Edward Argar MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2024 · Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of her statement—as I have said before, it is typically courteous of her. I echo the gratitude that she expressed to those in our NHS, and also those in the social care workforce who will be working hard throughout the festive period. As she alluded to, the NHS is already feeling the pressure this winter. We know that winter is always tough for the NHS, irrespective of who is in government, but services are feeling the strain even earlier than in previous years. A tidal wave of flu infections has led to a 70% increase in hospital cases in just seven days, and the national medical director of the NHS has warned of a “quad-demic” of health emergencies as cases of covid, norovirus, RSV and winter flu are all on the rise. Meanwhile, in October, the longest A&E waits of over 12 hours increased by over a quarter in just one month, reaching the third highest monthly figure since comparable records began in 2010. Of course, all that has come before the cold weather really hits and before more vulnerable pensioners are left in freezing homes, unable to put the heating on after the winter fuel payment was scrapped for a large number. What assessment has the Minister and the Department made of the potential impact of that on hospital admissions this winter? In government, we recognised that the NHS faces unique challenges in winter. We also recognised, as I know the Minister does from our previous discussions, the importance of flow in the NHS, with all parts of the system working together. That is why last year we provided £200 million to boost NHS resilience specifically during the peak winter months, which was accompanied by £40 million to bolster social care capacity and improve discharges from hospital. That followed the £1 billion announced earlier that year to boost capacity by delivering 5,000 additional beds, 800 new ambulances and 10,000 virtual ward places. The Secretary of State himself has admitted that there will almost certainly be a winter crisis. There have been warnings from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Nursing and directors at NHS England. Yet in today’s statement, in contrast to the steps we took, we heard a lot about data, meetings and co-ordination, but very little in concrete terms to increase capacity specifically over the winter period. That will give scant reassurance to those working in the system or patients needing the system. In fact, earlier this year, the Secretary of State suggested that there would not be any specific new funding for the NHS to cope with winter pressures. The Minister will know that I have tabled a number of written questions in recent days, met in many cases by what seems to be the standard DHSC response for named day questions of a holding answer. As the pressure continues to grow, I have a number of specific questions for the Minister while she is at the Dispatch Box. Will the NHS receive more resources specifically to increase bed and A&E capacity this winter? Are there enough hospital beds and ambulances for this winter, or is she taking steps to increase them? As of the 1st of the month, how many people who were medically fit to be discharged had not been, for a variety of other reasons? I am grateful for the update that the Minister provided on winter vaccinations. What assessment has she made of the supply of the flu vaccine? There are some suggestions that pharmacies and others have run out and are waiting for more deliveries. How many additional 111 and 999 call handlers have been recruited specifically for this winter? We talked briefly about the need for the system to work as a whole. In that context, what is the impact of national insurance contributions on hospices, social care and GPs? The Secretary of State told the Health and Social Care Committee this morning that hospices would get an update from him before Christmas, but at Prime Minister’s questions in response to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister appeared to say that it will be after Christmas. Can the Minister clarify that for the House, because it is an important point? Finally, what meetings has the Secretary of State personally had with Julian Redhead and Sarah-Jane Marsh, the NHS winter leads, and when was the first of those meetings specifically on this subject? I am very happy for him to write to me if that is easier, given the complexity. As seasonal flu piles yet more pressure on NHS systems, it is more important than ever that it gets the resources and support that it needs. There are many promises of reform, but the NHS needs an immediate capacity boost in beds over winter. So far, the Government have kicked reform into the long grass in favour of yet more consultation, and their preparations for winter have lacked the urgency and focus that patients and NHS staff demand. In government, the Conservatives always put extra support in place to keep the NHS going through the tough winter period, boosting capacity and increasing support. This Government need to get a grip and do the same.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Puberty-suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for his courtesy in coming to the House to make an oral statement, which gives hon. Members the opportunity to ask him questions. When the Secretary of State is wrong, we will challenge him robustly and hold him to account, but when he is right, we will support him. That is responsible opposition. In what he sets out today, he is right, and he has my support for what he is doing. Protecting children is one of the most important priorities that a Health Secretary can have. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), worked tirelessly to do just that. She set out that it was her priority to protect children and young people from risks to their safety from the prescription of puberty blockers, given the lack of an evidence base. I welcome the Secretary of State’s continuing the work started under the previous Government, and I welcome his support at the time and all that he has done since, including in his statement on 4 September. I associate myself with the three principles that he enunciated when he opened his statement. With increasing numbers of young people questioning their gender identity, NHS England, with the support of previous Conservative Health Secretaries Matt Hancock and Sir Sajid Javid, commissioned Dr Hilary Cass to examine the state of services for children questioning their gender. That historic review cut through the noise and ideology to lay bare the clear facts, so that we as policymakers can seek to make decisions based on evidence, safety and biological reality, and create a service that better serves the needs of children, as the Secretary of State set out. In the review, Dr Cass made it clear that not enough is known about the lifelong impacts of using puberty blockers on young minds and bodies to be sure that they are safe, and that the robust evidence base was simply not there. In March, NHS England made the landmark decision to end the routine prescription to children of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. With the support of the then Government, it announced that it was stopping children under 18 from being seen by adult gender services with immediate effect. As one of the final acts of the previous Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle used emergency powers under section 62 of the Medicines Act 1968 to extend the ban to private clinics selling puberty blockers to young people questioning their gender. It was the right thing to do, and I agree with and pay tribute to her, as I do to the Secretary of State for what he has subsequently done. The safety and wellbeing of children and young people must come above any other concern. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State renewed the order; his saying that he will make the ban indefinite, given the absence at present of an evidence base; and his seeking to better understand and build that evidence base. I have a few questions that I hope the Secretary of State can offer clarifications on in a constructive spirit. I hope—I think he alluded to this—that he will confirm that he intends to implement the Cass review’s recommendations in full. Of course, support must be available to children and young people who are questioning their gender identity, and that support must be holistic, multidisciplinary and evidence-led. The Tavistock clinic closed earlier this year, and as he set out, three new regional NHS children and young people’s gender services have opened to provide better, tailored gender services for children and young people—again, that is based on recommendations in the Cass review. Can the Secretary of State provide more detail on the delivery of the remaining regional centres, and say what order they are due to open in, so that children and families can see what is happening in their region? Again, that is about putting the best interests of young people first. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that these measures will be UK-wide and that he is working in tandem with the devolved Administrations? Will he advise on what progress has been made thus far—I appreciate that it is early days—on further research into patient care and increasing that evidence base? Can he update the House on the steps taken to continue the work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, when she announced to the House in May the decision to work to close any online loopholes to the regulations put in place? Finally, will he commit—I suspect I know the answer to this one—to keeping the House updated in the months and years ahead on developments in this space? Our children and young people deserve healthcare that is compassionate, caring, careful and led by the evidence. I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s concluding remarks on the need for the debate to be conducted in a respectful and sensitive way, with the needs of children and young people at its heart. We will support measures that protect children, and support him in bringing forward such measures; we want to work constructively with the Government to give the next generation access to the right healthcare to meet their needs. I look forward to working with him in the months ahead.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for most of what he just said. I will address precisely his point in a few paragraphs, but I say to him that my party brought forward legislation in March, which was debated in April, that did not have the mission-creep that I fear the Secretary of State is demonstrating with clause 136 and various other measures in this proposed legislation. I must also challenge the Government on how they anticipate this measure being enforced. Will members of the public be encouraged to call the police if they see a parent smoking in a prohibited place? If there are no children in a park or playground, will it still be prohibited? Concerns are also raised by the new licensing and registration schemes. While it is right that we had planned to expand the existing notification scheme to include non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products involved in the supply chain, this Bill goes a number of steps further. The Secretary of State will be able to create a new licensing regime for retailers for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. Over 70% of convenience stores selling vapes and tobacco products are independent shops. How will they fare and how will they be assisted with the layers of added bureaucracy and cost that will be associated with the Bill? Do local authorities, which are already under pressure, have the capacity and additional funding allocated to administer such a licensing scheme in their areas? Again, my fear is that we are unable to make a fully informed decision about the impact because the regulations will be set out only after the Bill has passed. The impact assessment states: “A more restrictive licensing scheme would be expected to have a greater impact on public health and a greater economic impact on businesses.” However, we simply do not know if that is what the Secretary of State has in mind or what the regulations will look like. Likewise, there is no detail on the impacts of a new registration scheme for all tobacco, vaping, nicotine and herbal products, as well as tobacco-related devices. In the few months that the Government have been in office, they have sadly shown that they are not particularly a friend of business and have broken a number of their pre- election promises. Although I have confidence in the Secretary of State as an individual and as a right hon. Member of this House, I ask him to forgive the cynicism of those on the Opposition Benches over any attempted