggling with overly complex funding formulas, delayed payments, high energy prices and drug shortages, among other challenges. However, the positive initiatives of Pharmacy First and the independent prescribing pathfinder programme offer a ray of hope. Will the Minister commit to continuing to invest time and energy in expanding those programmes and meet my pharmacies from Rushcliffe to discuss them further?
We remain absolutely committed to the independent prescribing service and are working on the plans and strategy to make that a reality. We continue to support Pharmacy First, but sadly take-up of it has not been as good as we would have liked it to be. The way it was structured and incentivised has not enabled it to realise its full potential, and we are working on that as well. A number of errors were made by the previous Government, who did not set Pharmacy First up to succeed to the extent that it should have done.
Jhoots Pharmacy has revealed the severe financial strain facing community pharmacies. The towns of Glastonbury and Bruton are home to fantastic independent pharmacies, continuing to serve their communities despite more than half of pharmacy owners losing money last year. How will the Government ensure that the regulatory framework is robust so that community pharmacy services in rural areas can remain resilient and accessible?
The hon. Member is right: this is about making the regulatory framework more robust. As I have pointed out, it is robust on pharmacists, on technicians and on pharmacy premises, but it is simply not strong enough when it comes to pharmacy business owners. The unprecedented case of Jhoots is throwing that into sharp relief. That is what we are working on at pace. I will be happy to update her once we have some clear progress on the plan and strategy to beef up the regulatory framework to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.
Last week I met staff from Jhoots Pharmacy in Thorley and was shocked when they told me that they had been unpaid for months but were still working. Some were struggling with their mortgages or unable to afford food for their children’s school lunches. Their concern was for their residents, many of whom are elderly and vulnerable, who have been left without essential medication because of stock issues and unexpected closures. They are good, decent people who want to provide a community service for our residents. Will the Minister assure my constituents directly that the Department will look at all possible options and work across Government where relevant to address the situation that allowed this to become a problem and the specific situation affecting my constituents now?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents, who are clearly going through an extremely difficult and challenging time. I strongly recommend that they contact ACAS and the PDA, or another trade union if they happen to be a member of one. His key point is about how we can ensure that this does not happen again. The GPhC is taking enforcement action against individual pharmacies and we have to wait for the outcome of those actions—some of those are going through appeal processes. As soon as one of those actions has concluded, that will greatly facilitate and catalyse the process for going after any pharmacy that is not delivering to the service standards that we would expect.
Staff and patients at Jhoots Pharmacy in South Wootton in North West Norfolk have been let down, going months without pay or stock, and with no communication from management. The pharmacist left after non-payment. When I raised those issues with the company, it simply refused to respond. The Minister has referred to future regulatory changes, but given that the pattern is repeated across the country, what urgent steps is he taking to work with ICBs collectively to ensure that staff get the money they are owed and that commissioned services are delivered? Will he not rule out taking action against individual directors?
As I said, we are in constant dialogue with ICBs and the GPhC. I absolutely get it: we need to speed it up as it needs to be faster and more urgent. I am clear about that, and we are taking this forward as a matter of priority.
In terms of taking action against individual directors, nothing is off the table. As I said, the regulatory framework as things stand does not facilitate that, so we have got to look at other options. But there are views in the GPhC that suggest there may be some ways of looking at interpreting regulations and legislation that could facilitate more immediate action. That is on the menu of actions that we are looking at.
For almost two years now, the people of Sheringham have been suffering from completely unacceptable service from our local branch of Jhoots. Shortages of drugs, shortages of pharmacists, issues with paying staff and a litany of other issues have caused chaos, including one resident sent by NHS 111 to secure emergency antibiotics finding themselves standing in the rain outside a closed pharmacy, fearful that they would end up in A&E. Will the Minister tell people in Sheringham and the surrounding villages what protection there will be for services if Jhoots is no longer fit to provide them? How is taxpayers’ money being protected from being lost? Most importantly, how on earth was it allowed to get this bad in the first place?
In terms of the replacement for Jhoots services, that is where we are in a Catch-22 situation, because until a pharmacy that is not providing a service has been moved out of the way, it is not possible to move in and replace that service with another, so the first step in all this is to take action against those pharmacies that are not delivering to requisite service standards. As soon as we can get that process moving, we can start to commission and bring in alternative providers. I share his frustration and the impatience of his constituents, and I assure him that we are taking urgent action on all these issues.
I thank the Minister very much for his strong answers to restore confidence. Will he acknowledge that pressure on the NHS, especially into the winter months, means that pharmacies will be playing a bigger role in providing basic help and advice, and that being unable to rely on a pharmacy cannot be sustained? Will he please outline the professional standards expected of pharmaceutical chains throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and how these private companies can be held to their public obligations?
I agree with the hon. Member on the vital role played by community pharmacy now and going into the future. We want that role to continue and, indeed, to be strengthened and expanded. If we look at our 10-year plan, with the shift from hospital to community, we see that community pharmacy is at the heart of that. Also, in the shift from sickness to prevention, we see the vital work that community pharmacy plays in delivering vaccines and a whole range of other services that really will support the prevention agenda, so community pharmacy is at the heart of our plan.
The standards set out by the General Pharmaceutical Council—robust standards that are robustly regulated—require a certain level of service to be provided and certain levels of expertise and experience. What we clearly now need to do is upgrade the way we regulate pharmacy business owners. My officials and I are working on that as a matter of urgency.
(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberI thank everyone in the Chamber for their contributions to today’s debate. I will start by talking about the deeply moving contributions regarding the tragic death of Ruth Szymankiewicz. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Ruth’s family, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) and the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for so powerfully advocating on behalf of Ruth and her family. The circumstances around Ruth’s death were unacceptable and should never have happened. We acknowledge multiple failings in her care.
Turning to the amendments, while we are not accepting any changes to the Bill, I hope that I can assure the House, in the short time remaining, that we are taking action to address the concerns that have rightly been raised. In relation to new clauses 6, 7, 29 and 36, we absolutely do not want young people placed in adult wards, and we are clear that patients should get treatment close to home. However, further legislative restrictions on placements risks leaving clinicians without options in emergencies or preventing treatment that is in the patient’s best interests. NHS England has worked with hundreds of children and families to develop a new service specification for children and young people’s mental health services. The specification is for commissioners and providers to follow, defining the care expected from organisations funded by NHS England to provide specialised care.
Will the Minister give way?
I will, but I have got little time and a lot of amendments to address, so I will not take any further interventions.
