Caroline Johnson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Mar 2025 · Independent Review of Data, Statistics and Research on Sex and Gender · Hansard source

  More

  Given the findings of the Sullivan review on patient and health safety, which came about as a result of inaccurate and poor data collection, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm what meetings he has had with Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to discuss the reliability of the data on sex that is intended to be used by the digital verification platform in the Data (Use and Access) Bill?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State says that she will legislate for a change in PIP, so that in future, people must score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify. That means that an individual who needs supervision or assistance with therapy for three and a half hours a week, prompting and assistance with washing, assistance to get into the bath or shower, supervision to manage their toilet needs, and assistance to dress and undress their lower body would no longer qualify for PIP. How many such individuals are there?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When I asked a question during the statement, the Secretary of State said, “It does not mean that.” I had raised the list on the Government’s website of the descriptors used to qualify somebody for a certain number of points in relation to the daily living component of PIP. Each of the descriptors I mentioned has two or three points associated with it: “Needs supervision…or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes…3.5 hours a week. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to wash either their hair or body below the waist. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to get in or out of a bath…3 points … Needs supervision…to be able to manage toilet needs. 2 points… Needs assistance to be able to dress or undress their lower body”— needing the physical help of another person—also “2 points.” At the moment, someone with all of those needs would qualify for this component of PIP, but under her new rules they will not. How can I give the Secretary of State the opportunity to correct the record?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as the wife of a farmer and agricultural contractor. Farming is a difficult job—unbelievably long hours and physically hard work in all weathers every day of the year—but it is a true vocation and labour of love that farmers do to provide us with food eat and food security. Lincolnshire farmers are particularly important for food security, providing 12% of the UK’s food, 30% of its veg, 18% of its poultry and 11% of its wheat. Jobs in the food chain make up 24% of jobs in the Greater Lincolnshire area, and farmers locally care for 13,500 acres of farmed woodland and 2,500 miles of public rights of way, but all that is under threat. Food production is less profitable and, in some cases, it is not profitable at all thanks to this Labour Government.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a great and impassioned speech. The Government are saying that one can avoid the tax, but one does not know who is going to die and when. In fact, the generations do not necessarily always occur 10 years apart, which could compound the tax even further, could it not?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I do not support the hon. Gentleman’s figures or think the Government will make farming more profitable. It is the classic socialist trick of saying, “We’ll give you some money here, and we’ll take some money there.” We have seen it with hospices and the NHS, and we see it with farming as well. They are taking money away in taxes left, right and centre, then giving a few pence over there and saying, “Be grateful, why don’t you?” I am afraid that it does not wash with farmers. Farmers are clever people, and they can see straight through it. The effects of the Government’s policy will be reduced food security, the collapse of small businesses and the purchase of that land by larger corporations, and an increase in food prices for consumers rich and poor across the country. This is a debate on the future of farming. Many farmers in my constituency feel that, thanks to this Labour Government, they have no future in farming.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Farming · Hansard source

  More

  I find them extremely difficult to reconcile. In early October, I went to the “Farmers Weekly” awards in London where the Minister, in his red bowtie, gave a speech in which he said that the Government would have the farmers’ backs. I am sure he believed it was true when he said it, but within a month, he was unfortunately proven wrong with this Government’s Budget. Many Members have talked about the profitability of farming. How will the family farm tax make farms more profitable? How will the family business tax, the drastic drops in delinked payments, the rise in the minimum wage, rising national insurance contributions, or the tax on double cab pick-ups make farms more profitable? They will not. How will closing the SPI payment scheme early and without notice, despite having promised to give notice, make farms more profitable and businesses more secure? It will not. The Government now talk about taking land without proper due consideration. That has led many farmers in my constituency to ask, “Why does this Labour Government hate farmers so much?” Why do they want to hurt our farmers so much?