reassurances from the Government that they will take businesses’ concerns into account as they consult on their plans. To the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), if a Division is called, in line with the precedent set last time this will be a free vote; each Conservative Member may vote as they choose. The Bill, as I have said, comes from a good intention to keep the population healthy, to ease costs for the NHS and to prevent children from taking up addictive habits that may follow them for the rest of their lives. I support those objectives, but I call on the Minister for public health, when he winds up, to give the reassurances I seek and roll back the additional measures that have been put in place, over and above what we were proposing. It is important that information is available so that people can make informed decisions and that support is available for those who choose to stop smoking. Adult individuals are best placed to make decisions about their own lives, but we recognise that the same is not true for children. I look forward to the responses from the Minister for public health, which I hope will be constructive. I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer to be collaborative and constructive in his approach to the legislation.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That will depend on whether the Minister for public health gives the promises I seek that he will withdraw a number of the measures that the Government have added to the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who will take the Bill through Committee on behalf of the Opposition, and I know that she looks forward to constructive and collaborative engagement with the Minister. I hope he can offer reassurances when he gets up to the Dispatch Box in a few hours’ time.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will briefly, because I have one sentence to go.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not always do this, but I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for the tone he has adopted in this debate and for recognising the strongly and sincerely held views of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of it. I am also grateful to him for being typically willing to share with the House in support of his points something as personal as what happened to his grandmother. Sadly, it will not surprise him that no one asks me for my ID these days—I will have to take some tips from him on the moisturiser that he uses. [ Interruption. ] I will ignore the unkind comment that he has just made. In many ways, this Bill is like the curate’s egg: it is good in parts—indeed, it is good in many parts—and started from a place of good intentions. As the Secretary of State set out, smoking has a huge cost to society and to individuals. We know that smoking is the single biggest entirely preventable cause of ill health, death and disability in this country, and we see in our NHS the impact of smoking every day. It is responsible for around 80,000 deaths in the UK each year and is estimated to cost the NHS and social care more than £3 billion a year, including 75,000 GP appointments every month. As the Secretary of State said, almost every minute someone is admitted to hospital because of smoking. It substantially increases the risk of many major health conditions throughout people’s lives, such as stroke, diabetes, heart disease, stillbirth, cancers, dementia and asthma. As the Secretary of State has alluded to in the past, it is often people in more deprived areas who have higher smoking rates, lower healthy life expectancy and higher mortality rates linked to smoking. Some 230,000 households are estimated to live in smoking-induced poverty, and children of smokers are three times as likely to start to smoke, potentially perpetuating the cycle. Over 80% of smokers started before they turned 20—many started as children—yet more than half of current smokers want to quit; as the Secretary of State said, three quarters say that they would never have started smoking if they had the choice again. Let me be clear: reducing smoking, giving people the information and support to quit, and helping to protect children in particular are worthy ambitions. Among all the doom and gloom, there is some positive news: smoking rates are falling anyway. While around 6 million people in the UK smoke, the number of smokers has been falling for decades. In 2023, just 10.5% of people aged 16 and over smoked, compared with 20.3% in 2010, 20.7% in 2000 and 30% a decade before that in 1990. Likewise, the number of children who smoke is falling. While this trend is welcome, it is understandable that there is a strong desire to see continued action to further drive down the prevalence of smoking and tackle the recent rise in vaping among non-smokers, especially among young people, and to protect future generations. As was evidenced by the interventions that the Secretary of State kindly took from many hon. Members, I am sure that many of us in the House have been alarmed by the surge in youth vaping, which has doubled in the past five years. Despite it already being illegal to sell nicotine vapes to under-18s, a quarter of children tried vaping in 2023. While nicotine vapes can and do play an important part in helping adults to quit smoking, we are clear that children who do not smoke should not take up vaping. The nicotine content makes those products highly addictive, while the long-term impacts of the colours and flavours being inhaled are highly unlikely to be beneficial. Of course, the full effects may not be known for some years yet. The uptake in youth vaping has been driven in part by the branding and promotion of products clearly aimed at children, with vapes, packaging, descriptions and marketing all designed to appeal specifically to young people. Grown adults trying to quit smoking are unlikely to see the appeal of cartoon characters on their vapes, but of course, children and young people will. Likewise, the bright colours and fruit flavours are far more likely to appeal to children than to those looking to quit tobacco smoking. For those reasons, the last Government introduced a Bill that primarily targeted our interventions at young people. It would have restricted who could purchase tobacco products without impacting current adult smokers. It sought to tackle youth vaping by restricting flavours, introducing plain packaging and changing how