I had the privilege of meeting Helena and Christina, who shared with me the challenges they faced when their mother was sectioned when they were young girls. For two weeks, the responsibility for care was left entirely in their hands while local services struggled to find a suitable bed. Can the Minister confirm that through the Mental Health Bill, in conjunction with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, young carers will be properly identified and that the additional boost in Government investment directly into mental health services will ensure that young carers receive the support they need?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the core purposes of this Bill is to ensure that we catch such issues, particularly around the identification of children in cases where parents are required to be detained. We will reaffirm that children should be treated in the least restrictive, most age-appropriate environment and close to home and family, and that all services would work towards alternatives to admission, such as day care and intensive home treatment, with better support for visits, including with dedicated family areas and overnight stays. We have committed £75 million for systems to invest in reducing out-of-area placements, and I am pleased to report that the number of children placed on adult wards is now decreasing, and that trend must continue.
We have also committed in the Bill to reviewing the existing CQC notification requirements, including whether notification should be extended to other incidents and whether the time period remains appropriate. We will work with families, clinicians and MPs as part of that review. Indeed, following recent conversations with my hon. Friends the Member for Isle of Wight West and for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), I have asked officials to host a roundtable next month with Members and experts on how we can provide greater clarity in the code. The focus will also be on NHS England’s service specifications and regulations on the placement of children and young people in adult wards, including determining if a placement is suitable.
The revised code, on which we will engage extensively with—among others—children and their families and carers, will provide further opportunities to address concerns raised in amendments 33 and 39 and new clause 28. The code will also address the issue of competency. We believe that that is more appropriate than a test for competency in the Act, as proposed in new clauses 15 and 25.
I will, but can the right hon. Gentleman please make his intervention very short?
I am grateful to the Minister, and I am also grateful to him for what he said about my constituent. There are so many codes of best practice, and so many guidelines. Can he say a little more about what force the code would have, so that we can have some reassurance that the risks that were so tragic in the case of my constituent will be eliminated?
The code of practice will be statutory. It is better to have these provisions in the code, because clinical practice evolves, and it is much easier to revise a code of practice than to go through primary legislation.
We understand the concerns expressed about young carers in new clauses 26 and 27, and recognise that despite existing duties, the right questions are not always being asked to identify children when someone is detained. While we do not agree that additional legal duties are needed, especially as multi-agency working is already being strengthened through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we do agree that we need to make the requirements more explicit. The revised code of practice will therefore specify that when someone is detained, steps must be taken to identify the children of the patient. Information about support that is available must be shared, and if a young carer’s needs assessment is required, the appropriate referral must be made.
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.
Zöe Franklin, is it your pleasure that new clause 2 be withdrawn?
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.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
(3 days, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesI beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 17 July, broadly applies across the United Kingdom but, as I will explain, some of it does not, in practice, apply to Northern Ireland. It forms part of wider reform to modernise pharmacy regulation, cut red tape and make better use of the skill mix in pharmacy teams. The order has been developed with the Health Departments of the devolved Governments, and it has the support of the four chief pharmaceutical officers of the United Kingdom. I thank the sector and the profession for their input and engagement during the development of the legislation. These changes have been in development for some time, and I am pleased that we are making them a reality.
Before I go into the details of the draft order, I wish to recognise the importance of pharmacy services and the dedicated workforce across all settings, including hospitals, community pharmacy and care homes. Across the UK, there is a joint vision to fully realise the potential of pharmacy services to support better health outcomes and provide quicker access to care in our communities. All nations are committed to supporting the sector and the profession, and they have increased funding for these vital services against a backdrop of severe financial pressures.
In England, we have hit the ground running in delivering our 10-year health plan. The order is another immediate and tangible change that will mean that patients get better care closer to their homes. We have increased community pharmacy funding to more than £3 billion and enacted legislation to increase the efficiency of dispensing medicines, including the extension of hub and spoke dispensing. Last month we launched a consultation on proposals that would give pharmacists flexibility to dispense an alternative product where the prescribed item is not available. We have also introduced the national patient prescription tracking service to enable patients to access and track their prescriptions online through the NHS app. That reduces the burden on busy GP and pharmacy teams, and it avoids having a patient queue at a pharmacy only to find that their prescription is not ready.
I will now set out why this legislation is needed. In English community pharmacies alone, around 1.2 billion medicines are dispensed every year. Of those, around 75% to 80% are repeat prescriptions for long-term conditions. That number grows year on year, and we must continue to look at ways to make further efficiencies and remove legal barriers to modernising pharmacy practice.
The dispensing of a medicine covers a number of processes, including the receipt of a prescription, the clinical and accuracy checks, the sourcing of the products, the preparation, assembly and supply of medicines, and advising the patient to ensure that they know how and when to take the medicine. Many of those activities can and should be delegated to registered pharmacy technicians, who are competent and trained to take more of a leading role in the dispensing of medicines.
The draft order contains three core proposals. First, at the moment, a pharmacist must carry out or supervise all stages of the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply of pharmacy and prescription-only medicines. Case law has led to restrictive practice and different interpretations of the law. Under our first proposal, we will allow pharmacists to authorise a registered pharmacy technician to undertake or supervise those activities. That will mean the pharmacist no longer has to supervise each transaction and can therefore spend more time with patients and delivering clinical services. The provision will not apply in Northern Ireland until pharmacy technician becomes a registered profession there. At that point, we will work with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland to bring in these measures as soon as possible.
Secondly, at present, medicines that have been checked by a pharmacist and are ready to be dispensed to a patient cannot be handed to them if the pharmacist is off site or uninterruptable. This understandably causes frustration for patients. I, like many Members of this House, have received complaints from constituents venting that frustration and demanding that the Government act. Under this legislation, we will allow a pharmacist to authorise any suitable member of the pharmacy team—for example, a pharmacy technician or pharmacy counter assistant—to hand out prescriptions in the absence of the pharmacist. That will be very helpful for prescriptions that have been clinically checked by the pharmacist, and where no further consultation is required between the patient and the pharmacist. This proposal will apply across the UK.
Thirdly, and finally, the law currently states that hospital aseptic facilities can be run only by a pharmacist. However, pharmacists are not the only staff capable of running these facilities. They are highly specialised services delivering sterile medicines for cancer patients, premature babies and other vulnerable patients. It is incredibly important that those services are fully staffed to deliver high-quality products in an increasingly complex area of modern medicine.
Many of those facilities are staffed by highly educated and capable pharmacy technicians, but the law prevents NHS trusts from allowing those individuals to run such facilities. That is simply not right. We will enable suitably qualified and experienced registered pharmacy technicians to run those facilities. That will give the NHS and pharmacy contractors more flexibility in how they deploy their staff to deliver quality NHS pharmaceutical services.
That proposal, like the first one, will not apply in Northern Ireland until pharmacy technicians become a registered profession there. The proposed changes to the Medicines Act 1968 and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 will remove those legal restrictions and represent a seismic shift in how pharmacies can operate, updating the law for modern practice and improving services for patients. The changes are permissive, not prescriptive, recognising that every pharmacy is different, with different levels of staff, qualifications and experience. Pharmacies that are ready to embrace these changes can do so, and those that are not, or that do not want to change how they practise, can continue as they are—but they would, of course, forgo the benefits that these amendments present.