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Mental Health Support: Educational Settings · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this important debate in the Chamber. I should also declare an interest: I am a consultant paediatrician and have worked throughout my career with children usually at the point of severe crisis when they have been admitted through A&E to hospital following episodes of deliberate self-harm, such as cutting themselves or taking overdoses, and I have clearly seen the heartbreak for families as they have struggled to understand what they can do to best help their young person get better. Over recent years there has been a decline in the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people and an increasing demand for mental health services. This is perhaps one of the big challenges of our era. Currently around one fifth of children aged eight to 16 are said to have a probable mental health disorder, up from 12.5% in 2017. This figure is even higher, at 22%, for people aged 17 to 24. The consequences of mental health issues for students range from poor academic performance and dropping out of university or college to self-harm and suicide, and we must do all we can to help. I want briefly to talk about university students because university is supposed to be one of the most enjoyable and formative periods of a person’s life, but for many it is also when they leave home for the first time and when they are separated for the first time from their family and friends and their support networks. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that during the covid-19 pandemic students reported higher levels of anxiety and lower levels of happiness than the general population. The number of students saying they have a mental health condition has increased sevenfold in the last decade. Even before the pandemic students consistently reported worse mental health than the rest of the adult population, but these trends were greatly exacerbated by the impact of lockdown. Will the Minister update the House on what steps he is taking to support young people with mental health problems as they go to university or who develop mental health problems at university? Despite the unprecedented challenges the previous Government faced, not least the pandemic, we made important strides in improving mental health services, in increasing the recognition and discussion of mental health problems, in increasing investment and in reducing stigma. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, spending on mental health services increased by £4.7 billion which gave an additional 345,000 young people access to the mental health support they needed, and the number of mental health nurses increased by 30% since 2010, yet still we see that demand is outstripping supply. Prevention is better than cure and we need to understand why we have such high levels of mental health problems in children. Can the Minister update the House on how the Government are working to identify risk factors for poor mental health and how they will support children and families to prevent it? The last Government tried to detect mental health problems early and stop them escalating, expanding mental health support teams in schools, committing almost £8 million of funding for 24 early support hubs in ’24/25. These offered earlier open access mental health intervention without the need for a referral by a doctor or school. The drop-in centres offer vital advice to young people going through the trauma of stress and anxiety, giving them a space to go to when their problems first emerge. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing in terms of expanding the availability of these centres? The Online Safety Act 2023 made very good progress in protecting children from harmful online content but there is much more to do on the topic of screen time, as has been mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon. Does the Minister agree that the mounting evidence we are hearing especially from health professionals about the impact of smartphones in particular on children’s mental health is very concerning? If so, will he support the Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban smartphone use in schools? However, there have been some concerns that in the desire to support and enable individuals to have positive mental wellbeing, there is a danger that the pendulum has swung a little far and the boundaries between distress and disorder have become blurred. That means that there is a risk that those who are most unwell may miss out on the treatment they deserve and need because of the volume of referrals, as well as a risk of burdening others with unhelpful labels and prescriptions that could hold them back, without addressing the root cause of their very real need. Some 84% of GPs are now said to believe that society’s approach to mental health has led to medicalising the normal ups and downs of life. The terms “wellbeing”, “mental health” and “mental illness” are often used interchangeably, so what steps is the Minister taking to distinguish between those terms in educational contexts, and to deliver public services to ensure that we can get the best outcomes for those affected, so people get the treatment they clinically require? I pay tribute to the work that many charities do to support our young people with mental health problems. Will the Minister talk to the Chancellor about funding for those services? Dr Sarah Hughes, the chief executive of Mind, said that “the implications of the NIC rise is eye-watering, at a time when we are trying to direct every penny towards delivering the best support.” Such charities do immense work to create a mentally healthy society, putting everything they have into it, and the Government should recognise that huge investment, not destabilise it by introducing mounting costs that charities simply cannot subsidise. It is