Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
House of Commons · Public Bill Committees · 9 Jul 2026 · 171 speeches · Official Report
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: Sir Roger Gale, Dr Rupa Huq, † Emma Lewell, Sir Jeremy Wright
† Argar, Edward (Melton and Syston) (Con)
Brackenridge, Sureena (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
† Chambers, Dr Danny (Winchester) (LD)
Daby, Janet (Lewisham East) (Lab)
† Foody, Emma (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
† Irons, Natasha (Croydon East) (Lab)
† Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
† Joseph, Sojan (Ashford) (Lab)
† Kyrke-Smith, Laura (Aylesbury) (Lab)
† Morgan, Helen (North Shropshire) (LD)
† Prinsley, Dr Peter (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
† Robertson, Dave (Lichfield) (Lab)
† Robertson, Joe (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
† Smyth, Karin (Minister for Secondary Care)
† Stafford, Gregory (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
† Twist, Liz (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
White, Jo (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Sanjana Balakrishnan, Rob Cope, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Thursday 9 July 2026
(Afternoon)
[Emma Lewell in the Chair ]
Health Bill
New Clause 12
Corridor Care Accountability
“(1) Six months after the passage of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report on the prevalence of corridor care in NHS hospitals.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include-
(a) an analysis of data on the number of corridor incidents at the national, integrated care board, trust, and hospital level,
(b) the steps the Secretary of State has taken that year to reduce the number of corridor care incidents,
(c) the Secretary of State’s plans to reduce the number of corridor care incidents in the coming year, and
(d) information regarding the amount of funding directed toward reducing the number of corridor care incidents that year and funding allocated for such efforts in the future.
(3) Following the publication of a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must give evidence in front of a panel (to be called the ‘Corridor Care Tribunal’) including-
(a) patients,
(b) bereaved or affected families, and
(c) frontline NHS staff who have been impacted by corridor care.
(4) Panel members for a Corridor Care Tribunal under subsection (3) shall be identified by local Healthwatch organisations and NHS Royal Colleges.”- (Helen Morgan.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about corridor care and give evidence before a panel of affected patients and staff.
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question again proposed.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: New clause 56- Accident and Emergency: waiting times - “(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision relating to Accident and Emergency Department admission. (2) Provision under subsection (1) must include the requirement for every patient to be admitted into an Accident and Emergency Department within 12 hours of approval of their admission being made. (3) The Secretary of State must establish and implement an Accident and Emergency Scheme (‘the Scheme’) to support NHS hospital trusts to achieve the requirement set out in subsection (2). (4) The Scheme must consider- (a) creating safety-net social care beds, (b) increasing step-down care, (c) publishing a dedicated accident and emergency care workforce plan, and (d) mandating a qualified clinician is present in every Accident and Emergency waiting room. (5) The Secretary of State must have due regard to the final report of the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care in establishing the scheme.” This new clause gives patients a legal right to be admitted into A&E within 12 hours from decision to admit and requires the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to achieve this. New clause 84- Publication of data on avoidable deaths - “(1) The Secretary of State must publish every quarter the number of avoidable deaths where waits of more than 12 hours in accident and emergency...
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak first to new clause 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I reconfirm the Government’s focus on reducing long waits by improving patient flow, increasing productivity and delivering better emergency care for patients. Last night in the Chamber, we had a good discussion about corridor care in particular; all our comments are on the record, so I will not delay the Committee by repeating everything, but I will take some time to answer the questions raised in Committee this morning. We are clear that the Government will end corridor care in this Parliament. It is completely unacceptable. Longer waits for emergency care can be associated with poorer patient outcomes. That is why, through the urgent and emergency care plan in 2025-26, we are investing more than £450 million to expand urgent and emergency care capacity, including new same-day emergency care services, urgent treatment centres, additional mental health crisis provision and nearly 1,000 replacement ambulances. Alongside that, we are implementing new clinical standards and improving patient flow across hospitals, all to reduce the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours.
I was pleased to take part in the debate in the Chamber yesterday. I raised some examples from my local hospital, which is expanding its same-day emergency care because of the funding that we received from the Labour Government. We also have a safe haven for mental health patients who do not need to go into accident and emergency. Lots of work is happening in my local hospital area, which will make a big improvement to corridor care and wider emergency care pressures. Does the Minister agree that that is what we need to do, and that the Labour Government are doing it?
My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner. His health community has a lot of problems, as he well knows, but he is always there first, challenging me about the challenges in his healthcare system. He ensures that the people of Ashford are duly represented. He is absolutely right that what will make a difference to patients is improvement on the ground. I do not minimise how far there is to go, but I think patients are already starting to feel that improvement. In the debate last night, we heard about some great work that is happening. We heard from, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford; from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), who talked about the challenged system and the challenged hospital in Blackburn, and the real improvements there; from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine); and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, who talked about progress in West Suffolk. That is really encouraging to see. Earlier in the debate, statistics in the public domain were raised by, I think, the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others on deaths due to long waits and so on. That is a completely unacceptable situation, but I want to put it on the record that those statistics are not Government statistics. We had a bit of a debate about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket highlighted how one can attribute cause of death to certain provisions. It is a really...
I will speak briefly to new clauses 12 and 56, about which we had quite a long debate this morning. Let me respond to a couple of questions. The shadow Minister asked about the role of Healthwatch in selecting the panel that would interrogate the Secretary of State, as we envisage in new clause 12, given that Healthwatch will be abolished by the Bill. She also asked about new clause 56, which would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to Baroness Casey’s final report. The shadow Minister said that those things are essentially inconsistent, but, considered as a suite of amendments, the provisions we have tabled are consistent. We oppose the abolition of Healthwatch; had that been successful, Healthwatch would still be there. We have also tabled new clause 60, which we will get to later and which would require Baroness Casey’s commission to report much more quickly. That is why that apparent inconsistency exists; I hope I have sorted that out for the shadow Minister. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, a former Minister, talked about capacity in the system as a whole and its impact on corridor care. His concern was that if we focus on corridor care, we will end up with more people being treated in ambulances, have longer ambulance handover times and very long ambulance wait times. He will know, having been the responding Minister to my first Adjournment debate, that ambulance wait times have been a significant problem where I live. I am pleased to say...
Although it is true that hospital management could concentrate on dealing with the waits in A&E, surely it needs to concentrate on the flow through the entire hospital. Every department and everybody involved in the hospital has to be thinking all the time about the flow through the entire hospital. That involves having a pharmacy that is open at night and ensuring that social workers are there when they need to be-it involves all manner of things. Simply concentrating on a particular statistic in an A&E department will not actually deal with the problem.
I think our new clause addresses that point. As I mentioned, my own hospital trust, Shrewsbury and Telford, has improved ambulance wait times simply by improving the flow through the hospital and addressing some of the issues. I recognise that our new clause does not deal with pharmacy availability at weekends and overnight, which I know is a critical issue in many hospitals; on Report, we will certainly tidy it up to ensure that it does, but I take the hon. Member’s point. My new clause would address the system-wide capacity issue that the hon. Member highlighted so carefully, both in last night’s debate and here today. We need more capacity across the whole system. Otherwise, we are just trying to push a lump in the carpet to a different place, but there will always be a lump somewhere. The new clause seeks to provide 6,000 more beds across the whole system, to allow flow through the system and to ensure that waits do not back up in the ambulance service, on corridors in A&E or outside wards, as they do currently. Critically, we should address the point about NHS pledges and rights. The constitution is broadly agnostic about the time people wait on corridors, but is not agnostic about the time it will take for them to get cancer treatment. That is an inconsistency and we should sort it out, because I think our constituents consider the two things equally important. I take the Minister’s point about new clause 12. I will not push it to a vote, but although trusts are held...
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 79- Public Health Committee - “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Public Health Committee within six months of the passage of this Act to ensure a cross-governmental focus and consideration of the promotion of public health in government policy and address national health inequalities. (2) The Public Health Committee under subsection (1) must- (a) include at least one minister from each government Department in its membership, (b) include all cabinet ministers in its membership, (c) be chaired by the Prime Minister, and (d) meet once in each annual quarter. (3) Under subsection 2(b), cabinet members must attend at least three quarters of the Public Health Committee's meetings each year. (4) Each government Department must publish an annual report on their department's consideration of public health in its policy and the extent of joint policy formulation with other government Departments. (5) The Secretary of State must establish a Health Creation Unit to support the Public Health Committee. (6) The Health Creation Unit must submit an annual report on its activities, decision-making and cross-government progress to the Liaison Committee.” This new clause would establish a Public Health Committee and Health Creation Unit to promote public health and cross-government policy making. New clause 80- Duty to promote public health - “All Ministers of the Crown have a duty to consider health outcomes and...