We propose a phased approach to implementation. The measures allowing checked and bagged items to be handed out in the absence of the pharmacist will enter into force 28 days after this legislation is made, which means that patients and pharmacies can benefit almost immediately. The remaining measures—enabling new delegation powers for pharmacists to allow pharmacy technicians to supervise dispensing processes, and allowing pharmacy technicians to take charge of hospital aseptic facilities—will come into force on a date that not has not yet been set in law, but we are working with the sector towards a date one year after the legislation is made. The transition period is to allow time for the pharmacy regulators and professional leadership bodies to implement professional regulations, standards and guidance to support the sector and the profession to implement the changes safely into practice.
I hope that I have given a clear explanation of the rationale behind amending the 2012 Regulations and the 1968 Act to enable pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to supervise the dispensing and final supply of medicines, to enable greater flexibility in the final supply of medicines when a pharmacist is unavailable and to allow pharmacy technicians to run hospital aseptic facilities. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee and hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting them.
I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As he rightly pointed out, and as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the length of the transition has not been defined in the legislation, but our aim is for it to be no longer than 12 months. I will follow up with my officials to check precisely where we are with that timeframe and whether it has been nailed down, or whether something more specific may have been agreed in the intervening period. I would be happy to write to him to clarify that point, if he is okay with that.
The shadow Minister asked what happens in a pharmacy that does not have a technician. As I said, this legislation is not prescriptive; it is permissive. Frankly, this is something that those who have technicians can take advantage of, and those who do not will not be able to. Once the legislation is in place, however, they would be able to take advantage of it. Therefore, pharmacists who do not have technicians can perhaps aspire to do things in this way, whereas at present even those who have technicians cannot do so.
Pharmacy First is something we absolutely want to take forward. If we look at the 10-year plan and the three shifts, Pharmacy First supports the two key shifts from hospital to community and from sickness to prevention, in particular. Pharmacists are, in many ways, the front door of the NHS. They play a crucial role in people’s neighbourhoods and in the whole prevention agenda.
We are still working with the teams to finalise the financial envelope for pharmacy, coming out of the spending review announced in June, and of course we have to get the balance right. There are tremendous cost pressures, which we are looking to equal out, across what pharmacy does, going from the core business of dispensing through to the fee structure for Pharmacy First. There are some issues around Pharmacy First. The take-up has not been as good as we would have liked it to be, and I think that is because of some errors that the previous Government made in setting the fee structure to incentivise Pharmacy First and really push take-up forward. One thing we are looking at with Pharmacy First is how to incentivise it to make it more effective.
I understand from my officials that the discussions with Northern Ireland have gone well and are very positive. The Government there are very clear that they want to move in this direction, but certain hurdles still need to be crossed. I could perhaps add to the letter that I have already promised to write to the shadow Minister, to give him an update on where exactly the discussions with Northern Ireland are now.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsToday I would like to acknowledge the publication of the eighth annual report “Learning from lives and deaths—People with a learning disability and autistic people” (LeDeR) produced by Kings College London. A copy will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. We know that families and stakeholders have been waiting for this report and it has been significantly delayed due to the need to resolve practical data issues.
It has been just over a year since I was appointed as the Minister of State for Care. I have felt privileged to fulfil this role and to hear from people with a learning disability, autistic people, their families and carers, and staff about their experiences, both good and bad. It is critical we continue to learn about what we need to do to address the clear health inequalities that continue to exist in our health and social care system. We must reduce these inequalities, and highlight the action needed to prevent avoidable deaths and understand how services can improve. To do this, it is crucial that we review the deaths of people with a learning disability and autistic people.
The latest report shows that on average, people with a learning disability die 19.5 years younger than the general population and are almost twice as likely to die from an avoidable cause of death. This is unacceptable.
In 2022, LeDeR began reporting on the deaths of autistic people without a learning disability. The number of deaths reviewed this year remains small, although the findings are very concerning. It is crucial we improve our understanding of the deaths of autistic people. We expect that with increased awareness of the ability to report these deaths, we can then take specific action to address the issues raised.
It is promising to see from the latest report that, since 2021, LeDeR reviews that identified good practice in care of people with a learning disability have increased by over 10%. While such improvements are encouraging, the findings about health outcomes and how care can be improved to prevent premature mortality highlight that there is much work for us to do. We are committed to maintaining LeDeR going forward as we integrate NHS England and the Department and we are taking action to drive tangible improvements to our health and care services.
In July, we launched the 10-year health plan which will drive a shift to care in the community, rather than in hospitals, to preventing sickness, rather than just treating it, and to harnessing digital opportunities. Neighbourhood health services will work in partnership with other local services to provide more holistic, ongoing support including for people with a learning disability and autistic people.
To support this, we have been rolling out the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme to ensure health and care staff have the right knowledge and skills to provide effective care.
We set out in our manifesto a commitment to modernise mental health legislation. Our Mental Health Bill, currently before Parliament, will limit the scope to detain people with a learning disability and autistic people and introduce a package of measures to improve community support. We want to see this legislation implemented as soon as possible so that people with a learning disability and autistic people get the support they need in the community, improving care and keeping people out of hospitals.
Alongside the legislation, action is being taken now to reduce reliance on in-patient care. NHS operational planning guidance for 2025-26 sets an objective to deliver a minimum 10% reduction in the use of mental health in-patient care for people with a learning disability and autistic people.
Patients and their families, carers and advocates have a critical part to play in their care and can be uniquely placed to identify acute illness or deterioration in their or their loved ones’ condition, including where that may indicate a need to change their treatment or care. Martha’s rule is a major patient safety initiative in hospitals encouraging patients, families and carers to speak to the care team if they notice changes in someone’s condition and providing them with a way to seek an urgent review if their or their loved one’s condition deteriorates, and they are concerned this is not being responded to. Martha’s rule is being rolled out in 143 acute in-patient pilot sites, as announced in February 2024. In addition, NHS England is working toward roll-out in further acute hospital sites that were not part of the original 143 sites.
NHS England has published its action from learning report 2023-24, highlighting actions across the country to improve care and reduce avoidable and preventable deaths of autistic people and people with a learning disability.
People with a learning disability aged over 14 who are on a GP learning disability register are eligible for a learning disability annual health check. At March 2025, 80% of eligible people had received a learning disability annual health check and 79% had a health action plan. NHS England has also developed an autism-specific health check, currently being tested in primary care.
Further work is under way to ensure people with a learning disability and autistic people access the right support at the right time in the right place. NHS England is working with people with lived experience, clinical professionals and commissioners to produce a quality framework for the learning disability annual health check. This will set out expectations for the annual health check and the accompanying health action plan. Both should make it easier for GPs to add people to their learning disability register so that more people can access appropriate care and support more easily. NHS England is also working to co-develop standards of practice for appropriate interventions for adults and children in a range of settings.