important to recognise the connection between physical and mental health, and that those with long-term physical conditions are considerably more likely to have poor mental health. What are the Government doing to support children who have chronic illness to help improve their mental health? In 2023, the now Education Secretary said that Labour wanted a trained mental health counsellor available in every secondary school. What steps have the Government taken towards achieving that aim? More specifically, why have they focused on secondary schools? In April 2024, Dr Patrick Roach, the general secretary of NASUWT, said: "We also need to see improved support for pupils in primary schools to secure wraparound care for pupils at all stages of their education.” What are the Government doing to support children in primary schools with their mental health? Ahead of the last general election, the Labour party promised to establish Young Futures hubs, recruit 8,500 mental health staff and provide mental health support in schools. Why has so little progress been made on delivering those promises? When the Minister stood on a manifesto to establish the Young Futures hubs, which were said to have a cost of £95 million, and to provide mental health support in all schools, at a cost of £175 million, the Government said that they would fund that through revenue raised from applying VAT and business rates to private schools. Will the Minister confirm whether the revenue obtained from applying the VAT to private schools looks like it will be sufficient to expand the mental health support as described? If not, how do the Government intend to fund the measures they said they would implement? In a speech to the Confederation of School Trusts on 7 November last year, the Education Secretary claimed that the Government would give “every single child the very best life chances” in “a new era of child-centred government.” How does she justify the impact on the wellbeing of those children who are forced to move schools due to the imposition of VAT on the private sector? Numerous think-tanks and mental health charities have noted that being forced to move school at a non-standard time can have a significant and long-lasting impact on children’s friendships, support networks and emotional development. What support is the Minister offering to those children? Mental health issues among our young people are one of the defining issues of our time. As with so many other policy areas, the Government have promised a panacea, but so far they have delivered a sticking plaster.

• 13 Mar 2025 · NHS England Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is disappointing, once again, that it was not made to the House first; in recent days, there have been numerous media briefings about this potential restructure. Under new leadership on the Conservative Benches, we believe in a leaner and more efficient state. That means using resources effectively, reducing waste and preventing duplication, spending money where it is most beneficial. After all, the public understandably want to see the focus on patient care and not on backroom managers. Therefore, we are supportive of measures to streamline management, and we do not oppose the principle of taking direct control, but we need to know what steps will be taken to meet targets while all the upheaval happens. We need to know the specifics of what is being planned. What are the timeframes for the abolition of NHS England? By what date will it be completed? How many people will be moved into different roles? How many people will lose their jobs altogether? How much money is that expected to save? Labour runs the NHS in Wales, which has the highest waiting lists and the longest waiting times in Great Britain. What lessons has Labour learnt from its failure in Wales? NHS England, as the Secretary of State said, has just lost much of its leadership. Is that because they no longer had confidence in the Secretary of State, or because he did not have confidence in them? Perhaps he can tell the House whether Alan Milburn will keep his job in the upheaval. We also need to be clear that moving people into different roles will not fix the challenges that face the NHS. The Secretary of State has spoken about taking direct control. That may help him ensure that the NHS stops wasting money on expensive diversity, equity and inclusion staff, and ensures that it provides dignity and privacy for female staff and patients, but what does it mean for clinical prioritisation? Will conditions that are less common and have less glitzy campaigns and fewer celebrity backers suffer because the Secretary of State now has political considerations? Does the Secretary of State have the bandwidth for this, given he has such a busy role already? How does the centralisation of power measure up with the commitment to give more powers to regional bodies and local integrated care boards? In the first six months after entering office, the Government announced 14 reviews, consultations and calls for evidence, all of which require more staff. Are those jobs at risk, or are other pre-existing roles set to be cut? This announcement comes the same week as Labour’s Employment Rights Bill passes through the Commons. Is the Secretary of State getting a move on because he knows that red tape and bureaucracy will dramatically increase afterwards and make the decisions he has to take more difficult to deliver? A drive to improve efficiency in the civil service and the management of the health service is welcome, but what about the NHS itself? The Government slimmed down our productivity plan and delivered a 22% pay rise in return for no modernisation or reform. How will those decisions improve efficiency? I