vapes are displayed in shops so that they do not appeal to children. It would also have prohibited the sale of non-nicotine vapes and vaping alternatives such as nicotine pouches to under-18s, just as it is already illegal to sell nicotine vapes to children. In parallel, it would have introduced new fines for rogue retailers in order to tackle the illegal market, seeking to make sure that the law—such as age restrictions on purchasing vapes—was properly enforced. That approach was targeted at the next generation of young people and aimed to prevent the take-up of smoking and vaping and break the cycle of nicotine addiction before it had even started. That Bill was not about demonising people who smoke or curtailing current smokers’ rights or entitlements in any way. None the less, it had challenging practical implementation impacts. I have a lot of respect for the public health Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne)—I think that is his new constituency name—and know him well. I hope that when he winds up the debate, he will address some of the points I am about to make. My first point is about the impact on shopkeepers, particularly small shopkeepers, of enforcing and operating within increased restrictions, and the extent to which those restrictions are practically enforceable. In the context of what the Bill sets out to do, how does one avoid the existence of, or an increase in, a black-market economy in vapes or cigarettes? We introduced our Bill before the general election. Since then, the new Government have introduced a Bill that may have the same name, but is not quite the same Bill that was introduced back in March. The Bill before us today gives the Secretary of State new, or significantly modified, powers under the Health Act 2006. It runs the risk of piling an unknown number of regulations on to retailers through a new licensing scheme, and it creates a whole new registration scheme. The challenge is that right hon. and hon. Members will not be told in detail what those schemes will look like, the specific impact they will have on businesses, or the detailed impact they will have on smoking and vaping rates until after the legislation has been passed. A hefty impact assessment—all 294 pages of it—has been produced. Given that the public health Minister has signed it, I fear he had to read every one of those pages before doing so. However, even with that impact assessment, the detailed impact of the individual regulations that may follow is unclear. For example, clause 136 amends the Health Act 2006 to give the Secretary of State the power to extend smokefree places to some outdoor spaces. Of course, adults should be mindful and thoughtful about where they smoke or vape to be considerate to those around them, especially in areas with children or vulnerable young people, but the Bill risks giving the Secretary of State expanded powers to expand smokefree areas with minimal oversight. I acknowledge that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used, but as we in this House know, a statutory instrument and the procedures that accompany it are not as rigorous in their scrutiny as primary legislation. Unlike previous laws, which banned smoking in confined areas such as pubs and bars, the Secretary of State is talking about bans in open spaces where the risks of second-hand smoking may be more limited. Page 64 of the delegated powers memorandum states: “Under Section 4 of the 2006 Act, the Secretary of State could make regulations to designate additional places as smoke-free provided that they were of the opinion that there was a significant risk persons present in such a place would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke without a smoke-free designation…Section 5 of the 2006 Act gave the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for vehicles to be smoke-free.” It goes on to say: “Clause 136 amends the existing power in section 4 of the 2006 Act by omitting the risk condition.” I would be grateful if the public health Minister could explain in his winding-up speech—I suspect he will be able to do so—why that condition is being removed. It was there for a reason: to give a sense of proportionality to anything that was done and to ensure that a particular bar had to be met, given the impact. Its removal effectively gives the Secretary of State much greater discretion to do as he wishes at a future date. I note that the Secretary of State has said today that he changed his mind on banning smoking in pub gardens or outside hospitality venues. I know him well, and he is an honourable man, so I take him at his word on that, but there is nothing in this proposed legislation to prevent a future Secretary of State from coming back, consulting and expanding beyond the areas where he proposes to restrict smoking to other venues and settings at a future date. Under clause 136, that could be done without the crucial risk criteria being applied. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point, because it is hugely important. Members are being asked to decide now whether they support expanding smokefree places to an unknown list of outdoor spaces in the future, so it genuinely raises significant challenges and concerns if that gateway is not in place.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that response but, just as my hon. Friends have highlighted in respect of the damaging impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on GPs, hospices and care providers, I fear it was another example of the Government simply not answering the question and not having a plan yet. Either the Government have not done their homework and, as with the impact of NICs increases, they have not thought this through and do not know, or worse, they do not care—which is it?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows that every year, irrespective of which party is in government, winter is challenging for the NHS. Possibly, it will be all the more so this year with the potential impact on older people’s health of the loss of the winter fuel allowance by many. What winter preparedness steps has he taken, like previous Governments, to increase A&E capacity and to increase the number of beds this winter, and can he say by how many?