Roll-out of the reasonable adjustment digital flag is progressing, which enables health and publicly funded care professionals to record, share and view details of the reasonable adjustments that individuals need to support their care and treatment. NHS England has also recently published guidance for frontline staff in acute hospitals about how to implement the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people with a learning disability, helping to ensure that people’s human rights are upheld.
Together with NHS England and partners, we are committed to driving further improvements, implementing our 10-year health plan and working towards healthcare that is equitable and provides the quality of care that people with a learning disability and autistic people should rightly expect.
[HCWS901]
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing today’s debate and speaking so bravely and movingly about his family. I pay tribute to his work in the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders, and I know that he and many other hon. Members present have worked tirelessly to advocate for those with eating disorders.
Every death from an eating disorder is a tragedy. We have heard from hon. Members about the devastating effect of these conditions, both for patients and their loved ones. But we must be clear that eating disorders are not terminal illnesses. With the right treatment and support, recovery is possible. Many across the Chamber have made that point, and I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed so powerfully. I also congratulate Arek and Claudia, who I know made outstanding contributions to drafting the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon).
Through the 10-year health plan, the Government will ensure that those living with eating disorders are given the support they need. We will cut waiting times and ensure that people can access treatment and support earlier. Improving eating disorder services is a priority for the Government, and a fundamental part of our work to transform mental health services. Last financial year, we provided £106 million in funding for children’s eating disorder services, an increase of £10 million since 2023-24. That increase in funding is helping our clinicians to support more people, and to change and save lives.
One of the great organisations that does a lot of work on the accountability of services, including eating disorder services, is Healthwatch. We know that these organisations are going to be scrapped. They have done loads of valuable work at local and regional levels. What levels of accountability will the new systems put in place for eating disorder services?
I agree that Healthwatch did some important work, but what we are doing is changing the culture of how our NHS works. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, we are abolishing NHS England. That is of a piece with our belief that proper leadership, proper accountability and proper management of a complex system such as our NHS, and particularly its interaction with ICBs and trusts, is about having a clear line of accountability from the Secretary of State through Ministers into the system and those operating at the coalface. We believe that if more layers are put between, and cut across, those lines of accountability, that does not actually drive better outcomes—it drives poorer performance. That is the approach we are taking to the entire system.
As I said, I have been the chair of the APPG for six years, and nothing has changed and got better. I really trust that this Government will make a difference—I hope they will. This is about culture change, but eating disorders are a very complex illness. The APPG has therefore called repeatedly for a dedicated strategy on eating disorders. Will the Minister please look at that?
I will come on to talk about the guidance that is being produced. There is a risk that we can end up with a proliferation of documents, strategies and plans. Our view is that the more streamlined we are and the clearer the lines of accountability, the better the performance becomes. We are committed to the guidance, and I will talk a bit about that, but we are not convinced that having strategies alongside guidance, plans and other documents will help the process.
Members here will be well aware of the increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, including eating disorders, since the pandemic. The increase in demand has placed significant pressure on services, but the extra funding is making a difference. The latest quarterly figures from NHS mental health services monthly statistics show that, between April and June 2025, 3,138 children successfully entered treatment in community eating disorder services. That is the highest figure on record since NHS England began collecting this data in 2021.
At the same time, waiting lists to begin routine eating disorder treatment have shortened by 20% from the year before. NHS England has also commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists to carry out a national audit of eating disorders. That audit is collecting data on eating disorders across community and in-patient settings to drive improvements in the identification and treatment of eating disorders. The audit will monitor how services are performing against standards, and highlight any inequalities in access to care. That will help services to provide safe, effective, patient-centred, timely, efficient and equitable care.
In addition to improved services for the treatment of eating disorders, we are also working to tackle their underlying causes. In particular, we are deeply concerned about harmful online content that promotes negative body image, harmful eating behaviours, suicide or self-harm to those who are most vulnerable. The Online Safety Act 2023 has now come into force and delivers on our commitment to make the United Kingdom the safest place to be online. By now, all sites with a significant user base in this country are required to have conducted children’s access and risk assessments, and to follow the new children’s safety codes to prevent them from accessing harmful content, such as promotion of eating disorders. Ofcom now has the ability to investigate or carry out enforcement action against any site that will not abide by those codes.
Hon. Members today have raised the need for early intervention to lower the numbers of hospital admissions from eating disorders. We know that the earlier the treatment is provided, the better the chance of recovery, and we are committed to ensuring that everyone with an eating disorder can access specialist help. As part of our mission to build an NHS that is fit for the future, there is a critical need to shift the treatment of eating disorders from hospital to community, including children’s community eating disorder services, crisis care services and intensive day-hospital or home-treatment services. Improved care in the community will give young people early access to evidence-based treatment involving families and carers, thereby improving outcomes and preventing relapse. By preventing eating disorders from progressing into adulthood, we will build on our aim of raising the healthiest generation of children.
We have also committed to expanding mental health support teams to reach full coverage in England. To date, we have expanded MHSTs to 52% of pupils; they are working hard in schools to support staff and students alike in meeting the mental health needs of children.
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am pleased that his Government have continued the roll-out, because we share the aim of trying to deal with this early. On that point, there was mention of the updated guidance, and clearly these hubs are going to need that guidance if it is updated. Will he set out when that guidance will be brought forward?
I absolutely will; that is just coming up in my comments. I am not sure that the shadow Minister will be satisfied with the answer, but I will refer precisely to the question that he is asking.
The MHSTs will continue to provide assistance to school staff in raising staff understanding, recognition and awareness of eating disorders, ensuring that they can provide crucial early intervention for children at risk.
Early intervention is also a priority for adults with eating disorders, as set out in the NHS’s adult community mental health framework. NHS England has established 15 provider collaboratives focusing on adult eating disorders. Those collaboratives are working to redesign care pathways and focus resources on community services. By providing treatment earlier and closer to home, we will see better outcomes for adults with eating disorders and their families.
Turning to the guidance, which a number of hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, have raised, we are producing updated guidance to help services to implement those transformations. NHS England first published guidance in 2019 for adult eating disorder services to ensure that they are integrated with day-patient services or in-patient care. A new service specification for adult eating disorder in-patient provision has been through a public consultation and will progress to publication this year. So I can guarantee that it will be published before 1 January, but I cannot give the shadow Minister a precise date.
Can I come back to the hon. Gentleman on that? I will double-check. My understanding was that this was for both. My notes do say “for adult eating disorder services”, but my understanding was that this was a holistic process that would include children and schools. I will come back to him to confirm that point, so apologies if that is not entirely clear. Actually, I am sorry—it is next in my comments. NHS England is also producing updated national guidance for eating disorders in children and young people. That will reflect the full range of eating disorders in children and young people, and the treatment options available to CYP and their families to address them. It will focus on early identification and intervention, community treatment and support, and it will highlight the importance of integrating schools, colleges and primary care to improve support. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, he will have noted, as I have, that there is no specific date for that, so I will come back to him on that. The adult one will be before 1 January.