New clause 14 is about healthy life expectancy. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in Great Britain and publish a strategy every two years, setting out how the target would be achieved. New clause 79 would establish a public health committee and health creation unit to promote public health and cross-Government policymaking. New clause 80 would place a duty on all Ministers to consider health outcomes and the promotion of public health when exercising their duties. All three new clauses are closely related. Over the last 100 years, life expectancy in the UK has been increasing for a variety of reasons, including vaccination, improved hygiene and medical advances, but worryingly, between 2022 and 2024, it decreased by 1.8 years for men and 2.5 years for women. That is the first time it has decreased in a while. There is an 11.1-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies, which is partly due to demographics and different socioeconomic situations. Socioeconomic disparity is causing a very significant difference in life expectancy. We need wider whole-of-Government working to address the root cause of and contributing factors to ill health. DHSC, the NHS and social care deal with too much in silos, which is a problem across the whole of Government. There is too much siloed working. All Departments should be working with at least one eye on the health of the nation. That is what...
Would the hon. Member comment on what I consider to be almost the most successful and important Bill that our new Government have passed, on the effective abolition of cigarette smoking? As time goes by, that will save more lives than anything else we could possibly think of. I recognise that it was the initiative of the previous Government, but the fact that the new Government have managed to get it over the line is a massive achievement. That is very much underappreciated and certainly not spoken about anything like enough. We will never do anything as important as the abolition of cigarette smoking.
Yes, I sat on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee for six weeks, going through the legislation line by line. One of the most interesting things about that Bill is not only that it will improve public health and life expectancy, but that it is probably one of the single most impactful pieces of legislation in terms of improving inequality and especially socioeconomic health outcomes. So many of the disparities in life expectancy between wealthy people and those living in relative poverty are due to levels of smoking-it is not just smoking, but that is a significant factor. It is good of the hon. Gentleman to highlight that. During the coalition, the Tories recognised that the approach I described would send a powerful message that public health is the responsibility of all Government Departments. When it was scrapped, the then shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), said that we could tackle Britain’s looming obesity crisis only if all Government Departments pulled together. We completely agree with that statement. New clause 79 tries to address some of the issues that occurred back then, including by placing requirements on ministerial attendance and giving the Liaison Committee oversight to drive accountability. I am sure the Minister will agree that greater cross-Government working is needed. What are the Department’s plans to support that? If we want to tackle the various public health crises facing our country, we cannot do so...
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I strongly believe that public health is very important to our health system because it focuses on prevention, so that people do not end up in A&E or in hospital beds. Unfortunately, over the last 10 or 15 years we have seen the opposite. If we are serious about improving the nation’s health, prevention must sit at the heart of every decision we make. Public health professionals bring a vital perspective-one that looks beyond treating illness to understanding and tackling its root causes. They consider the wider determinants of health, from housing and education to inequality and the environment, and they help us design services that keep people well, rather than responding only when they become unwell. We need to identify our priorities, ensure resources are allocated appropriately and develop a long-term strategy. New clause 79 proposes to create a new committee. As somebody who worked in the NHS for many years, I have seen that there is no shortage of committees, senior leaders, management or meetings in our healthcare system. In fact, there are too many. What is missing are people to work on the frontline; that is what we saw over the 14 years under the Conservatives-and the Lib Dems were part of that. One reason why I became active in politics was that I saw the frontline struggling. I worked as a nurse on the frontline in mental health services, and what we saw was money being diverted to create more senior leadership,...
My hon. Friend is making powerful comments. I was struck by his argument that we need to focus more on what we do in communities. In Croydon East, a community diagnostic centre has opened, which is important because people in my community have a healthy life expectancy 10 years lower than that of people living a mile down the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be focusing on those real, tangible interventions at the heart of the communities that need help the most? That is what this Government are trying to do.
I absolutely agree, and I can give an example. Last week, as part of the ICB’s new independent neighbourhood health centre, one of the GP practices in my constituency started to proactively go and see all elderly patients. It is not just giving those patients appointments when they fall ill; it is proactively visiting them. We need that kind of support so that we can prevent illnesses and prevent people from needing to go to hospital.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the physical aspects of health and extending life expectancy, we need to look at preventive measures for mental health? That will ensure that people live as good and full a life as they can, and receive the treatment they need. Does my hon. Friend see that as integral to any public health strategy?
My hon. Friend makes a sensible comment. I work closely with her on mental health, and she is absolutely right. Some of the policies the Government have introduced, such as giving children early access to mental health provision, will be absolutely vital to prevent them from becoming unwell later on. The Government are also rolling out a new mental health strategy focused on prevention, which will be important. We need to be more lean and productive, rather than creating more managers and committees.
The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware of the King’s Fund report from late last year, which covers the years 2010 to 2025. It highlighted that the growth rate was only 5% for managers during those 15 years, but 94% for children’s nurses and 55% for doctors, and other groups had similar increases. We are seeing investment and workforce increases in the right areas. It is right that we acknowledge, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman will, that the one group where we have not seen that same growth is community health visitors and community health workers. Alongside the massive investment and increase in doctors in the past 15 years, that group, and the role it plays, deserves focus from whichever party is in government.
I agree. We need more band 5 nurses or healthcare assistants who can check blood pressure or blood sugar in patients’ homes. When someone rings their GP surgery, they should be able to meet a nurse or a healthcare worker to carry out some basic checks, rather than being delayed from seeing somebody until, a few weeks, months or a year later, they end up in A&E. That is where the focus should be. I do not support the new clauses, and I urge the Committee to think about some of the other new clauses that propose creating more directors or committees. We need to focus on making our health system more productive.
I rise to speak to new clauses 14, 79 and 80, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to establish a statutory target for healthy life expectancy in England and then to produce a strategy every two years to meet that target. This is not the first time the House has heard about life expectancy targets; as I am sure you will remember, Ms Lewell, the previous Government’s 2022 levelling-up White Paper talked about narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy between the areas where it is highest and lowest, and aimed for healthy life expectancy to rise. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, life expectancy has increased quite dramatically over the last century, but that is largely due to improvements in child mortality. That is a good thing, but it is worth looking at how healthy life expectancy is calculated. The Sullivan method starts by looking at mortality rates over a specific timeframe for a specific population, and then takes data from a cross-sectional study where people are asked to rate their own health, multiplies them together and produces a figure for healthy life years. Therefore, the main element that separates healthy life expectancy from unhealthy life expectancy is survey responses; it is not a clinical metric. If somebody on a huge amount of medication and treatment feels healthy, they are healthy. If someone on very minor treatment feels unhealthy, they are unhealthy. It is a self-reported...
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I will speak briefly on new clauses 79 and 80. I really like the intent of these new clauses, and the idea of Government working better and more together, public health being more of an agenda, and trying to get people working together in that framework. I am pretty sure that every Member in the House would support that. I do, however, have some serious concerns about the wording. New clause 79 proposes a new committee, whose membership would include at least one Minister from each Department and all Cabinet Ministers-I presume that that is in addition, so it would be all Cabinet members plus one other Minister from each Department, which makes it seem like quite an unwieldy committee. There comes a point when a committee, if it has 70 people in it, ceases to be a committee, particularly when it will also need to be chaired, have clerks and have various people in the room. I have concerns about its size. I also have concerns about the frequency with which it would meet, and the requirement that every single Cabinet Minister must attend a minimum of three times a year, which is the implication of the wording.