asked the Department what proportion of people with a nursing qualification working in the NHS are in patient-facing roles, but the Minister said that they did not know. How can he use the skills and resources effectively if he does not know where those skills and resources are? The Prime Minister is making a lot of noise about productivity and cutting waste, but he still refuses to set a target for cutting the civil service headcount. Thanks to the decisions he and the Chancellor took at the Budget, the size of the state is growing rapidly, not shrinking, while changes to national insurance contributions have diverted funding away from the frontline into compensating the Treasury. Ultimately, any restructure will be challenged by the Government’s continued failure to tackle immigration. While steps to improve efficiency in the healthcare service are welcome, these words ring hollow across Government.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am also a member of a union, the British Medical Association. I have found that union to be useful to me as it has represented me in the past, so I can see the benefit of unions. I am concerned, however, that the measures that the hon. Lady is talking about in relation to day one sick pay, for example, could make it more difficult for those with disabilities to get a job, particularly with the changes to zero-hours contracts as well. I talked to a local businessmen in my constituency about a gentleman he employs who has a disability, who comes and goes because his disability makes it difficult for him to work for long periods of time, but he says that he simply will not be able to continue to employ him once the legislation comes into force.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Ambulance Response Times · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for securing a debate on this important subject. I pay tribute to the ambulance services and to paramedics and their colleagues, who are on the frontline of our healthcare service, today and every day. Regardless of the weather, or whether it is a bank holiday, they are always there for all of us. In my medical career, I have been required to deliver full intensive care to children, and particularly babies, who were being transferred across the county in East Midlands ambulances throughout the night and day. I have hurtled along in the back of an ambulance as it travelled down country roads, around corners and down the hard shoulder of motorways, so I understand some of what ambulance crews do. That has given me a deep appreciation of their work, and highlighted to me some of the unique challenges and pressures they face, particularly in our rural areas. Before I was elected, I had two experiences of delayed ambulance services. On one occasion, I was driving up the A1 when the gentleman in the car in front of me skidded on some water and went into a tree. I am sorry to say that the ambulance took a very long time to arrive, and he died shortly afterwards. There was a fire truck, police officers and an incident manager, but there was no ambulance service. I do not think it would have made a difference to the outcome, but in other cases it might have. On another occasion, I was sat in traffic when a police officer knocked on the window, which is always slightly worrying. They were looking for a doctor because they had been waiting so long for an ambulance for the people in the accident that was causing the traffic. It took a further 40 minutes from me arriving at the scene for the ambulance to arrive—I am not clear how long the people at the scene had been waiting before. So this issue was a great priority for me before I became a Member of Parliament. In my first question at Prime Minister’s Question Time, in January 2017, I thanked the East Midlands Ambulance Service for its brave and stellar work serving the people of Sleaford and North Hykeham, and asked for ambulance service response times to be a priority. I also raised the issue in my first meetings with the then Prime Minister and Health Secretary. I understand that response times have improved somewhat, at different periods with different initiatives but overall, as we have heard, they are not where we need them to be. In January, a constituent wrote to my office detailing the difficult experience of waiting too long for an ambulance to arrive. This 85-year-old gentleman came downstairs at 10 am to find his 82-year-old wife, who suffers from advanced dementia, lying on the hardwood floor, covered in blood, crying and confused. He managed to get her into a chair, calm her down and call 999. The operator could not hear him properly because the phone service was bad, his wife was crying and trying to get out of the chair, and he was struggling. Eventually, he was told the ambulance would be there in 12 hours. The ambulance did eventually arrive, and his wife is now in a stable condition, but that was a traumatising experience for her and the 85-year-old man. I was sorry to read that harrowing tale, and tales like it are too common across the country. I am interested in what the Minister will do to improve the situation; it is easy to say that things are not where they need to be, but it is important to consider how one can improve them, and that is what I hope to hear from her. Of course, the pandemic threw everything off kilter, and demand for ambulance services rose significantly, with almost 3 million calls in March 2020. In 2022-23, an extra £150 million was allocated to improve ambulance response times through extra call handler recruitment and retention. In January 2023, to improve performance further, the last Government published an urgent and emergency care plan, which set out ambitions to improve