Damian Hinds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Thirlwall Inquiry: Final Report and Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for giving me advance sight of it, and we all thank Lady Justice Thirlwall and her team for their incredibly important work. As the Secretary of State said, the report is both thorough and devastating. These were crimes that shook our whole nation, and no one who has not lost a child in this way could possibly imagine the depth of the parents’ suffering. The task now for the NHS, for the state and for us as parliamentarians is to ensure that from their unthinkably terrible loss will at least come reliable guards against such a tragedy happening again, for sadly this is not the first or only time that serial, tragic, avoidable deaths have occurred within our health service. There are themes that recur: the dismissal or undermining of whistleblowers; concerns about institutional or personal reputation, or about organisational disruption, hampering the primacy of focus on immediate patient safety; and because the idea of a healthcare worker deliberately harming patients is, naturally, so unthinkable to decent people, alternative explanations are sought instead. Today we are not at the stage where the Secretary of State is able to say that the Government accept all the recommendations in full, and we understand that it is a very substantial piece of work. She said that they will consider the entire report and set out a full response. When does she anticipate that will happen? In the time available, I will just ask a few questions on a subset of the aspects here. We welcome the points on the suspicion of deliberate harms protocol. The Secretary of State is absolutely right that the message has to get out that, in such cases, suspicion is enough. We must change the way that people think about that. The report notes that the existing “freedom to speak up” system has operated unevenly through the NHS, and that there remains a need for a national oversight body, although the National Guardian’s Office is no more. The report says that many NHS staff still do not feel that it is possible to raise patient safety concerns without risking career detriment. What else can be done to establish independent escalation pathways outside the management hierarchy? I worry that some of what is there is being removed. If an individual exhausts a trust’s mechanisms for raising concerns, they could currently go to the council of governors at the trust or to NHS England, but both will be abolished by the Health Bill. So if a consultant reports a concern to the board and does not get a hearing, where do they go? Is the Secretary of State the next stage in that line? I must also ask about another of the Government’s current proposed changes: the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. Neither HSSIB nor its predecessor body existed at the time of the murders and, in any event, HSSIB was not set up to investigate individuals, criminal activity or deliberate harm. However, it did create a legally protected safe space for staff to sound alarm bells confidentially outside the normal line manager hierarchy, and that could help to break silences and contribute to the cultural changes that are required. The report states that HSSIB is at present “fulfilling a needed function”, so will the Secretary of State reconsider the proposal to end it? To many people, an obvious question arising from these terrible cases will surely be that someone up the chain must have noticed the sheer numbers and the severe statistical anomaly in fatalities. The report notes that there was an alert signal in the data in 2015, but the analysis was only being reported on with a long lag. Clearly what is required is real-time reporting and automated analysis to identify abnormalities in deteriorations or unexplained deaths that triggers immediate and independent external review. The Secretary of State mentioned that the near real-time process is now in place. Can she say how close that comes to being fully real-time and automated—though not only automated but, of course, complementing human understanding—to trigger independent external review? The inquiry’s findings on this also link to its recommendation that NHS systems become interoperable by the end of 2028. Does she think that timetable is achievable? Recommendation 1, as the Secretary of State mentioned, is on the use of cameras in cots, with remote monitoring for parents, and the Department is to set out a road map by March. Remote monitoring has of course become widespread in people’s own homes, and there is cot-side video in use at quite a number of trusts. But this would be rather more than what is typically in place in those hospitals today. Can she outline her initial assessment of how this can be achieved and by when? One of the most sobering findings is that in Lady Justice Thirlwall’s review of recommendations from previous inquiries into NHS bodies over 30 years, although some significant changes have been made, many recommendations have not been implemented. She supports the formation of a Joint Committee of Parliament to ensure that recommendations are pursued, and she recommends that the National Audit Office audits implementation of statutory inquiries into the NHS. I think I heard the Secretary of State say they were going to create an internal hub—really? I ask her to consider whether that is enough. Would it not be better, in the spirit of the duty of candour, if these things were done through the institutions—through the National Audit Office and with this Parliament? Our thoughts and prayers remain with all those families in the unimaginable pain of their loss. Although nothing now can undo that pain, it is vital that all possible lessons are learned and, more importantly, acted upon with determination and urgency.