Public health used to be clearly under the aegis of the national health service. Some years ago, public health officers became employees of the local authorities, and the thing became somewhat separated from the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must join public health more closely to the activities of the national health service? Public health was at the very foundations of the national health service. I do not know whether other Members have, like me, read A. J. Cronin’s famous book, “The Citadel”, which describes the health service’s origins; in fact, I understand it was the book that the original politicians had all read. It has a marvellous description of a typhus epidemic, caused by an infected drain running down the middle of a street in a little Welsh mining village. The doctors had been completely unable to get any of the authorities to deal with it, so one night-they were ex-military-they put a little dynamite in the drain and blew the whole thing up. That is well described in the book, and it just shows how public health was absolutely integrated into the foundational principles of the national health service.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the centrality of public health to the founding of the NHS. Earlier in Committee, I said that the NHS was the greatest gift the Labour party had ever given the country, and I fundamentally believe that. He is absolutely right to mention the centrality of public health in that process. I also thank him for his recommendation of a book to read over recess-that is always a pleasure. To return to new clause 79, I want to focus on what we are asking when we say that all Cabinet members have to attend this new committee. That would include the Secretary of State for Defence, and although I understand cross-Government working and the need for Departments to work more closely together, I am scratching my head over what actions we expect the Secretary of State for Defence to take to support public health, and especially over the fact that they will be required to attend this committee a minimum of three times a year with, in my reading of the wording, another Defence Minister.
I pay tribute to the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. It does good work in trying to eradicate rabies in countries with street dogs, as part of hearts-and-minds engagement. We can work public health into pretty much any Department.
I absolutely join the hon. Member in thanking those service personnel who do so much good around the world, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask the Secretary of State for Defence to focus on public health. It is absolutely right that the Defence Department could do things, but does the Secretary of State need to be so centrally involved in this committee that they will have to attend three times a year, in addition to another Minister, who will have to attend a minimum of four times a year? Yes, a variety of Departments would be able to do that.
Just to blow my own trumpet, my greatest academic achievement was getting correspondence published in Nature on the impact of conflict on antimicrobial resistance. It might interest Members to know that, in Ukraine, 80% of wounds have novel bacteria that are displaying multi-drug resistance, which has become a limiting factor in getting soldiers back on to the frontline. We are trying to reframe issues such as antimicrobial resistance as national security and defence issues, rather than purely public health issues.
I very much appreciate that intervention, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting published in a very important journal. I am not in any way saying that the Secretary of State should not have any regard- [ Interruption. ] Now that he has made a joke, I want to say that I think he looks like a trombonist, rather than a trumpeter. There is a very important point to draw out here. Although Departments can think about the public health impacts of the work that they undertake-I am sure many Ministers will do so-I am not sure there needs to be such a requirement to focus on public health for the Ministry of Defence, which obviously has a very significant, serious role. New clause 80 would require all Ministers to have regard to public health. I really appreciate and value that-I think this is a good debate for us to have-but if the Minister for investment has managed to secure an investor to save a large business that is essential to the economy of an area, do I want them to be held up by having to demonstrate that the investment will ensure public health? I am not sure I do. A lot of decisions have to be made very quickly. I am not going to go through a long list of Ministers; we would all be here until next week. I just think the wording of the new clause is too broad, and I am not sure I can support it in its current form because it would place too much of a requirement on too many Departments to focus too much on areas that are not their core responsibilities.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I find myself unequal to the level of analysis and detail that the hon. Member for Lichfield brought to public health in the Ministry of Defence. I will add just a few brief thoughts. The good intention of extending the life expectancy of the people in this country-although my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made the good point that it is about living well, not just for a long time-is not always best served by creating committees, and additional duties, reports and responsibilities in legislation. The hon. Member for Winchester argued-I paraphrase, but it is a matter of record-that he would like all Departments to have an eye on the health of the nation. That sounds sensible. There are other things that I would hope all Ministers have an eye on in everything they do, such as the wealth of the nation and inequality, but I would not advocate for embedding those things-I hope they would come with good governance, public duty and responsibility-in legislation as a duty, a committee, a set of meetings and a report. Indeed, it is things done with good intentions that lead to growing bureaucracy, which slows down decision making and requires more people to be employed to discharge those duties at a growing cost to the public purse. It is something that western democracies do all too well, and not always for the good. I would not want this well-intended set of new clauses to lead to growing bureaucracy...
I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this discussion to the Committee. The Government are clearly committed to enabling people to live longer. It is one of the successes of recent years that, at the foundation of the health service, the average life expectancy was I think 60 or 62, while, now, it is in the early to mid-80s. That is a massive change in the last 80 years or so. As well as improving the healthy life expectancy of the population, we are determined to address the stark inequalities that blight our nation’s health. We know that the most disadvantaged in society often face the biggest health challenges, and that the current model of care works least well for those who already experience disadvantage, who are also far more likely to have complex needs. In fact, my own entry into working for the NHS, back in the 1990s, was on the back of the 1980 Black report, which some Members might remember well. The then Conservative Government sat on that for ages; it was such an awful reflection on the first 35 years of the health service, that health inequalities had not improved, that they sought not to publish it. That struck me as so shocking that it led me to want to pursue a life doing something about it. I see that in my own constituency, where the legacy of the tobacco industry-which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned-has led to a very high prevalence of smoking-related disease. In some parts of my constituency, that is up to...
I would point to examples such as in the north-east of England, where the work on smoking has been incredibly effective and still continues, and makes that real shift and change. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is those practical examples that we need to see, and to support along the way?
I thank my hon. Friend for that point about prevalence in the north-east. Often, the prevalence of these diseases is also to do with post-industrial work, which many people had to do without concern or knowledge about the effects on their health. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East mentioned practical examples as well: the opening and building of things such as community diagnostic centres in places that are accessible and open to the public, and neighbourhood health. That is entirely the drive that we have: for services where people are, and where the greatest health need is, and not expecting people to travel. In terms of smoking, one of the greatest legacies of the last Labour Government was of course the ban on indoor smoking. My mother was a barmaid for all her adult life; it is hard to imagine that people were just standing there at her place of work, blowing smoke at her while she was working. I tell my children, “Yes, we used to sit on aeroplanes with people smoking,” and that, unbelievably, some people smoked at the back of buses on the way back from school, and so on and so forth. It is really quite shocking. The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which we have also talked about in this Committee, is also a real testament to the work of this House, but didn’t it take a long time, Ms Lewell? I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for pursuing that in the face of great adversity from his own party at the time. That was...
The Minister is very, very aware of my views and opinions on the Tobacco and Vapes Act, particularly on vaping and stopping vaping among children. That Act, a bit like this Bill, left lots of opportunities for the Government to provide for regulations. Anyone who has been in a shop in the past few days will have seen vapes still behind the counter, still very visible, very colourful and in lots of different flavours and suchlike. Can the Minister update the Committee, and therefore the House, on when she expects the regulations provided for by the Tobacco and Vapes Act to come into force, so that we can actually apply the law, as opposed to just having it sat on the statute book?
Well, I thank the hon. Member for her support. As I said, I did not expect that people here present, who understand the impact of that work, were the ones who were thwarting that. I do not have off the top of my head exactly when the regulations under that Act will come forward, but I am sure we can furnish the hon. Member with details as soon as possible. We all want to see that happening-in particular, the work going on around high streets, such as prevention of fraud by shops for all sorts of things, not just vapes. Obviously, that is high on the agenda, as it is for some of my colleagues as well. Those places and people are blighting our high streets.
I sit on the Home Affairs Committee, and we have lately been discussing the matter of serious organised crime, and vape shops in particular. It turns out that many of the vape shops are in fact not really shops; they are places for laundering money. Specifically, they launder money in relation to drug businesses and the drug trade, which is another huge public health matter that I am sure the Minister will agree needs to be dealt with. We were informed that about 10% of this country’s adult population are using illicit drugs, and that for the most part those are being delivered via the post office. Does the Minister agree that that is a massive public health issue that will also need to be urgently addressed?
I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise and that work on the Home Affairs Committee. Again, it shows the Committee the wide range of work that goes on. Of course, many hon. Members are campaigning and working hard. Those shops are blights on our communities, and as with most illicit drug dealing, they affect the most vulnerable in places where they can pick on the most vulnerable. They are in areas of high deprivation, and that is something we need to stop. I commend all the communities and community leaders that work so hard to stop that happening in their areas. We must address it. Returning to new clause 14, while I fully recognise and share the ambition that sits behind the new clause, introducing a new statutory duty is not the right way to achieve it. A healthy life expectancy is a long-term outcome shaped by a wide range of factors across society and Government, many of which cannot be meaningfully addressed through a rigid statutory timetable. Requiring the Secretary of State to set a statutory target within six months, publish a refreshed cross-Government strategy every two years and make formal statements to Parliament risks creating a process-heavy framework that prioritises reporting over delivery. What matters most is sustained practical action to improve prevention, tackle health inequalities, expand access to care and address those wider determinants of health. That is why the Government have already published our 10-year health plan to improve the nation’s...