average ambulance response times for category 2 incidents to 30 minutes over 2023-24, with further improvement in 2024-25 to get back towards pre-pandemic levels. The plan aimed to increase ambulance capacity by making over 800 new ambulances available during 2023-24, including 100 new specialist mental health vehicles for those who require different types of service. However, in December 2024, under this Government, ambulance response times rose to an average of three hours and two minutes for category 3 calls—category 3 covers elderly people who suffer falls but not a head injury. What steps will the Government take with NHS England to reduce those response times so that people are not waiting hours in pain and discomfort? I have said to the Minister that it is important that we talk about how we can improve things, as well as about what the problems are. It is crucial that we all do that, and one suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) was co-located blue-light services—I am sure he is aware that the first such services were opened not long ago in Lincolnshire. The blue light hub tri-service centre, in the Lincoln constituency, is a co-located site, and co-location is leading to improvements in services. Although that is not my constituency, I am sure the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) would be open to an approach if my hon. Friend wished to see the site. It is important to look at risk all along the pathway. We have talked about handover delays, but there is a whole pathway from the moment someone calls 999 to the transfer journey, the wait to get into A&E and then the wait in A&E. The risk is clearly highest at the point where someone has called 999 but does not yet have access to on-site or in-person medical care. To improve that, we need more ambulances on the road and fewer sat outside A&E. I have some questions for the Minister. Ambulances are double-crewed—there are two people in the ambulance —but do two staff need to stay with the patient? If two ambulances have arrived, each with two staff and one patient, could two of the four crew go off in one of the ambulances to see more patients? That would avoid a situation where there are two staff per patient in the ambulance, when many patients are not that unwell medically. Nursing in intensive care is only one to one, but we are providing higher levels of care than that with these staffing ratios. Is that necessary? We also have a delay in handover—in getting people out of the ambulances—because the A&E is said to be full. The front door is open, but the back door, for people coming in an ambulance, is in effect closed. If patients got out of the ambulance and walked round the building to the front door, they could go in and be triaged as normal. It does not make sense. Some of my medical colleagues have gone to see people in the ambulance and discharged them from there, without their needing to come into the hospital at all. So there are clearly people with a level of medical acuity that would potentially allow the crew, with guidance and training, to discharge them into the front door of the hospital instead. On another question, if some people are well enough to be discharged from ambulances, are the public sufficiently aware of what constitutes a necessity when it comes to calling an ambulance? How many ambulances that are called are necessary? One would not wish to deter anyone who is frightened and concerned for their wellbeing from calling an ambulance if they feel they need one, but education on when one is needed might be useful. As has been alluded to, staff retention is also important. One o constituent—a single mum with children—left her role as a paramedic because she was struggling with working hours that overlapped with getting her children ready for school in the morning. She was able to cover most other aspects of childcare—such as picking them up from school—with after-school clubs and the like, but she struggled in a morning, and her flexible working request was refused. I recognise that there must be balance, and that all hours of the day must be covered by ambulances, but has the Minister thought about how working practices and hours could be changed? The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), mentioned resources in rural areas. That is important because response times will necessarily be increased by the geography, so greater levels of resource perhaps need to be provided to rural areas, in recognition of the fact that if we want response times in them to fall, we need a higher level of ambulance availability. Another significant factor causing delayed ambulance response times is staff sickness, which is not necessarily an issue of NHS funding. Ambulance services in England report the highest level of sickness absence rates of any other profession across the NHS. Against a national average absence rate of 4.3% over an eight-year period, ambulance staff showed an average absence rate of 6.2%, with year-on-year increases. There are stark regional differences in sickness rates, with the West Midlands Ambulance Service consistently maintaining a lower absence rate—around 50% lower than its counterparts in London or the east midlands. The NHS would benefit from sharing best practices between trusts, which would make a real difference, ensuring a healthier workforce and, ultimately, better patient care. The issue is also costly financially, and an independent review published by Lord Carter in 2016 estimated even then that a mere 1% reduction in staff absences could save ambulance trusts up to £15 million a year. That figure would clearly be even higher now. I also want to raise the issue of air ambulance services. Air ambulance charities