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit of progress, if I may. There were no plans for social care reform after the Chancellor broke Labour’s promise to deliver the cap on social care costs. I hear what the Secretary of State says about a willingness to work on what is a challenge facing our whole country and society: with an ageing population, how do we address the challenge of social care? There were no further detailed plans for NHS dentistry, despite the election pledge to deliver more dental appointments. There was no support for pharmacies or for the day-to-day running of general practice, and there were still no additional resources for the NHS this winter—or, indeed, the details of reform to go with them.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate the Health Secretary on winning round 1 with the Treasury—I look across the Chamber and see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Government Front Bench—in securing extra investment. He has secured more than £22 billion announced for the NHS, but without, as yet, any detailed indication of where that funding will go. I look forward to him returning to the House to set out the detail—I think he said that would be next week. What it must do is genuinely improve outcomes for patients and our NHS, rather than simply be focused on the headline figure of the inputs to it. There are, as yet, no clues as to whether it will be spent on wages, recruiting more staff, medicines or equipment; no clues as to how it will deliver the 40,000 additional appointments that have been promised; and no conditions linking the funding, as yet, to productivity improvements, modernisation or better outcomes for patients. What we need to hear next week from the Secretary of State is an actual plan. As he mentioned, the right hon. Gentleman became shadow Health Secretary three years ago. I hope that in that time he has had an opportunity to think about what he wants to do and that he will actually set that out to the House next week.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure and a privilege to be working once again in health and social care, although a disappointment to be doing it from the Opposition Benches. It is a privilege because, like the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care now, I had the privilege in government of working with the amazing and dedicated people who work in our NHS and in social care up and down the country. It is a pleasure to be back. It is a pleasure to be opposite the Secretary of State, as he now is. I remember our tussles back in the day, when I was sitting over there and he was sitting here. I am sufficiently fond of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage him not to get himself fired out of a cannon, as he alluded to. Although I will say one thing for it: it would not only draw attention to his day job, but possibly even aid him in his ambitions to secure his boss’s job in due course. In respect of his comments about the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I would only say very gently that she should probably take that as a compliment. When the right hon. Gentleman attacks someone in that way, it probably means that they are somewhat frit of her. I think he will see in the coming weeks and months why that is so. We have already seen and heard over the previous days of debate that this is unequivocally a Budget of broken promises. Despite the pledges made over the course of the election and the commitments given to the British people, in reality those words meant nothing to the Labour party once it secured the keys to No. 10. Instead, we have seen taxes hiked on working people: the people who provide food security and food every day, our farmers, hit hard by the changes that have been made. We see living standards set to fall and mortgage rates likely to rise. We see taxes up, we see borrowing up, we see debt up, and we see that growth will be down on where it could and should be. Unfortunately, I fear, that pattern of broken promises also applies to the NHS and our social care sector.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  We increased investment significantly, not only to tackle the inevitable consequence of a global covid pandemic—which, as we all know, hit our NHS hard—but to build back better subsequently, which is the task that we began to perform. We have always said that investment in the NHS must be married to reform in order to deliver better patient outcomes and value for money, building on the reforms that we introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022 and ensuring that the NHS will be there to look after us for decades to come. The Secretary of State has worked with me before, and we will work with any party, including his.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in a second. Nice try, Secretary of State. Is the right hon. Gentleman directing where that NHS funding goes himself, or will it be for his officials or NHS England to set the priorities for that, and who will be held accountable for ensuring that it is prioritised in the right places?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In his allusion to the Labour party’s inheritance, he missed the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility singularly failed to back up the assertions made about the quantum of challenge the incoming Government faced. Time and again, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), both in opposition and now as Secretary of State, has promised that any more money for the NHS has to be linked to reform. He has done that again today. The week before the Budget, he said that “extra investment in the NHS must be linked to reform”. In September, the Prime Minister himself said: “No more money without reform”. They are right on that. The Opposition support that condition, because it is only with reform that the NHS can sustainably continue to look after us for years to come. Yet I fear that this risks being another broken promise. I say to him now that where he is bold and provides genuine reform to benefit patients, he will have our support. Equally, if he bows to internal pressure and backs away from the radical reform that is needed, we will hold him to account.