I understood that one of the Government’s greatest priorities was to reduce waiting lists, but one of the things that people are waiting for the most is musculoskeletal or orthopaedic treatment. Why is it not a priority for the Government?
There is a long priority list for MSFs that was left by the last Government for different reasons. There are lots of things will bring down MSK waiting lists, such as more diagnostic facilities. As the shadow Minister knows, 80% of people on the waiting list are waiting for diagnostics, which is why we are fast-tracking and pushing more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East said, community diagnostic centres in places such as Croydon East will get people through for the diagnostics they need. There are also some things that the shadow Minister’s party seems to continue to oppose, such as advice and guidance for GPs so that, if there are alternatives to deal with MSK, of which there is already a lot of evidence, they can refer people to a more appropriate or faster access route in the meantime. Those actions are being taken. She is quite right that orthopaedics is a large part of the waiting list. However, diagnostics, access to faster treatment and using the independent sector where appropriate will particularly target orthopaedic waiting lists as part of our elective reform plan.
I am not opposed to the principle of GPs seeking advice or guidance; the issue is the compulsory nature of that and GPs not being able to refer.
The shadow Minister is tempting me to divert away from addressing the main point, but I will take her point on board. I am glad that the Conservatives do not oppose the principle of advice and guidance, because evidence suggests that it is a good route to patients having care closer to home and getting faster treatment. She knows this because it has been clarified, but if there is any doubt: there is no compulsion on GPs to do that. The hon. Member for Winchester talked about his expertise and blowing his own trumpet with regard to antimicrobial resistance. He jests slightly about that expertise, but he raises a really important point about AMR that I am sure we will talk about more when we discuss new clause 32. He is absolutely right that it is an important public health issue that crosses many divides, and I look forward to discussing that later.
I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion. The hon. Member for Lichfield made the good point that a committee of 70 people may not be that efficient. He should come to the Lib Dem parliamentary party meetings, which are incredibly efficient. We have incredibly insightful discussions, which is what makes us such an effective force, so I would not knock a committee of 70 people. I appreciate the Minister’s acknowledgment of the important of cross-party work for public health. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 15 Impact of trade deals on the NHS “(1) Any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. (2) Before laying regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment about how the trade negotiation will affect NHS frontline services and patients.”- (Dr Chambers.) This new clause would require any trade negotiation which would require NHS spending or funding to exceed £100 million to be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 76- Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing - “(1) The Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing may be ratified only if- (a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before the House of Commons a copy of the Arrangement, and (b) the Arrangement has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown. (2) Before tabling a motion under subsection (1)(b) the Secretary of State must publish and lay before the House of Commons an impact assessment on the potential effects on the health service of implementation of the Arrangement.” This new clause would require the Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be brought before the House for a vote.
New clause 15 would require that the Secretary of State lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require that the arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing be laid before the House to be voted on. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has indicated that, by 2036, the UK-US pharmaceuticals deal will have cost as much as £9 billion. That money could be transformative for the NHS. It could be put towards ending corridor care, as the Committee discussed earlier, or towards hiring thousands of ward staff, buying countless radiotherapy machines and starting to deliver high-quality care and help at home for the elderly and disabled. To make matters worse, Trump’s ambassador hauled in the head of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-the expert independent body that considers value for money in the NHS-to rebuke him over his opposition to the deal. It is utterly outrageous that a British public servant has been dressed down by a foreign regime for putting the interests of British patients and the British taxpayer first. It is crazy that billions of pounds of NHS funding is being spent to placate Trump, at the expense of the patient wellbeing. We want to support the British life sciences sector. That should be a domestic matter for the UK Government to address holistically, through...
I will be relatively brief. New clause 15 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any trade negotiation requiring NHS spending or funding exceeding £100 million, in the form of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. New clause 76 would require the arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing to be laid before the House to be voted on. A key concern is costing. There have been various estimates of the additional cost of medicines. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), said that he would not change or cut the NHS budget to pay for that increased cost. Will the Minister tell us the estimated extra cost of medicines, and where that money will come from, if not from the DHSC budget?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Like the shadow Minister, I will be relatively brief. [Interruption.] It was not clear whether that was a sound of appreciation or disappointment from the Minister. I will assume that she receives everything I say with the same noise and grace. Yesterday, the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee-on which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East and I sit-and was questioned at some length by the Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), about the UK-US trade deal. It was striking that the Secretary of State appeared unable to answer the basic question of whether an impact assessment could be presented to the Committee-under whatever terms of secrecy or confidentiality the Department wanted to place on it-to allow us to assess the costs, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, and, one would hope, the benefits. The Secretary of State was very clear that there were benefits, but he was unable to outline what they were. He cited commercial confidentiality, which I do understand; there will be commercially confidential elements to the deal. What was really striking, however, was that even though the Select Committee was very happy to receive the information under whatever strictures he wanted to put on it, so that we could scrutinise it, it was not given. That is serious cause for concern. I understand what the hon. Member for North Shropshire seeks...
Much of the conversation around those trade deals relates to pharmaceuticals from the United States. Our patients should be able to access the best available treatments, whatever deals we cook up. We must support innovative research based in our own country, particularly clinical trials for new medicines. To do that, we need to support clinical academics-the doctors who work in universities and organise research. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the number of clinical academics fell under the previous Conservative Administration? Most clinical academics are now very senior, and we are not recruiting replacements effectively. We need to look after our home-grown pharmaceutical industry so that we do not need such trade deals.
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s penultimate point: we need to support home-grown clinical academics and the life sciences industry in this country. As he has drawn me down that line, I declare that my wife works in the life sciences industry in the UK. I entirely agree with him on that point. However, if he is saying that a corollary is that we should not do pharmaceutical trade deals with other countries, I do not agree, because UK patients need the best medicines no matter where they come from. If that was not what he was saying and I am putting words into his mouth, I apologise, but that is how it sounded to me. I agree that we should support the home-grown, but obviously we need access to medicines from around the world. That brings me to my concerns about new clause 76. I understand why the hon. Member for Winchester supports it, but the way it is written means that, for the lifetime of the Act, any trade deal with America would have to follow those strictures. Although I accept that he does not like the current deal or the incumbent in the White House, it seems odd that we are singling out in statute, and putting a stricture on, one country over every other. I still probably would not have voted for it, but the new clause might have been more acceptable had it referred to any trade deal with any country, or even a group of countries-I know he is a big fan of one particular group of countries. That might have made it difficult. It would be dangerous...
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the existing constitutional arrangements already provide mechanisms, ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny? Singling out one country is a politicising measure, and it will have long-term consequences for our relationship.
Yes, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It would be a very slippery slope to write that into legislation. I understand the motivation-as I often do-behind Liberal Democrat new clause 76, but I do not think its drafting is appropriate in this context, and I cannot support it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, we on the Health and Social Care Committee heard from the Secretary of State yesterday. These new clauses were obviously drafted in advance, but the timing of their consideration is rather good. We had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State, who sits right at the top of the Department, some fairly basic questions about the deal that will apparently see the NHS pay 25% more for US drugs than it does currently. We asked, for example, how much it will cost. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, skewered the Secretary of State within minutes. A short while later, once the Secretary of State had had the chance to reflect on her queries, I had the opportunity to ask some even more basic questions. I asked not what the figure was, but whether one even existed or whether any analysis had been done. We ended up going backwards. We parliamentarians and the public still do not know the answers to some basic questions, even though a deal has been done. Do we know how much it will cost? Does a figure exist? Has an analysis been done? Are we talking about a figure or a bracket? On what basis was the deal agreed? We received absolutely no answers at all to those questions. To conclude, I posed a fairly obvious question: how on earth can we strike a deal to pay 25% more for drugs that we already get without knowing how much it will cost? No answer was given to that question either. It...