deliver lifesaving treatment every single day and complete more than 25,000 lifesaving missions across the country every year—an average of more than one every 10 minutes. I commend the work of all those involved, and particularly Lincs & Notts Air Ambulance, which operates in and around my constituency, the crew who airlifted my husband from Silverstone to Coventry last year and looked after him so well. In the last Parliament, the previous Government gave significant support to air ambulances. The Department of Health and Social Care’s three-year capital grant programme in 2019 allocated £10 million to nine charities across England. That funding supported air ambulance charities to move towards 24/7 operations and improved seven airbase facilities across England. However, services are now under threat from the Chancellor’s rise in national insurance and taxes. Lincs & Notts Air Ambulance will need to find another £70,000 just to pay the national insurance rise—this is an entirely charitably funded organisation. Can the Minister justify that policy, given the vital work that air ambulance charities do across the country? On 19 November, my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I wrote to the Chancellor to ask about exemptions from the national insurance hike for air ambulances. Despite raising the issue at Treasury questions and in a point of order, and despite repeated chasing from my office, we have not had the courtesy of a proper response to our letter from the Government, although they have suggested that they are now asking the Department of Health and Social Care to respond to the letter. That is a huge discourtesy to the House, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance, because the letter is apparently with the Department of Health, that we will receive a response by the end of the week. That is quite a reasonable request. Finally, it is fair to say that ambulance crews are doing a sterling job, but that response times are not where we need them to be. I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us how she will improve those services for our constituents.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Ambulance Response Times · Hansard source

  More

  Social care is clearly very important, but what assessment has the Department made of the effect of national insurance contributions on social care provision as a whole?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill on 12 February, I raised concerns over the accuracy and reliability of data with the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), particularly in relation to verification of sex. He undertook to write to me, which indeed he has: “Digital verification services can be used to prove sex or gender in the same way that individuals can already prove their sex using their passport for example.” That is a direct quote from the letter. In fact, a passport does no such thing; it says what sex someone likely is. For example, if it says someone is female, it means they are likely female, but they could be male with a gender recognition certificate, or a male person who has a letter from their doctor saying that they are likely to continue living as though a female for the rest of their lives. This has been the case for many years. I am worried that this letter, which has been put in both Libraries, may mislead the House, or indeed any constituent who may need to read it. How can I correct the record in this regard?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  One of the key things about the Government’s deal is that they have given in on money without asking for anything in return in terms of productivity. The Government needed to agree a pay deal that was sensible and affordable, not talk about the money that they are giving to the NHS while taking away with the other hand in taxes. Let us hear what some healthcare providers have had to say about the implications of Labour’s NICs rises for their constituents’ healthcare. The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the NICs increase will force GP practices to choose between redundancies and closure. The hospice sector believes that the cost of national insurance rises could be £30 million a year. The Government have given that sector a capital grant worth £100 million, which is welcome and will improve facilities; however, if those facilities are empty and cannot be staffed, they will not deliver much in the way of improvement. Air ambulances are also under threat from the Chancellor’s rise in national insurance and taxes in last year’s autumn Budget, with the local service in my constituency, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance—which is entirely charitably funded—needing to find another £70,000 just to pay for those national insurance rises. The Independent Pharmacies Association estimates that the rises in employer national insurance contributions and the minimum wage will cost the average pharmacy over £12,000 a year, totalling more than £125 million for the sector as a whole. Nick Kaye, chairman of the National Pharmacy Association, has warned that “Pharmacies face a financial cliff edge at the beginning of April, with a triple whammy of rising National Insurance, National Living Wage, and business rates all arriving at once.” What impact will this have on our constituents’ health? The Government talk a good talk about bringing healthcare closer to the community, but actions speak louder than words, and putting extra pressure on community-delivered services is not a good way of delivering their aims. The Nuffield Trust suggests that the national insurance rise alone will add a £900 million burden to the adult social care sector. With other new costs factored