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Today is once again a day of heavy responsibility for all of us to decide on what we in this House call “conscience issues”. Many of the people who we represent hold strong and immutable views, and we hear from them. However, we represent many others who hold much more nuanced views and we are less likely to hear from them. They are the ones who say “Yes, but…”, “Well, it depends…” or “I’m just not sure”. Others evolve their views over time, and most can do so in private, but there is no such option for Members of Parliament: our names are publicly recorded in a column marked “Aye” or “No”. On issues like this, Members from across the House cast their vote after very serious consideration, personal reflection and sometimes deep turmoil. Members who support the Bill should not have their motives questioned, Members who oppose the Bill should not have their motives questioned, and Members who have reached a different conclusion from one they reached at an earlier stage should not have their judgment questioned either. At the previous Second Reading, we were voting on the principle of the Bill, as is usual on Second Reading. Colleagues knew that amendments could be made in Committee and, as has been discussed, a number of such amendments were made. On Third Reading, many MPs voted in the expectation that further changes would be made in the other place. Today, we vote on the Bill as it is today, which is almost exactly the same as it was at that previous Third Reading. If there is the prospect of the Parliament Acts being used, that would increase the importance and the salience of the text as it is now. Today, it is reasonable and entirely in order for hon. Members to consider information that is available now that was not available in those previous parliamentary deliberation. Colleagues have alluded to a number of such pieces of information. We now have the evidence that went to the Lords Select Committee on safeguards and procedures, the updated impact and equalities impact assessments, and the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee covering the extent of delegated powers. We have heard from royal colleges and other professional bodies, many of whom have a neutral stance on the principle but raise significant questions about particular aspects. We know from Ministers that there would need to be some reprioritisation of NHS resources, but we do not know the extent. None of these things decide the question for Parliament, but they may help inform us. If any provision in the Bill has not been fully brought into effect within four years, it comes into force automatically. Different views will exist among us as to whether that can confidently be said to be time enough in considering workforce, training, operational readiness, and the design and implementation of safeguards. The Government have said, rightly, that the time taken to implement other schemes is not directly comparable, because none are as in this Bill. This is a free vote on a matter of conscience—there is no party line on either side of the Chamber. No one, I suggest, finds this issue easy. I, like all of us, have received countless representations from constituents, often informed by the most heartbreaking family circumstances. Their arguments are sincere, earnest and deeply moving, and in equal measure on both sides of this issue. We can say the same for the heartfelt speeches we have heard once again today from Members from all parties represented in the House. There are moments in debates like the one we have had today that are difficult to sit through and listen to, but it is the most immense privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to hear some of these testimonies. There are moments in debates like the one we have had today that are difficult to sit through and listen to, but it is the most immense privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to hear some of these testimonies. We have had, again, a good and respectful debate in the very best traditions of our Parliament. Whatever the result of the vote a little later today, that respect must endure, for that is why we are put here—to take difficult decisions about the law. Somebody has to take those decisions, not because it is obvious to everyone what to do, but precisely because these issues are hard to resolve. That also involves recognising that good people with the best intentions can and do reach different conclusions on the same question. Each of us now can only make our own judgment in good faith. Each of us bears the responsibility that can only fall to us as parliamentarians to consider the arguments, the evidence and, crucially, the legislation before us as we cast our votes.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Summer Health and Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. To date, preparedness statements have tended to focus on winter, as she said, but she is right that we now need such an approach for summer. I welcome the statement today, but we must also ask about this year—the summer just gone. Yes, the intensity and length of high temperatures was new, along with the spikes that it brought in emergency admissions and all the cancelled appointments, but it was also predictable: high temperatures were forecast. What lessons has the Department learned from the UK Health Security Agency reports on adverse weather and health? What preparations had it made in advance of the summer? What guidance was given? Were trusts left to develop protocols themselves? Specifically, what guidance was given to care and nursing homes? Of course, the high temperatures this summer were not unique to the United Kingdom—nor indeed is the UK, by quite some way, the hottest country in Europe. What conversations have the Secretary of State and her Ministers been having with counterparts in other countries to make sure that each learns from the other? Right now, the NHS is amid a massive top-down reorganisation. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the effect of the uncertainty and upheaval that always comes with a major reorganisation on the NHS’s ability to put in place changes at short notice? Given the extreme heat that staff were enduring, what steps is she taking not only on building and ambient temperature, but to ensure that the design of personal protective equipment, for example, reflects the changed needs? What specific consideration is being given to the ambulance service? There is a connected issue: the cost of energy, for summer as well as winter. What is the right hon. Lady doing across Government to make heating and cooling more affordable for households and individuals? That would bring down admissions. Will the Government now adopt the cheap power plan that we have set out? Finally, although we are talking about the summer, it is September already; it is reasonable and timely to ask also about winter. We understand that supply of the RSV vaccine is in place, but what guarantees can she give about wider preparedness? When will the Secretary of State come to the House to set out those plans? The number of people waiting more than 12 hours in A&E for admission is up significantly since the change of Government. What is she doing to grip that well ahead of the coming winter pressures?