I am happy to talk about the impact of trade arrangements on NHS spending and how arrangements are scrutinised by Parliament. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for the new clauses. Our relationship with industry, life sciences and the pharmaceutical sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, is crucial not only to our patients and constituents, but to growth in our country. Many hon. Members will have companies large and small in their constituencies-my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has Lynam Pharma in hers. Important local companies are doing great work, innovating and bringing great people together to work on behalf of the life sciences sector and our country. They make us proud to be a leading country in this area, and I give credit to the Prime Minister for his leadership to put this country back in its rightful place on the international stage, addressing yet another part of our international reputation that was trashed by the Conservative party. [ Interruption. ] You started it. On new clause 15, parliamentary scrutiny is crucial to ensure that trade deals negotiated by this Government are in the best interests of the UK. That is why the Government are committed to transparency and to enabling effective scrutiny of our trade agenda. Nowhere is scrutiny more important than in considering the potential impact of trade agreements on public services such as the NHS. The Government have a clear framework in place for scrutiny...
The disquiet about the deal comes from the fact that the sums involved are huge-possibly £9 billion a year, or even more towards the back of the 10-year period-according to big companies in the sector. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry was not involved in the negotiation of the deal; it was negotiated with the US. We fully support of the life sciences sector in this country, and there is a complex debate to be had about access to novel medicines for people with unusual and rare diseases, and about balancing that with everybody else’s access to volume services on the frontline, but that important discussion should be had by Parliament and the British people, not between a trade negotiator and Donald Trump’s White House. That is where our disquiet comes from, and it is why we tabled these new clauses.
I understand the intent of the hon. Member for North Shropshire and her commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, as well as that of her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. I hope that some of my points will address that. New clause 15 duplicates existing processes and creates responsibilities for the Secretary of State for Health that would cut across our important procedures for scrutiny. No trade agreement can, by itself, change UK domestic law or require new public expenditure without the usual domestic processes being followed. Any changes to legislation necessary to implement a trade agreement would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. It is right that the Government be held to account, to ensure that trade deals deliver for the country. However, those processes are already in place and are working.
To strip this back further, can the Minister confirm whether a deal has been done?
I am not party to the negotiations. That is above my pay grade, like the conversation yesterday that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. I will get back to him on any outstanding questions, as the Department will to the Select Committee with other details.
To quote the Precision Health Technologies Accelerator at the University of Birmingham, very close to my Lichfield constituency, its leadership has been supportive of the removal of tariffs from pharmaceuticals, saying that the introduction of the tariffs could lead to “supply chains collapsing and patients suffering.” That is an enormous growth opportunity for the West Midlands combined authority, for Birmingham and for the wider region. There have been a lot of discussions, but I wanted to make sure that the views of organisations that will benefit are on the record, because this will be so beneficial for my region.
My hon. Friend clearly highlights the advantages for his constituents and the importance, particularly for that university and universities across the country, of such outward-facing arrangements, which benefit constituencies in many ways, not only through employment, but through the pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and so on, that help all our constituents. New clause 76 specifically references the trade arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom. That landmark partnership with the United States Government on pharmaceuticals pricing and tariffs is in the best interest of UK patients, supporting the NHS and the economy. As a result of the changes to the UK’s medicines pricing, NHS patients will get improved access to lifesaving treatments. New medicines have already been recommended under the updated approach, including a brain cancer drug available to patients as young as 12 and a last-resort treatment for a rare, aggressive stomach cancer-something that I think the entire House and the Committee would support.
I want to emphasise a point that has already been made, which is the positive impact of the agreement for people with rare and undiagnosed conditions. As the Minister will know, I have worked with a number of those organisations, and this is certainly an opportunity for innovative treatments to be funded, as they might not have been before. I thank the Minister for that.
Again, this is an area of work that my hon. Friend has led on for many years, as I have seen, often when many others have not been around to support it. With so many organisations and charities lobbying on behalf of so many people who are desperate for rare diseases in particular to be highlighted-those diseases that affect a small number of people, many of them children-that work is crucial. Her work in leading in this place is exemplary. That is exactly where we aim to get by working with our partners in difficult circumstances. Trade deals and negotiations are necessarily difficult-otherwise, they would be easy-but the hard work yields results for people. As I have said, this Government have taken an outward approach to working with our partners and with industry. We have already taken steps towards achieving our commitments, most notably increasing the NICE cost-effectiveness threshold. The Government previously updated Parliament in two ministerial statements, and of course MPs quite rightly have the option to continue to table parliamentary questions. Officials should be able to produce confidential advice for Ministers, to inform trade or other negotiations, and we must maintain that confidentiality in this case, as the impact assessment contains commercially sensitive assumptions. It is scenario-based and remains linked to live policy development. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw the new clause.
I thank the Minister for her comments. It is good to hear cross-party recognition of how important the life sciences sector is in the UK, to universities and businesses as knowledge transfer partnerships. This is a huge opportunity not only to improve the health of the nation and the treatments available, but to boost the economy. We will withdraw new clause 15, but I thought the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke extremely well about his concerns relating to the trade deal.
I think that the hon. Member has spoken very well, too, and I am grateful to him for airing this important subject through his new clause.
I appreciate that. Just to reiterate, I am talking specifically about the trade deal with the United States, not about every single trade deal. We completely accept that primary legislation is not necessarily the best way to scrutinise a trade deal, but given the lack of options at the moment, we must use every political mechanism available to create transparency.
This Government came to power saying that they would be more transparent, but they have not been. It took us months to get numbers out of the Government about the Chagos Islands deal.
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that intervention. Unless something changes significantly by the time we get to vote on new clause 76, which I understand will not be today, we will press it to a vote for transparency’s sake, but we will withdraw new clause 15. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 16 Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers “After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert- ‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of carers (1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of carers within its area. (2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to- (a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by carers, (b) prevention of deterioration in carers’ physical and/or mental health, (c) involvement of carers in decisions relating to the care of persons for whom they provide care, and (d) the need to ensure carers are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support. (3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area- (a) consider the health and wellbeing needs of carers in care planning and discharge processes, (b) involve carers appropriately in decisions relating to care and treatment, and (c) provide carers with information about support available to...
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 17- Duty to identify and record unpaid carers - “After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert- ‘Duty to identify and record unpaid carers (1) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to identify persons within its area who are unpaid carers. (2) An integrated care board must make arrangements to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area- (a) maintain appropriate systems for recording whether a person is an unpaid carer, (b) use consistent coding standards for the recording of unpaid carers in health records, (c) review and update records relating to unpaid carers at appropriate intervals, and (d) ensure that the identification and recording of unpaid carers forms part of- (i) primary care registration processes, (ii) hospital discharge procedures, (iii) care planning processes, and (iv) other relevant patient contact pathways. (3) For the purposes of this section, “carer” has the meaning given by section 10 of the Care Act 2014 and includes a young carer within the meaning of section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014.’” This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to identify and record unpaid carers when they come into contact with NHS services. New clause 18- National Respite Care Scheme - “(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish a National Respite Care Scheme. (2) The scheme under...
I will speak to new clauses 16, 17 and 18 together. They relate to the duty on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of carers. Certainly, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for mental health, and having been a carer myself-like many people in this room-I have a particular interest in the mental health of carers. Sometimes we forget that, as well as the patient, the carer also needs a huge amount of support, as what they do can be very draining. Unpaid carers are essential to the sustainability of the NHS and social care system, but carers consistently experience poorer physical and mental health outcomes than non-carers, and frequently struggle to access support for their own health needs. There are approximately 4.7 million unpaid carers in England. They provide support valued at an estimated £152 billion annually-equivalent to the annual NHS budget. Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes than non-carers. The GP patient survey 2025 showed that 72% of carers report a long-term condition or disability compared with 61% of non-carers. The Office for National Statistics reports that one in four adults providing unpaid care described being in “not good health”, compared with one in five adults who are not providing unpaid care. The probability of reporting being in “not good health” was higher for people providing more hours of unpaid care. Some 49% of unpaid carers reported at least one adverse health effect from...
Our new clause 16 would place such a duty on ICBs, as well as requiring carers to be included with joint forward plans. That would strengthen the prevention of ill health among unpaid carers, as well as improving accountability for carers’ outcomes in the NHS. With an ageing population and growing numbers of people with long-term disabilities, the need for unpaid carers will only grow. Analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that the number of unpaid carers is up by 70% in just the last two decades.
Local authorities already have duties in relation to identifying unpaid carers, but no equivalent duty exists for integrated care boards, which commission the vast majority of health services. Unpaid carers are more likely to come into contact with health services earlier than they come into contact with local authorities. Unpaid carers can take years to identify themselves. Early identification of an unpaid carer helps to ensure that they can be assessed and offered appropriate support for their caring role. There is a gap in our numbers: only 1.4% of patients were coded as unpaid carers in GP systems, compared which the census estimates, which suggest a true prevalence of approximately 8.8%.