I would like to address the very serious concerns that have been raised about reports of people with eating disorders being offered end-of-life care. Let me be absolutely clear: these reports are deeply troubling, and I acknowledge the distress that they will have caused to families and all those affected by eating disorders. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been crystal clear that eating disorders are not terminal illnesses. It has updated its guidance to re-emphasise that important point, so that no person, nor their loved ones, should ever feel that treatment has reached a point of no return.
NHS England is clear that all those with severe, complex or long-standing eating disorders should have access to eating disorder services, including hospital care when needed. A personal recovery model, with a focus on harm minimisation, symptom management and quality of life, is well established in providing hope and opportunities for recovery for many people with eating disorders. English law provides a robust framework for safeguarding a patient’s best interests.
I assure hon. Members that we take these concerns very seriously. We will continue to work with clinicians, NHS England and families to ensure that the highest standards of care are upheld, and that every person is given hope and support in their recovery.
Hon. Members have raised how those with eating disorders are disproportionately at risk of self-harm or suicide. The national suicide prevention strategy has highlighted the increased risk, and is committed to working with policy, clinical and personal experience experts to explore bespoke suicide prevention activity when needed. Specialists in eating disorders must ensure that they take a holistic approach to eating disorder treatment, and ensure that they are not likely to inadvertently increase the risk of suicide.
Several hon. Members, as well as the APPG report published in January this year, have raised the creation of a national register for eating disorder deaths, and the holding of a confidential inquiry into all eating disorder deaths. I reassure colleagues that the Department of Health and Social Care is wholeheartedly committed to learning from deaths, in order to prevent future tragedies and to improve quality of care.
The Department receives and responds to prevention of future deaths—PFD—notices relating to eating disorders, and it uses that work to inform practice going forward. For example, the medical emergencies in eating disorders—MEED—guidance was created following a coroner’s report and has since been rolled out nationwide. This Government are determined to focus funding directly to frontline services, in order to best support those currently struggling with this deadly illness.
Similarly, we share the concerns that have been raised about eating disorder deaths not being accurately recorded. It is vital that the extent to which eating disorders have caused or contributed to deaths is properly known. That matter is currently being explored with the national medical examiner for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales.
To draw my remarks to a close, I would like to thank all the hon. Members here today. The fact that the debate was so well attended reflects how important the issue is to all of us and our constituents. The service that we provide can often be a matter of life and death. We are all very conscious of the gravity of the responsibility that we hold in that context. I thank all those in attendance for advocating for their constituents and all those across the country who have been affected by an eating disorder.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsI would like to inform the House about an important issue concerning NRS Healthcare—also known as Nottingham Rehab Ltd —a supplier of integrated community equipment services, which became insolvent on 1st August 2025.
NRS Healthcare provided essential services and equipment such as wheelchairs, hoists, and technology that supported disabled and older people to live independently at home. This helped avoid admissions to hospitals or care homes and assisted people in returning home after leaving hospital.
Local authorities have statutory duties under the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014 to arrange for the provision of disability aids and community equipment to meet the assessed needs of individuals in their area. While some local authorities provide these services themselves, many have contracts with external suppliers, such as NRS Healthcare. Customers of these services also include the NHS, private customers, pharmacies, and other adult social care and healthcare settings.
Before their insolvency, 44 local authorities had contracts with NRS Healthcare and relied on their services. NRS Healthcare supplied around 50% of hospitals with equipment used in adult social care across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Since the company filed for insolvency, the court has appointed an official receiver as the liquidator, supported by special managers, who are overseeing the wind-down of operations, managing the company's assets, and ensuring that statutory duties and obligations to creditors and people who draw on these services are met. The official receiver is an independent officer of the court required by law to carry out these duties.
As part of the liquidation process, the Government have made available short-term funding to the official receiver to cover the essential operating costs of NRS Healthcare and its affiliated companies. This funding has ensured that trading was able to continue for a limited time, to minimise disruption by providing crucial time for local authorities to put alternative supply in place. The use of this funding, should it be necessary, will be subject to robust scrutiny and governance by the Government and the insolvency office holders. The final cost to HM Government will be known when the insolvency process is complete. Costs will be reported in the DHSC annual report and accounts.
The Government have also provided the official receiver with a legal indemnity to protect them against financial loss or legal claims incurred while carrying out their duties. This indemnity is unlimited and will remain in place until the official receiver’s services are no longer required. The indemnity is a standard mechanism in high-risk or complex insolvencies where appointees are expected to act in the national interest without undue risk to the appointees. Crystallisation is expected to be limited.
Without the Government providing the above support, there was a risk that the official receiver would have had no choice but to close services immediately following their appointment, in line with their statutory duties. This could have had an immediate and significant impact on hospital flow and the safety of people in the community who relied on NRS Healthcare’s services.
These measures were therefore essential to enable the official receiver to discharge their duties for the benefits of creditors and protect public spending by avoiding additional hospital admissions or preventing discharge to care settings, while minimising risk to vulnerable people who previously relied on NRS Healthcare’s services. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure. The Treasury has approved this arrangement.
My officials in the Department of Health and Social Care are continuing to monitor the situation closely and will continue to do so until its conclusion.
We would like to acknowledge and thank all colleagues, particularly those in HMT, UKGI, MHCLG, NHS England, and Partners in Care and Health—a sector support programme funded by DHSC—for their efforts throughout this challenging period. Their support leading up to, and following the insolvency in brokering discussions, sharing vital information, and helping local authorities prepare and respond has been invaluable in minimising disruption and protecting those who rely on these essential services.
[HCWS896]
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThis Government aim to establish a neighbourhood health centre in every community by 2035. We are starting in areas of greatest need where healthy life expectancy is lowest, including rural towns and communities with higher deprivation levels. Planning work has already begun. The hon. Gentleman will know that I updated colleagues yesterday in a “dear colleague” letter around integrated care boards and local authorities being invited to apply to participate in the national neighbourhood health implementation programme.
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will have heard me put the case for Long Crendon many times over many years, and given the proposals for neighbourhood health centres in the 10-year plan, Long Crendon offers a very quick win. The community has the land, the planning permission and a GP practice willing to serve there; it just does not have the funds for the bricks and mortar to build it. Can I ask the Minister to meet me and the members of Long Crendon parish council who are leading on this, so that the Government can get a quick win on neighbourhood health centres?
The hon. Member is clearly a doughty campaigner—I am sure that will mean something good will happen for him in the reshuffle that we are all watching with bated breath. I am happy to have that discussion with him. As I said, the neighbourhood health process will be driven primarily by identifying areas where healthy life expectancy is lowest and deprivation is highest. Clearly, he makes a case for his area, and I would be happy to have that discussion with him.
Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Department is committed to finding new ways of tackling eating disorders through research. We are supporting research projects, including the eating disorders genetics initiative—one of the largest studies of its kind—and have a £4.25 million collaboration with other UK research funders to build new partnerships in eating disorder research. We are also strengthening support for people with eating disorders by recruiting more mental health workers, expanding mental health support in schools and embedding it in young futures hubs.
Eating disorders cost the UK an estimated £9 billion each year, yet research into these serious conditions receives just 1% of all mental health research funding. That is despite eating disorders affecting around 9% of people with mental health conditions, the consequences of which are delayed diagnosis and treatment and often lengthy hospital admissions. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the eating disorder charity Beat to discuss how the Government can break this cycle and ensure that eating disorder research receives the attention and investment that it urgently needs?
I know that this subject is close to my hon. Friend’s heart, and I pay tribute to him for his work on it. We recognise the devastating impact that an eating disorder can have, and the earlier the treatment is provided, the greater the chance of recovery. The Department continues to work closely with NHS England, which is now refreshing guidance on children and young people’s eating disorders. I commend the work of Beat, and I would be happy to discuss this further with my hon. Friend.
The eating disorder issue is escalating, as the Minister rightly points out. Will he agree to hold discussions and consultations with the devolved structures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, so this issue goes to the top of the list of issues that have not really been dealt with in the past but need dealing with now?
We remain in close contact with all our colleagues in all the devolved Administrations. I will certainly be following up with officials as we develop the research programmes that we are working on, and as we integrate eating disorders into the broader work we are doing around mental health. Getting 8,500 more mental health workers and creating Young Futures hubs and mental health crisis centres is just some of the work that this Government are doing on this important issue.
The right hon. Member’s constituents can access urgent eyecare services from Hull University teaching hospitals NHS trust 24 hours a day, seven days a week and from a range of high-street optical practices locally. Integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning primary and secondary eyecare services to meet local need. As part of our 10-year plan, we are keen to explore how we can make best use of our primary eyecare workforce as we consider shifting more healthcare into the community.
Would it was so. My constituent Scott Young, a 34-year-old father-to-be from Beverley, was left permanently blind in one eye after NHS failures, including a two-month delay to urgent surgery following a diabetic haemorrhage, which the trust now blames on admin mistakes. When the same issue threatened his remaining sight, identical delays occurred until I intervened. Yet the Hull University teaching hospitals NHS trust response contained factual errors, including claiming that a heart condition delayed surgery even though it had not been diagnosed when the delay occurred. Does the Minister agree that such failings demand accountability, and what steps can he take to improve the administrative processes within our hospitals?
I am very sorry to hear of Scott’s experience. What the right hon. Gentleman has outlined is clearly unacceptable. I will absolutely follow up on that issue with officials and report back to him. We cannot allow that sort of poor performance to exist, and those responsible must be held to account.
I commend my hon. Friend for bringing his personal experience to bear on this important matter. NHS England’s independent ADHD taskforce is looking at how to provide support for people with ADHD and how to improve it. We are considering the taskforce’s interim report and look forward to the final report later this year. The taskforce is joined up with expert groups established across Government to provide advice on meeting the needs of neurodivergent children and young people in education, and on boosting neurodiversity inclusion at work.
We have inherited a system that is utterly failing to meet the needs of children with special educational needs. This Government are reforming the SEND system, ensuring that there is joined-up support across education and healthcare. We are also supporting inclusive environments and earlier intervention for children through the early language support for every child programme, or ELSEC, and the partnership for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools programme, or PINS.
Eight years ago, Weybridge community hospital burned down. After a long journey, the replacement finally received planning consent last week; all it needs now is for the Secretary of State to sign the cheque on the dotted line. Will he do so as soon as possible?
Our 10-year plan will boost support for family carers via digital tools such as My Carer and include them in care planning and shared decision-making processes. We have raised the carer’s allowance earnings limit to £196 a week—the biggest increase since 1976—and we have launched the independent commission into adult social care, which will look at unpaid carers’ needs. The hon. Member raises an important point about respite care; I am chairing a cross-ministerial group on our carers strategy, and I would be happy to update him outside the Chamber.
Last autumn, there was not a single NHS dental practice in Derbyshire Dales accepting new adult patients other than those referred for specialist care. The lack of NHS dentistry has led many of my constituents to experience severe economic hardship, with one telling me he had to spend £100 to have a single tooth fixed and another spending £2,000 on dentures. Will the Government provide increased funding for NHS dentistry to ensure that more people in rural areas like Derbyshire Dales can access NHS dentists?
The mess we inherited from the previous Government beggars belief, with 14 million adults with an unmet dental need, while for children between five and nine years old, the most common reason for hospital admission was to have their rotten teeth removed. This Government are determined to get NHS dentistry back on its feet. We are targeting the areas most in need, including rural areas, by delivering 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments, and reforming the dental contract. Our consultation is under way, and I encourage my hon. Friend to participate.
I was really disappointed that there was not one mention of eating disorders in the NHS 10-year plan, which is particularly troubling given that some of the proposed measures to reduce obesity may inadvertently harm those affected by eating disorders. When will the Government finally commit to an eating disorder strategy, as recommended by the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group?
This Government are investing an extra £688 million this year to improve access to mental health services. We are transforming our mental health services with 24/7 neighbourhood health centres; I was very pleased last week to visit the centre we are launching in Bethnal Green. I would gently say to the hon. Lady that she is part of the political party that propped up the Tories in government—this lot opposite—which led to some of the desperate situations we see across mental health today.
Parkrun is a global public health phenomenon. Will the Minister meet me and the new Parkrun chief executive to talk about future collaboration?
Data published last week shows that despite the Government’s initial action, the proportion of dentists working in the NHS in Norfolk and Waveney continues to drop. I am pleased to hear about the Government’s work on the dental contract, but the Public Accounts Committee is clear that this will work only if it is backed by sustainable funding. I will give the Minister another chance to answer the question: will the Government ensure that the extra funding that has been put into the Department is actually reflected in extra funding for NHS dentistry?
One thing that I made clear to officials when I came into this post was that every penny that is allocated to NHS dentistry must be spent on NHS dentistry. We are in a crazy situation where demand for NHS dentistry is going through the roof, yet we have had underspends. That needs to stop. We will focus the spending on where it is most needed, including areas that are under-served, such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
My constituents Marie Brewis and Denise Coates are bravely using their own experience of breast cancer treatment to campaign for a dedicated cancer support centre in Luton. Does the Minister agree that Luton could benefit from the wraparound care of a cancer support centre locally, and will she meet me to discuss this?
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI 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.
Sir Christopher, is it your pleasure that amendment 1 be withdrawn?