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State back, as it were, to the Department. As we debate Third Reading of the Bill, she is the third Secretary of State for this Bill. It was about 40 minutes after First Reading that the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) resigned. I wonder which bit he had just spotted. We wish the Secretary of State well, though, and not only because of her East Hampshire heritage. There will be times when we disagree entirely, and there will be times when we find commonality, but at all times it is our job to scrutinise the Government in the interests of the public and on behalf of the dedicated professionals and other staff in these most vital of sectors. It is also my first opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). He took on that responsibility in the very finest traditions of this House. He had and has respect and admiration across the House, and I know his approach was much appreciated by so many working in and in support of health and social care. This has been a big Bill, and I thank the Public Bill Committee for all the work they did. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who was the Whip and is now a shadow Minister, and everybody on that Committee. We will not divide on Third Reading, because there are important things in this Bill that we support. However, there is a great deal of concern about a huge IT project with no detail behind it as yet. It should put a shiver down any incoming Minister’s back when they hear that they have been bequeathed a large public sector IT transformation project. The Government are taking oversight out and putting that inside the body that is meant to oversee things, removing patient voice and, most of all, doing an enormous top-down reorganisation of the NHS. There have already been 10 of those since 1974. If the answer to the NHS’s problems was a top-down reorganisation, perhaps one of the previous ones would have worked. Whatever the outcome, and whatever this legislation ends up being, I know that the other place will be scrutinising it closely. We will scrutinise its implementation and what difference it actually makes in the end for patients. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  We have 109,000 more young people out of work, the youth unemployment rate is at 16%, and our ratio between youth unemployment and overall unemployment is now at European levels. Why do we care about youth unemployment? There are two reasons: first, it is a matter of what is right and of justice for young people; and secondly, if someone is unemployed when they are a young adult, the scarring effect on their career and earnings can stay with them for five, 10 or 20 years into the future. It is definitely true that the labour market has softened a lot. I hear in East Hampshire that this has not been about mass layoffs; it has been overwhelmingly about not taking people on in the first place, or not increasing the amount of work hours for people already employed. That is especially true for those marginal employment decisions—Saturday jobs, seasonal work, and, the title of today’s debate, summer jobs. The number of apprenticeships is about to rise dramatically, but that is because the Government have reduced the minimum specification and length of time for an apprenticeship, and every time that is done, the number goes up hugely. But I worry that, like for like, apprenticeships in key sectors employing lots of school leavers—I hear this about hairdressing, for example, in East Hampshire, as I am sure other Members also do—are already falling. Business owners in my constituency are reluctant to expand because of the risk, and are not maxing out on business opportunities where they are fluctuating or seasonal. The phrase “pub-closing time” has become meaningless, because pubs are closing earlier and earlier, all at different times, and in some cases not opening for days. I spoke about the scarring effect of being unemployed as a young adult. There is also a big downside and cost to not being able to get early paid work experience opportunities before becoming a full-time employee. To be fair, the Saturday job, and part-time employment for under 18s in particular, has been in long-term decline. That is partly to do with the decline of paper rounds and milk rounds. There has also been a decline in Saturday work in retail, some of which is about an increasing nervousness—often an ill-placed, unnecessary nervousness—on the part of employers around their responsibilities when hiring young people. Whatever the different mix of reasons, the numbers have come down over time. That decline has now accelerated for two reasons. First, I am afraid that whenever the economy takes a hit, it is always young people who feel it first, which is because of the “last in, first out” approach to employment and people not being taken on in the first place. Secondly, it has become relatively costlier and riskier to take on those young people, because of direct employment costs and the Employment Rights Act 2025. All of us in the Chamber are Members of Parliament; we have done reasonably well in our lives. Most of us, before we came here, had successful careers of one type or another. How many colleagues in this place had their first paid employment for 37.5 hours a week, full-time, reliably throughout the whole year? I certainly did not. My first job was a zero-hours contract—we just did not call it that then. In fact, it was not quite a zero-hours contract because there was no actual contract. There was no guaranteed work; it fluctuated week to week, and night to night, washing dishes in a local restaurant, but that is where I learnt some of those crucial skills. They now call them soft skills, but there is nothing soft about them; they are hard. That job is where I learnt about taking criticism; about turning up again the next day; about turning up when I was tired or feeling not that great; about looking the customer in the eye; and about how, if I kept coming back day after day, week after week, at the end of the week they gave me money. That is an important life lesson. A high proportion of people with zero-hours contracts are young, and a high proportion are students or people with another job. But one of the biggest employers of people on zero-hours contracts is the national health service, because NHS bank staff work in that way. The contracts can work for young people. In my constituency, I know plenty of young people who have two zero-hours contract jobs: one at home, where they are during the holidays; and one where they are studying during term time. I do not see why that does not work perfectly well for both employer and employee.