Identification of carers in the NHS is a gateway to many of the services and support offered, including advice on financial support, referral to local authority support and inclusion in hospital discharge planning. Identification of more unpaid carers would also give local areas more accurate data, which would enable them to do better local planning of services.
Our new clause 17 would fill that gap and create a duty for ICBs to identify unpaid carers. Given the potential opportunities of the single patient record, that could be revolutionary for the whole system in terms of the support that unpaid carers receive. We have also tabled new clause 18, which would introduce a national respite scheme. Supplying respite care would alleviate the burden on carers and prevent hospital admissions due to carers becoming too exhausted to look after their loved ones. A dedicated carers support service was implemented in Kingston by the Liberal Democrat leader following his campaigning, and it now supports over 1,000 carers.
Equally, Scotland has introduced a statutory right for unpaid carers to access breaks from caring responsibilities. Under the Care Act 2014, unpaid carers in England are entitled to a carer’s assessment and local authorities are required to meet eligible needs identified through that assessment. Statutory guidance recognises that support for carers may include replacement care to allow the carer to have a break. However, carers’ breaks are not explicitly defined or guaranteed in legislation, so in practice many carers report that, following a carer’s assessment, they receive only information, advice or signposting, rather than meaningful respite support.
Even where eligible needs are identified, support is often delayed or not provided. As a result, many unpaid carers are left unable to take regular or meaningful breaks from caring, with serious consequences for their health and wellbeing, employment and family life. Many carers describe the severe impacts on their lives and wellbeing, including burnout, exhaustion, social isolation, inability to maintain employment and deterioration in mental health. Supporting carers to take regular breaks is a preventive policy that helps carers to remain well, sustain employment and education, maintain relationships and continue caring safely where they wish to do so. It also reduces the risk of crisis situations and carer breakdown, which can place additional pressures on health and social care services.
One of the most significant wins we have had since I was elected was keeping Chesil Lodge day centre open, which is an adult daycare centre that Hampshire county council was trying to close. We had dozens of people who were carers coming forward saying that if that centre shut, they would struggle to continue in their caring role without respite care. We are very pleased that it has been kept open, and carers have expressed their gratitude. They can now carry on caring for their loved ones thanks to regular respite care once a week, which they say is completely life changing.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Winchester talking about the new clauses; they have a great deal of similarity to new clause 89, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). We all know that it is absolutely vital to look after our carers. They do a huge amount of work to support us and make sure that people are kept at home and cared for. New clause 89 covers a number of issues, and would create a duty on health bodies to provide information and advice to unpaid carers and task the Secretary of State with providing that service. It would ask first for information about medicine and medicine records, which we talked about a few days ago. Beyond that, it asks for information about services and support available from the NHS to help in their role as carers, and about support for their own needs and health, which are hugely important. It also asks for information about the support available to them and how to get more advice in their role. I will not go over all the arguments again, but we heard about Carers UK’s “State of Caring” survey in 2025. Some 29% of carers say that they need more information and advice about caring, such as support with clinical tasks or managing someone’s condition. Many of them provide support with medication and administering it. Many also monitor blood pressure or sugar level, dress wounds and use equipment. In all these new clauses about carers,...
This group of new clauses is about carers and how we look after them. They do so much work for so many people across the country by looking after their loved ones. Many of them are not necessarily in good health themselves, and some are even children. These new clauses have a positive intention: to try to improve carers’ lives and make sure that they are recognised. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on his success in keeping open his respite care centre. Perhaps he could share his notes with me, because the Reform county council in Lincolnshire is currently trying to close Swallow Lodge, a respite care centre that provides for people of working age who have severe disabilities. The council wants to close it, and the people there are devastated by that suggestion. We had a public meeting, which many people came to, and they had not been consulted at that point. I think that an assumption was made that they are not able to communicate, but many of them are able to do so with support. However, that communication had not happened. It has caused fear for people. They are worried about where they will go instead and whether it will be suitable. What about the people they made friendships with at the centre? Many of them have elderly parents-in their 80s, in some cases. It is also economically short-sighted, because people may end up going into full-time care, which will ultimately cost the council more. The council has now been persuaded to do a full consultation,...
As the chair of the APPG on adult social care, I pay tribute to unpaid carers for the enormous contribution they make to their families, their communities and wider society. I often have meetings with them, and as part of my job before I became an MP-I worked in the NHS-I had a lot of contact with carers. I have seen so many vulnerable patients benefit from the enormous amount of work that carers do. In some services, such as the mental health service, there is already provision for identifying carers, carers’ assessments and support for carers. Carers provide extraordinary support, often at great personal sacrifice. Although the intention here is to make the wellbeing of carers a statutory duty, we need to be careful that we do not put any statutory responsibility for that on the NHS and create more administrative burden for it. I would appreciate it if the Minister would respond to that point, and if the Government would consider something to support carers, while not putting any more administrative burden on the NHS, where we are focusing on providing more support on the frontline. New clauses 16 and 17 would impose new obligations on integrated care boards to promote carers’ wellbeing and to identify and record unpaid carers whenever they come into contact with NHS services. I want to make it clear that we should not create any more administrative burdens for NHS frontline services. Although identifying and supporting carers is important, the requirement would add to the...
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for introducing these new clauses and for the debate that that is allowing us to have. Unpaid carers are too often a silent and fundamentally unappreciated part of society, which the system could not cope without. They are family members who are thrown into the role of looking after their loved ones, which they did not expect to have to do. Most of them have no formal qualifications, but through love and family ties, they provide unpaid support, which in many cases has a negative effect on the financial wellbeing of the household and involves a huge amount of emotional toil. The crisis in social care has lasted for decades under different Governments, who have struggled to tackle it, and it is putting increasing pressure on family carers. Many do not see themselves as a carer-they see themselves as a husband, wife, daughter, son or friend-but they provide millions of hours of care and support, year in and year out. My former role was at a national nursing charity that seeks to support the families of those living with dementia. I saw for myself how much wraparound care can achieve in relieving pressure and unnecessary suffering, not just for the person living with dementia-it does not have to be dementia, but that is what I have experience of-long-term frailty or conditions that require support, but for their family and carer. Very often, the biggest care need for the person living with dementia is the biggest need their family...
Like the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this discussion to the Committee. All Members are committed to ensuring that carers receive the care and support they need. The Government recognise that unpaid carers play a vital role in sustaining the health and wellbeing of millions of people across our country. I pay tribute to them, and recognise all the work they have contributed to. I also note the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford on the APPG with Members from across the House. The hon. Member for Winchester highlighted the shocking impact on the physical and mental health of people who are caring, which we heard about in the evidence session. That is an important issue, and it is good that we can now talk more about the mental health of carers. As he rightly said, many of us are carers. It is not an easy thing to do. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East for his comments about the importance of wraparound care to people who do not want to leave the one they care for. I recognise that respite care is important. I wish the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham good luck in her campaign in her constituency with the Reform council.
I thank the Minister for her good wishes. The council has not just proposed closing Swallow Lodge; it has also recently closed the memory support service. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East said about services for people with dementia, and this is another area where people will suffer because of the closure of vital services.
When the hon. Lady gets back to her constituency, I am sure she will be campaigning heavily on behalf of her constituents. We acknowledge the need to support carers’ health and wellbeing, but we do not think new clause 16 is necessary, because the existing legal framework already requires the system to support them. The new clause duplicates existing duties and risks adding complexity, rather than improving support in practice. Carers are explicitly referenced in the NHS constitution, which establishes the principles and values of the NHS in England and sets out the aim of improving the health and wellbeing of the population. The Secretary of State for Health, all NHS bodies, private and voluntary sector providers supplying NHS services, and local authorities in the exercise of their public health functions are required by law to take account of the constitution in their decisions and actions. Local authorities and NHS bodies also have a duty of co-operation in respect of their functions relating to carers. Finally, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will take on NHS England’s role in promoting the involvement of each patient in decisions relating to their illness, care or treatment. That duty includes the involvement of carers and representatives.