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). It is a huge achievement for a colleague who has only served in this place for just over a year to have got a Bill this far. I thank hon. Members across the House who have spoken in the debate so powerfully and movingly, as well as all those who sat on the Bill Committee. We welcome effective scrutiny from Committees, and we value the vital role that Parliament plays in holding us to account. I pay tribute to the charities that are backing the Bill, many of which we are engaging with on the development of our national cancer plan.
The Government want to go further for everyone diagnosed with a rare cancer, and the Bill will act to incentivise the recruitment to, oversight of and accessibility of rare cancer research, so that NHS patients are at the front of the queue for cutting-edge treatments. We know the benefits of embedding clinical research across the NHS and beyond. It leads to better care for patients and more opportunities for our workforce, and it provides a huge economic benefit for our health and care system.
On 3 July, we published our 10-year health plan, which sets out the vision to distribute power to patients and revitalise our NHS, making it fit for the future. The plan will deliver three shifts in care to ensure that the health service can tackle the problems of today and tomorrow, all of which will be key to tackling cancer. Through the 10-year health plan we will ensure that patients receive the most cutting-edge treatment, and that everyone can search for research studies through the Be Part of Research service on the NHS app.
That is why we welcome the Bill, which is aligned with our commitments. It raises the profile of rare cancer research, ensures our international regulatory competitiveness, and allows rare cancer patients to be contacted as quickly as possible about research opportunities. That innovation will be delivered through Be Part of Research, our flagship research registry delivered through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which allows people from all walks of life to sign up and get involved in research across the UK. I urge everyone watching this debate, and Members in the Chamber who are interested, to sign up to Be Part of Research, and see what research opportunities are relevant to them.
The Government want to give all rare cancer patients access to clinical trials, and greater choice and control over their healthcare. That is why we are delighted to pledge Government support for the Bill. As we set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to ensuring that the clinical research ecosystem is more efficient, competitive and accessible, and the provisions in the Bill align with that. We want the UK to lead the world in this space as the prime destination for clinical research.
The Government also want to give patients greater choice and control over their healthcare, and rare cancer patients should have access to vital research if they choose to. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West for presenting the Bill, and those Members who served on the Committee. I pay tribute to all the charities that are backing this important Bill. The Government support the Bill, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to improve outcomes for rare cancer patients across our country.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate to raise awareness of glaucoma. I enjoyed our meeting some time ago, when we discussed this and other related issues at length. I am keen to ensure that we keep that dialogue going, and not just in this Chamber. This is a timely debate as it follows Glaucoma Awareness Week, which ran from 30 June to 6 July.
Losing one’s eyesight can be devastating, and I pay tribute to the charities that do so much to help people live with glaucoma or to research a cure, such as Glaucoma UK, the Glaucoma Foundation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, to name just a few.
Last week, the Prime Minister set out our plan to get the NHS back on its feet and fit for the future. Underpinning our plan are three big shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention. The plan was developed through extensive engagement with the public, patients and staff, including the eye care sector. All three shifts are relevant to preventing and managing conditions such as glaucoma in all parts of the country. More tests and scans delivered in the community, and better joint working between services, will support the management of conditions, including glaucoma, closer to home.
I turn to glaucoma detection. This Government take glaucoma very seriously, as it is one of the main causes of sight loss. It is a time-sensitive condition, and early detection and treatment can help to slow down or prevent vision loss. I acknowledge the vital role played by community optometry in protecting people’s eye health across the country. That includes the hon. Member for Leicester South, who of course is an optometrist and has significant expertise in this sector. I also pay tribute to all the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate with such passion and conviction.
Sight tests play a vital role in the early detection of glaucoma. Most glaucoma patients are identified through routine sight tests. It is not possible to “feel” glaucoma; it does not cause any symptoms and the eye pressure does not always cause pain. That is why regular sight tests are so essential, so that conditions such as glaucoma can be diagnosed and treated as early as possible.
It is recommended that everyone should have a sight test every two years, and more often if it is considered clinically necessary. The NHS invests over £600 million annually in the provision of sight tests and optical vouchers, and high street opticians deliver more than 13 million NHS sight tests annually, which are free of charge for eligible patients. NHS sight tests are widely available across the country for millions of people and those who are entitled to receive them include children, individuals over the age of 60, individuals on income-related benefits and individuals diagnosed with glaucoma or considered to be at risk of glaucoma.
We understand that some people might not prioritise sight tests, compared with other healthcare, or they might not know that sight tests are recommended every two years. That is why we always look for opportunities to remind the public through social media. I was pleased that the Department supported Glaucoma Awareness Week and highlighted the importance of regular sight tests through our social media platform last week. I will also take this opportunity to urge anyone who might be watching or reading this debate, “Visit your optician if you have not had a sight test in the last two years. Please check on the NHS website to see whether you are eligible for any help in paying for a test.” NHS sight test providers in the high street also display information about NHS sight test eligibility.
Some high street optical practices are also being commissioned by integrated care boards to provide glaucoma referral refinement services. Moving more care into the community is one of the key priorities in our 10-year plan; we want to see care happening as locally as possible for patients. Where a patient has been identified as having raised eye pressure, local glaucoma referral refinement schemes provide additional tests to confirm whether a referral into secondary care is absolutely necessary. These schemes can save patients time and worry, and reduce unnecessary referrals, while freeing up space for others who need specialist attention in hospital. More than 70% of ICBs currently have some coverage of referral refinement in place.
For those patients who do need to be seen in secondary care, it is vital that they have access to timely diagnosis and any clinically necessary treatment. We have wasted no time in getting to work on cutting NHS waiting lists and ensuring that people have the best possible experience during their care. We promised change and we have delivered early, with a reduction in the list of over 230,000 pathways, including ophthalmology. The waiting list has been reduced by over 24,000 patients since July 2024; it has fallen from 606,819 to 582,385 as of February 2025. In addition, we have exceeded our pledge to deliver an additional 2 million operations, scans and appointments, having now delivered over 4 million additional appointments.
The Minister will probably be aware of the Full Fact and Sky News report that examined the speed at which appointments are being delivered. The Government have indeed delivered 4 million appointments, but under the last Conservative Government there were 5 million appointments within a similar time period, so we are actually seeing a slowdown in appointments. How will that affect people with eye conditions or other health conditions?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In our manifesto, we of course set a target of 2 million additional appointments within the first year of a Labour Government, and we have delivered 4 million. The key thing is to ensure that we get people off the waiting list. Regarding the figure of 5 million that he referred to, I do not know whether there was more activity, but somehow it was not helping to reduce the waiting lists, because we saw the waiting lists rise consistently. The key metric is, of course, the waiting list being reduced, and I am very pleased to say that, when it comes to eyecare, a reduction of 24,000 patients has been delivered since July 2024.
That marks a vital first step to delivering on the commitment that 92% of patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment, in line with the NHS constitutional standard, by March 2029.