in, the care sector is believed to be facing a bill of an additional £2.8 billion, dwarfing the £600 million extra allocated to the local authorities responsible for providing social care. This will have a devastating knock-on effect: the amount of care that can be bought by local authorities will fall, the cost of private care will rise—so more people will be reliant on the state, rather than the private sector—and the waiting lists that the Government claim to prioritise will also rise. The Nuffield Trust warns that many small care providers will either have to increase prices, stop accepting council-funded patients, or go bust. That will have a knock-on effect on the hospital sector, as people are unable to be discharged because there is not adequate social care for them. The Government talk about creating a new national care service, but they have managed to damage the existing one by hiking the costs borne by care homes through national insurance rises and other tax and wage increases. In January, the Government announced a deal with private hospitals in an attempt to cut waiting lists. The deal, which sounded good to start with, would see private hospitals being paid for each patient that they treated, incentivising them to treat as many people as possible. However, The Times reported that NHS England has recently capped the amount that each hospital can be paid. The chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network has warned that the policy will actually lengthen waiting times. Will the Minister comment on that? The Minister is focused on prevention, but when the Government announced that they would be cutting the overseas development aid budget by 40%, the Prime Minister said that the UK would continue to play a key humanitarian role on a range of issues, including global health and challenges such as vaccination. I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on whether the global health budget will be cut, or whether the cuts will be made from other aspects of the ODA budget. Workforce is the key asset of the NHS, yet sickness levels are running at around 5.5%, which is a considerable cost to Government and drag on productivity. They vary considerably across trusts and professions, with consistently less than 2% of consultants off sick, but almost 8% of ambulance support staff. If those rates could be reduced, it would lead to improved productivity and patients being treated much faster. What is the Minister doing to look at that? Perhaps she will have another one of her reviews.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I draw right hon. and hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a consultant paediatrician. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing this important debate on the finances of the NHS. Labour said that it had a plan to reform and improve our NHS. Unfortunately, it has become clear from the series of consultations—on the NHS plan, the 10-year plan, the patient safety review, leading the NHS and the independent commission to transform social care, to name just a few that are in progress—that Labour did not have a plan, other than to get into power and then consider what its plan should be. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds has said, we need improvements in productivity, technology and long-term investment. I completely agree, and as a medic I could give many examples of wasteful spending, especially in relation to paperwork and increasingly inflexible guidance and procedures that are well-meaning but often unhelpful. There is general talk of productivity improvements from Government Members, but few specifics. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide any specifics in her closing remarks, but let us see what the Government have said and done so far. In the autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced that overall NHS funding would be increased by £22.6 billion over two years—for this year, that is £10.6 billion. The Government are asking us to welcome that extra money. It sounds great, but is it extra or not? Julian Kelly, NHS England’s chief financial officer, told the Health and Social Care Committee that the proposed 2.8% pay rise for 2025-26 would cost £3.8 billion. The NICs pressure is worth around £1.7 billion, alongside £1.9 billion in non-pay inflation, £0.8 billion for the GP settlement and £3.5 billion for basic demand growth in the NHS. Right hon. and hon. Members will note that those figures add up to more than £10.6 billion, and with the unions having threatened to strike again for even greater pay awards and with Labour’s propensity to capitulate to the unions, it is likely that that figure will increase. Can the Minister confirm whether the £10.6 billion that Labour talks about will really lead to an improvement in services, or will it merely cover inflation, tax rises and the pay rises given by the Labour Government to their union paymasters?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that whether someone becomes ill is entirely dependent on whether they get another 2% in their pay packet? I am not sure that it is. The Government promised a great deal when they came into power last July. Since then, they have handed out inflation-busting pay rises, raised costs and abandoned election pledges. At the centre of the Government’s approach is a classic socialist trick—a sleight of hand, taking money away from NHS providers in taxes with one hand, and expecting praise when they give some of it back with the other. The public will see straight through it.