As the Minister says, many people in this room have had experience of being a carer for a family member. She said that there is already a legal framework, but carers are clearly saying that they need a bit more. How will the Government ensure that we provide not just words and legal documents, but help on the ground?
I was just moving on to talk about some of the work beyond the legislative framework. Beyond the legislative framework, our focus is on delivering practical improvements because, as my hon. Friend says, that is absolutely what people want. We are committed to ensuring that carers have the support they need. Through measures in the 10-year health plan, we are already equipping and supporting carers by making them more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and streamlining their care tasks by introducing a new My Carer section on the NHS app. We are also working with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education to consider how best to recognise and support unpaid carers. The Government are preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers, to be published this year.
Will the Minister acknowledge that the uplift in the carer’s earnings allowance is a very significant measure that this Government did introduce?
I thank my hon. Friend. That is indeed one of the ways in which, working through the DWP and across Government, we have sought to bring in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett said, practical measures to make carers visible and to support them. That is exactly the sort of thing we wanted to do and have done, and it does start to recognise the work that people do. Let me turn to new clause 17 and new clause 89, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett talked about and which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, whose expertise and commitment in this area are well known across the House. The new clauses look at the identification of, and provision of information to, unpaid carers. I agree on the importance of ensuring that carers are properly recorded and identified in the system and provided with relevant information and advice so that they can be better supported and involved in care decisions. However, we do not believe that explicit requirements to identify and record particular patient and carer groups are appropriate for legislation. We have made clear commitments in the NHS 10-year health plan and are taking practical steps to improve identification, support carers and involve them in care planning. If we need to mandate compliance, that is best done by including requirements in national NHS contracts or in statutory guidance or directions, where we can provide more detail and directly address barriers. Information about...
Since I have been an MP, I have visited a number of schools in my constituency, and I have always been struck by the number of children who are carers. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I think that is a very under-recognised group of people, whose lives are completely dominated by the fact that they are carers for their parents.
I thank my hon. Friend. I heard audible voices of approval for that point. I think that when any of us know or encounter children, whether it be in our own circle or when we visit schools in our constituency, we are very much struck by those who are at school and are themselves caring. I think most schools do a tremendous job where they recognise that. Often children, like adults, do not want to inform their school or local people that that is what they are doing-they are very proud-and perhaps the person they are caring for does not know how to do that. I have certainly seen in my constituency schools starting to recognise and support the needs of those children, in a way that is dignified and respecting of privacy. I did allude to some of the work that we are doing across Government, including with the Department for Education, to recognise, and to find ways to support, those young people, many of whom want to support their loved ones. I think we have all seen great ways to support them. When we are addressing young children in classrooms, I am always conscious of the need to think about the circumstances in which we are talking to them. There are a lot of teenage carers as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket is absolutely right to highlight that. More broadly, apart from data sharing and addressing barriers, the My Carer section of the NHS app will allow people to securely prove that they are providing care. That will streamline the care...
I thank Committee members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spoke particularly well and emotively-I know that he worked for Dementia UK before entering Parliament. My mother was a carer for my father, who had dementia, and my sister and I gave her respite care, although probably not enough of it. I know that many Committee members will have been in a similar situation, as it is a common disease, and it is becoming increasingly common. I also thank the Minister for her comments and reassurance. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket made a point about children being carers. I sat on the Mental Health Bill Committee last year, and to give an example of how impactful such Committees can be, it is now a requirement, as a result of the Committee’s consideration, to identify whether mental health patients have children who are carers. That was not the case before, and we appreciated the Government engaging with us on that issue. It is often teenagers who care for adults with severe mental health issues, but they were not even identified before, so they could not be given the support they required. That has changed now, and it is fantastic to see that, through Committee scrutiny, we can make a tangible difference to people’s lives. I will not press new clauses 16 and 17 to votes, but the Liberal Democrats do think that it would be sensible and impactful to establish a national respite care scheme, so I will press new clause 18 to a...
New Clause 25
Parents of critically ill children: communication and involvement in decision-making
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance to integrated care boards on communication with parents of critically ill children, and parents’ involvement in decision-making in respect of the treatment or care of their child.
(2) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must-
(a) make provision requiring ICBs to provide parents, on admission of their child to hospital, with a written explanation of their rights while the child is in hospital, including on how parental responsibility is shared with the hospital trust;
(b) make provision, with parental consent, for consultation with clinicians and teachers who have known the child prior to their illness, for the purpose of informing their care or treatment;
(c) make provision, so far as possible, for parents to be present at meetings concerning the care or treatment of their child, and to be provided with a written record of any such meetings;
(d) set out how any communication and language needs of the parents will be met;
(e) make provision, where potentially life-ending or life-changing decisions are to be made, to facilitate parents in accessing a second opinion of their choice, including from appropriate specialists in the UK, EU, or USA;
(f) make provision, where there is a disagreement between parents and clinicians on the care or treatment of a child, for the appointment of an independent mediator;
(g) make provision for the establishment of a clinical ethics committee review prior to the initiation of any court proceedings;
(h) make provision, where parents request a transfer of their child to another hospital within the UK or internationally, and that hospital is willing and appropriately qualified to accept the child, to facilitate such a transfer, subject to appropriate clinical safeguards; and
(i) make provision, prior to the death of a child, for family members to be given access to the child, and where possible, for this to take place in a children’s hospice or the family home.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must have regard to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”- (Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to integrated care boards concerning their role in communicating with parents of critically ill children, and involving them in decision-making.
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 62- Family support duty following serious childhood diagnosis - “(1) Where a child is diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening condition, the responsible NHS provider must, within 14 days of diagnosis, ensure that the child’s family is offered appropriate information, support and coordination services. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the responsible NHS provider must offer- (a) access to a named family support coordinator; (b) information regarding welfare benefits, financial support and relevant public services; (c) information regarding employment rights and workplace support available to parents and carers; (d) signposting to appropriate mental health and psychological support services; (e) information regarding relevant local and national charities, support organisations and peer-support services; (f) a written Family Support Plan setting out the support available to the family during treatment; and (g) notification and information sharing in accordance with subsection (3). (3) The responsible NHS provider must provide the child’s registered general practitioner and where different, the registered general practitioners of the child’s parents or primary carers, with a Family Support Summary. (4) A Family Support Summary must include- (a) the child’s diagnosis; (b) the proposed treatment plan; (c) the expected duration and intensity of treatment, where known; (d) information regarding the...
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who tabled new clause 25, asked me to speak to it, which I shall do briefly. This is a very serious issue. Critically ill children are infants, children and adolescents with life-threatening illness or injury, often requiring intensive, continuous care to survive conditions from leukaemia to meningococcal disease, traumatic brain injuries and major surgery such as spinal surgery. I should say that I am a consultant paediatrician, but I have worked in paediatric intensive care as a junior-now called a resident-doctor. The new clause as drafted does not, I think, do what the hon. Member was aiming for. When I read it through, I think he is looking at cases such as the tragic one of little Charlie Gard, whom we all remember died of encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, known as MDDS. It is incredibly rare. That tragic case highlighted the potential for disputes between parents and doctors, which, thankfully, are unusual. The new clause is headed, “Parents of critically ill children: communication and involvement in decision-making”. Of course parents should be involved in decision making about their children, but it is worth noting that the median time that children spend in ICU is two days and that, thankfully, most of them get better-very few do not. The new clause talks about teachers being involved, which in most cases is unnecessary and impractical; in many cases, a child may be admitted on a...
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley for tabling new clause 25, and grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for her comments on it. It is a genuine pleasure to hear the expertise of clinicians such as her who work in the field of children’s health. She is obviously very passionate about that, and I thank her for bringing her expertise and commitment to looking after children, including critically ill children, to the Committee. I recognise the profound impact that receiving a diagnosis of a life-threatening condition has on a child and their wider family. At such an overwhelming time in their lives, it is vital that families feel supported, informed and able to navigate the care and services available to them. We recognise that families can face huge variation in the support available and that they have to navigate complex systems at a particularly difficult time. I know that many hon. Members support many families in such circumstances in their constituencies. The Government are committed to ensuring that families have access to the support they need in the most straightforward way possible. New clause 25 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance to integrated care boards on communications with parents of critically ill children and on parents’ involvement in decision making in respect of the treatment or care of their child. We heard from the Opposition spokesperson about some of the operational issues with...