In addition to making progress on reducing waiting lists, we recognise the challenges facing ophthalmology services as one of the largest out-patient specialities in the NHS, and demand is set only to increase due to the ageing population. NHS England has worked with 11 ICBs to test a new way of delivering eyecare that aims to reduce pressure on hospital eye services.
The new model is emblematic of our shift from analogue to digital, as it uses IT connectivity between primary and secondary care services to improve the referral and triage of patients, with patient data and images being assessed by clinicians to determine whether patients need a secondary care appointment. It is called the single point of access approach. The SPOA approach reduces unnecessary hospital appointments, reduces the time from referral to treatment and allows more patients to be managed in the community. The ICBs testing the SPOA model have consistently demonstrated a reduction in unnecessary secondary care appointments and a significant reduction in wait times, both in time to treatment and to follow-up care. NHS England is continuing to share the learning from the accelerator sites for the SPOA with ICBs.
I want to see more ICBs adopting that approach for the benefit of patients, including those with suspected or diagnosed glaucoma. I believe that the SPOA has tremendous unharnessed potential and is a great example of how, by harnessing technology, we can improve the way the overall system works and facilitate the interface between primary and secondary care that we know is at the heart of so many of the challenges that we face across our health and care system.
Looking at the shift from sickness to prevention, although glaucoma cannot be cured, if it is caught early, treatment can prevent sight loss. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence plays a crucial role in evaluating new medicines, medical devices and other technologies to determine their clinical and cost-effectiveness before recommending them for NHS use. NICE has published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. It has also published guidance on interventional procedures that provide recommendations on whether glaucoma-related procedures are safe and effective enough for wider use in the NHS.
A number of treatments are available for glaucoma, including eye drops, laser treatment or surgery, aiming to lower eye pressure and prevent or slow down optic nerve damage to reduce the risk of sight loss. Although there are treatments for glaucoma, it is a lifelong condition that requires regular monitoring. Historically, that has taken place in hospital but, in line with our aim to move more care from hospital to the community, there is no reason why, when clinically appropriate, that activity could not be undertaken outside of hospital. We know that some ICBs are already commissioning glaucoma monitoring in the community.
We must also recognise that, if diagnosed late, glaucoma can sadly lead to irreversible sight loss. The hon. Member for Leicester South spoke passionately from clinical experience about the significant impact that sight loss can have on an individual. Emotional support is therefore vital. There are various resources that aim to improve the support, including mental health support, available to patients through their sight loss journey. That includes NHS England’s patient support toolkit for commissioners and providers and the RNIB’s 2023 patient support pathway. Those sit alongside talking therapies and psychological therapies, which are widely available and to which patients can refer themselves directly. We are also taking steps to update the form for certificates of visual impairment to improve the signposting of patients to local support services.
Finally, I recognise the potential for research and innovation to help us to understand sight loss and to develop new treatments, including for glaucoma. The Department for Health and Social Care funds eyecare research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. NIHR infrastructure funding provides investment in research expertise, specialist facilities, a research workforce and services that help to support and deliver research studies through a range of clinical areas, including eyecare research. That includes the NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, which received funding of almost £22 million for five years from 1 December 2022, and is solely dedicated to eyecare research. The Moorfields BRC has been key in advancing research through a range of studies and clinical innovations in the glaucoma field. One of its flagship projects is a large-scale trial investigating the use of vitamin B3 to slow the progression of glaucoma. Recruitment for that study is ongoing at multiple sites across England.
As I have set out, the Government take glaucoma extremely seriously. Community optometry continues to play a vital role in preventing glaucoma. We are committed to improving eyecare services and patient outcomes, to reducing avoidable sight loss and, in particular, to harnessing the power of technology to drive those improvements forward. I also hope that this debate has further helped to raise awareness and may prompt a few more sight tests as a result. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South on securing this important debate.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsAs set out in the 10-year health plan, the Government are launching a public consultation on a package of reforms to improve the current NHS dental contract, representing the next step towards delivering a dentistry service fit for the future.
Satisfaction with NHS dentistry has fallen to a record low, from 85% in 2019 to 69% in 2024 and the British Dental Association estimates that 13 million adults—over 1 in 4—are struggling to find NHS care. Poor oral health can have a devastating impact on individuals, yet is largely preventable. We inherited a broken NHS dental system, and we are committed to fixing it, so we can deliver more care to those who need it.
Our plan to stabilise NHS dentistry is already under way. From April 2025, integrated care boards started making available the 700,000 additional urgent dental appointments that we promised in our manifesto. As set out in the 10-year health plan, training a dentist costs the taxpayer up to £200,000 and we believe it is fair to expect graduate dentists to invest their skills and expertise in the NHS in return. Having consulted on the principle, we will now make it a requirement for all newly qualified dentists to practice in the NHS for a minimum period. We intend this minimum period to be at least three years. That will mean more NHS dentists, more NHS appointments and better oral health.
We are today launching a public consultation, running until 19 August 2025, on a package of reforms to improve the current NHS dental contract and improve the experience of NHS dentistry for patients. From 2026-27 the proposals are intended to:
Make it easier for those who need dental care and treatment to get it by requiring all practices to provide an agreed amount of urgent and unscheduled care which is accessible to all who need it, irrespective of whether they have been to the practice before.
Deliver improvements in the clinical care and treatment received by people with complex care needs. We will do this by introducing new care pathways which integrate prevention and treatment, with fairer payment arrangements for the professionals treating them, and without fear of excessive charges for patients.
Deliver improvements in preventive oral care for children, including through the promotion of fluoride varnish treatment.
Reduce the number of people in good oral health being recalled to the dentist too frequently and the costs to patients associated with that. Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence states that people with healthy teeth and gums should be seen every 12 to 24 months. Making this a reality will enable practices to provide better care to those patients who are most in need.
Make dental staff feel valued members of the wider NHS and able to focus on quality of care. We will do this by developing minimum terms of engagement for dental associates, supporting performance evaluation through appraisals, and extending eligibility for discretionary support payments.
This consultation is an important step towards the fundamental reform to the dental contract that we committed to in our manifesto, for which the process will begin this year. We want a contract that matches resources to need, improves access, promotes prevention and rewards dentists fairly, while enabling the whole dental team to work to the top of their capability.
We will also deliver a step change in prevention, which is key to good oral health.
On 7 March 2025, we announced £11.4 million to implement the manifesto commitment for a national, targeted supervised toothbrushing scheme for three to five-year-olds. In addition to this investment, we have secured an innovative partnership with Colgate, which has generously committed to donate over 23 million toothbrushes and toothpastes over the next five years. Together we will reach up to 600,000 children, with the first donations being made before the school holidays.
Following public consultation, we also announced the expansion of community water fluoridation across the north-east of England, which will reach an additional 1.6 million people.
Taken together, these reforms represent vital steps in our plan to build an NHS dental service fit for the future.
[HCWS794]