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way in a moment; let us first look further at those tax rises. It is clear that the Chancellor had not properly considered the effects of the NICs rise on the wider healthcare system. For example, the Government have exempted the NHS from that tax rise, but that exemption does not cover general practice, hospices, charities, many social care providers—including many care homes—air ambulance charities, dental clinics, opticians, private healthcare providers, agency staff, local pharmacies and other suppliers and contractors, to name but a few.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the figures, he will see that there has been a substantial real-terms increase in NHS funding over the past 14 years. That cannot be said for this year, potentially, which is why I am asking the question.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Draft Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister said, the regulations use a Brexit freedom to deregulate, and I welcome the fact that the Government are choosing to use that opportunity to reduce the amount of regulation that may be unnecessary. I was also pleased to hear the shadow Minister talking about the economic benefits— [ Laughter. ] I am sorry; it is early in the morning. The Minister talked about the benefits, including financial benefits, that our great food industry provides to this country. As a farmer’s wife, I am very familiar with those, and I would encourage hon. Members—particularly Government Members—to go to the farmers’ protest and rally in Downing Street and Whitehall after the Committee this morning. They will be able to get a pancake and some of our other great British food, and also to learn about what the Government are doing to the farming industry and why that is important. The first of the two changes in the regulations removes the requirement for 10-yearly renewals of authorisations for feed additives, genetically modified organisms and smoke flavourings, aligning the regimes with those for regulated food and feed products that do not require renewal. The second change eliminates the need for secondary legislation to bring the initial authorisations into effect, allowing them to be enacted following a ministerial decision and to be published in an official register. That will certainly make the process more efficient and more effective, but I am interested to understand the Minister’s views on the level of oversight that can be provided. If I heard her correctly, she talked about approving 500 renewals over the next three years. Given the many other significant demands on her time, can she guarantee that those renewals will be given the scrutiny and oversight required? The FSA and FSS will continue to assess products at the initial application stage and will maintain their powers to review authorised products if new evidence of risks emerges. The Minister talked about reviews, but what mechanism will trigger them? How will those organisations know that the risks are there if they are not doing regular reviews? The Minister talked about how applications will work in Great Britain, but can she tell us more about what regulatory framework will be available in Northern Ireland. How does she see trade between GB and NI working, given the difference on either side of the Irish sea? In summary, we do not plan to divide the Committee on the regulations, because we recognise their benefits, but we are keen to understand how the Minister feels that Parliament—and she herself—will be able to keep track of the various changes she will be making.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Draft Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I did not quite understand the Minister’s point regarding Northern Ireland. At the moment, under the new regulations, it is clear what will be done in Great Britain to approve new products. However, if a new product has been produced in another part of the United Kingdom—that is, Northern Ireland—how will it be assessed? How will products that have been assessed under the system in GB be able to be sold in Northern Ireland? Will they require further investigation?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  What my right hon. Friend describes is truly shocking. This Labour Government are going to give away British sovereign territory, and they are going to charge the poor elderly pensioners and our businesspeople to do so. They are going to fundamentally fail in their first duty to keep Britain safe by making our country less safe. What on earth is motivating them to do this dreadful thing?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Unlike some of my esteemed colleagues, I am not a learned lawyer or a former Attorney General, but to an ordinary layperson like me, it sounds very much like the right hon. Lady and her Government are prepared to give away sovereign British territory and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ hard-earned income, simply in case somebody brings a court case sometime in the future that may or may not be successful. Can she please reassure me that that is not true?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is talking about planning—I should declare an interest as a farmer’s wife—and says that 500 farmers will be affected. Of course, none of us can know who is going to die next year. While 500 farmers will be affected, there may be many, many more who might die and might be affected. There is a discrepancy between how many he thinks will definitely be affected—how many he predicts will die—and the actual number of people who may be affected and cannot plan their businesses accordingly, because they simply do not know. He argues that they can put their assets down a generation, but no one knows if there will be a car accident and the younger generation will be killed. He is simply taxing tragedy.