The Minister is setting out the important guidance that can be provided to clinicians managing the care of children who are seriously unwell. I want to add for the record that I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which is producing that guidance; I am grateful to her for setting out its importance. End-of-life-care decisions are very difficult. They need to be taken in conjunction with families but-the Minister is absolutely right-they must be made in the best interests of the child in all cases.
I am sure that the college will make best use of the hon. Member’s clinical expertise and her expertise as a legislator to get that guidance right. We work with royal colleges to ensure that we get the best clinical evidence into guidelines. I hope the actions I have outlined will continue to help and support the existing best practice, training and guidance on shared decision making and dispute resolution, so that it is embedded across the system. There are a number of other important measures in this group that have not been mentioned. Let me just say that, alongside some of the things I have outlined, we want to progress system-wide reforms to improve the way children and young people, and their families, are supported across many conditions. We are working to bring forward a modern service framework for children and young people that will set out how we will improve quality for children and young people’s services in the longer term, as part of our 10-year health plan.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 28 Appeals against health and social care provision in EHC plans “(1) The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1530) are amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3). (2) After regulation 42, insert- ‘42A Other matters relating to EHC plans against which appeals may be brought (1) In addition to the matters set out in section 51(2) of the Act, a child’s parent or a young person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the matters set out in paragraph (2), subject to section 55 of the Act (mediation). The matters are- (a) a decision of a local authority, following an EHC needs assessment, that it is not necessary for health care provision or social care provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan; (b) where an EHC plan is maintained for the child or young person- (i) the child’s or young person’s health care or social care needs as specified in the plan; (ii) the health care provision or social care provision specified in the plan.’ (3) In regulation 43 (appeals), after paragraph (2) insert- ‘(3) When determining an appeal on the matters set out in regulation 42A(2)(a), the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that- (a) health care needs, or health care needs of a particular kind, which relate to the child or young person's special educational needs are specified in the EHC plan in accordance with regulation...
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 28, tabled in the name of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, extends the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when it determines an appeal, it may order that education, health and care plans must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters. I am sure all Members are probably in a similar situation in that EHCPs, in their various forms, are one of the main reasons we get contacted by constituents; they certainly fill up my inbox. Following the Education Committee’s report, “Solving the SEND Crisis”, which identified significant gaps in accountability and engagement from the DHSC and health services in the special educational needs and disabilities-or SEND-system, the Health and Social Care Committee held a one-off evidence session to build on those findings, looking at the delivery of the health aspects of EHCPs. The Health and Social Care Committee followed up a recommendation that the Education Committee had made that the powers of the SEND tribunal service should be extended to allow it to issue binding recommendations to health services, not just education providers. SEND tribunals are independent national tribunals that decide appeals against local authority decisions about the special educational needs of children and young people, including decisions made about an...
I should say that I am a member of the Education Committee. As the hon. Member for Winchester says, new clause 28 would extend the powers of the first-tier tribunal so that, when determining an appeal, it may order that EHCPs must include health and social care needs and provision, rather than just making recommendations on those matters. It is clearly important that children with special educational needs get the support they need. We are all very aware, from our inboxes, that that does not always happen. I do not know whether putting this into legislation would make it happen, or whether it would need much more work than one clause, but clearly it is a very important aim and I support the principle of it. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on how she thinks this could work in practice and whether it is legislation or a more widespread plan that is required.
I rise briefly to speak on this as well. I should note for the record that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities. The hon. Member for Winchester, on behalf of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, made the case very strongly. I am a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, and we took evidence as he described. The lack of a statutory obligation in the current EHCP process is a fundamental problem. We need to ensure that the health elements are put on the same footing as the social care ones. As I am sure is the case in every hon. and right. hon Member’s constituency inbox, the number of children who are receiving or require support with special educational needs and disabilities, and the frustrations with the process both locally and nationally, are rightly something that we, as parliamentarians and policymakers, need to get a grip on.
There is a lot of merit in the new clause and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Obviously, this needs to be done in collaboration with the Department for Education, and it is right-the Select Committee acknowledged this-that other changes would also be needed to support it, including workforce increases and changes to commissioning, but that should not prevent us from seriously considering the new clause. I pay tribute to all the parents and carers in my constituency who are struggling with the EHCP process and doing their best for their children under really difficult circumstances.
May I add to the comments of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon by paying tribute to the families in my constituency of Bristol South who are also struggling? The care of a child is obviously one of the most difficult and important things that a person can do. When that child is in distress and not supported by the system, it is a very hard place for a parent to be. As I think all hon. Members have said, that is an issue that arises a lot in our inboxes, our emails and our constituency surgeries, and it has been difficult to address. I commend the Education Secretary and her team of Ministers for bringing this work forward and starting to tackle the issue.
My wife is an educational psychologist, so I have lived this, in a vicarious fashion, for the last 30 years or more. I understand how the system for special educational needs has evolved, particularly the role of the psychological services and how children are supported. As a result of a series of reforms, in particular during the years of austerity, the services provided by local authorities to schools-particularly the schools’ psychological services-became much more focused on psychologists providing reports to inform the distribution of resources, and much less focused on educational psychologists actually being in schools supporting children. I would like to see a change, such that educational psychologists and their expertise are back in schools, in classrooms, supporting teachers. Time and again when I visit schools, they say, “Let’s get educational psychology support back into schools.” I think that is something my wife would support.
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I put on record my thanks-our thanks-to his wife for her work in this area and for making him so aware of the issues, because he is absolutely right. This is a long-in-gestation issue that some of us have watched sadly get worse in our constituencies over recent years. Children only get one chance to come through this system, which is why people feel so passionately about it.
I pay tribute to all the parents and schoolteachers who engaged with me last summer, following the White Paper and the SEND consultation. It has been a huge problem in Kent. Kent county council has been under Conservative administration for the last 25 years. In recent years, it was in special measures because of its SEND provision. Parents really struggled. My inbox is filled with these issues. We know that 98% of SEND provision tribunals rule in the parents’ favour. There has been a long wait. Does the Minister agree that, whether we accept the new clause or not, we need to look into how the NHS and local authorities can work together to make it easier for children, families and schools to get proper provision in place?
I thank my hon. Friend for his description of what has happened in Kent, which has been under Conservative administration for so long. He is absolutely right about the White Paper. The hard work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the ministerial team have done across the country, regardless of the local political administration, is exemplary. I will come on to talk about the tribunals. The Government’s SEND reforms aim to transform outcomes for children and young people with SEND and their families, ensuring that the right support is available at the right time and preventing needs from escalating or reaching crisis in the first place. That is why the reforms aim to build a system that parents can trust with collective responsibility in local areas and strong partnership working across education, health and care. That is what parents expect us to be doing.
I recently held consultation meetings on the proposed SEND reforms in Blaydon and Consett. The message from parents was clear in both places: they wanted greater integration of health into EHCPs. I welcome the Government’s commitment to asking ICBs to work more closely with local authorities to develop SEND reform plans and tackle this issue. Does the Minister agree that it is important for ICBs to take that on board?
I thank my hon. Friend for going to hear directly from her constituents. She is right: that message is fairly consistent. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and I played a pivotal role in bringing our ICB and local authorities together as local Members of Parliament. That was a result of our experience with parents and constituents. Members of Parliament from across the House-this is not a party political point-can bring parents together to highlight this issue and use parliamentary power to bring together organisations that sometimes do not listen or know the best way to communicate. Our role in that has been pivotal. The Secretary of State for Education has taken that learning forward across the country. That is why we are taking the steps to deliver the programme. ICBs have been asked to work with local authorities to develop local SEND reform plans. Those plans will lay the foundation for long-term reform, enabling ongoing monitoring of progress, and draw on knowledge, skills and lived experience held locally. That builds on work that is under way to improve accountability and set expectations of joint working, which is what parents and families expected to happen, but was not happening. Each ICB is expected to have an executive lead on SEND. The NHS medium-term planning framework for the next three years made it clear that ICBs and providers must meet their...
I thank everyone for their comments. I thank the Minister for her reassurances on the seriousness of this issue. Given that we are waiting for the response to the report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. - (Emma Foody.)
Adjourned till Thursday 16 July at half-past Eleven o’clock.
Written evidence reported to the House
HB123 Royal College of Pharmacy
HB124 Hertfordshire Patient Engagement Platform
HB125 Sue Ryder
HB126 Surrey County Council