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot tax your way to growth and you cannot invest in public services without that growth. If the predictions we are seeing about growth are borne out, there is a real risk to our public services’ sustainability in future. The Chancellor said that the funding would help to deliver 40,000 more NHS appointments a week, but again we see no reference to specific actions by which that will be achieved. The Government seem not to know the difference between a target and a plan, and simply restating their ambition while throwing money at the challenge will not be enough to deliver on that commitment. As I have said, elements of the Budget relating to the Department of Health and Social Care were welcome, one of them being the Secretary of State’s one-nil win over the Chief Secretary in respect of funding. An additional £2 billion to drive productivity is important. I fear that it is a slimmed-down version of the £3.4 billion NHS productivity plans that we announced and funded, but I will study it closely, and, similarly, the Secretary of State’s plan for mental health is deserving of serious study. On both sides of this Chamber, we recognise the importance in mental health investment of not only parity of esteem but parity of services, and it is therefore right for us to scrutinise very carefully how the right hon. Gentleman intends to build further on the success that we had in driving that agenda forward. Let me now turn to the subject of capital investment, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It concerns me that, as far as I am aware, the Secretary of State has still not told us exactly when his review of the new hospital programme will report and set out the future for each and every one of the hospitals that he committed himself to delivering during the election campaign—the programme to which the previous Chancellor had committed funding, building on the original £3.7 billion allocated in 2019. The question for the Government, and the question for the Chief Secretary to answer when he winds up the debate, is: “When will that review report, and when will each and every one of those colleagues and communities who are looking forward to a new hospital know whether it will be delivered in line with the Secretary of State’s pledge, or whether the programme will be cut?” Nearly a week after the Budget, Members will be familiar with the verdict of the Office for Budget Responsibility: namely, that the £25 billion assault on businesses risks lower wages, lower living standards and lower growth. And let us not forget what this tax hike will mean for those providing essential services across primary, secondary and social care—the general practices, care homes, adult social care providers, community pharmacists on our high streets, hospices and charities such as Marie Curie and Macmillan which provide additional care for patients alongside the NHS. I was deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) to state clearly that all those groups would be exempt and would not be hit by this hike, and I hope that when the Chief Secretary winds up the debate he will be able to give that reassurance. The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the extra costs of the employer’s national insurance hike could force GP surgeries to make redundancies or close altogether, and the Independent Pharmacies Association has warned that community pharmacies will have to find an extra £12,000 a year, on average, to pay for the hike.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress, but then I will happily give way to my hon. Friend. Apart from the press releases and the reviews, where is the action? We need to see where the £22 billion will be spent. What plans does the Secretary of State have for additional investment for the NHS this winter? He knows, as I knew when I was a Minister, that winter in the NHS is always challenging. I look forward to him setting out what additional investment he plans.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the ill-thought-out consequences of this hike for hospices and general practices, both in Scotland and elsewhere. I would dearly love to be able to respond to his question. Sadly, however, I am on this the side of the House and not the other side, but I am sure that the Chief Secretary will attempt to do so. The Nuffield Trust has said that without additional financial support, the tax raid is likely to force social care providers to pass higher costs on to people who pay for their own care, or potentially collapse financially. Charities are not exempt either. As a result of the increases in the national living wage and employer’s national insurance contributions, one of the UK’s largest social care charities says it is facing an unfunded increased wage bill of £12 million a year, and Marie Curie has warned that the rises in employer’s NI contributions will only serve to put the services that it delivers on behalf of the NHS under further pressure. Those charities will be looking to the Chief Secretary to say what succour he can offer them in the form of an assurance that they will not be hit.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Lady to her place as well. I think this is the first opportunity I have had to respond to a intervention or question from her. In fact, we put record funding into the NHS—£164.9 billion per year—and on top of that we recruited more doctors and more nurses. We did not do that by piling tax hikes on hospices and general practices, among others. I am not sure how hitting primary care, social care or charities supporting NHS services will help the Secretary of State to deliver his aim of cutting waiting lists. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell the House what steps the Treasury is taking to ensure that those organisations are not hit by these changes. Let me take a moment to consider what was not included in the Budget.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. I am afraid I want to conclude my remarks, because I am keen for others to have a chance to speak. That offer to the Secretary of State stands. I am always happy to work constructively with him when he is willing to work constructively with me. He knows that we have done that before, not least as we emerged from the pandemic, when I was still a Minister in the Department. Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, I fear that the Budget was a missed opportunity that will not achieve the ambitions the Government have set out. As I have said, we cannot tax our way to growth, and without growth we cannot sustainably fund public services. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be brave, to stand up to those in his party who would have him back down or water down reform, and to deliver a genuinely radical plan for the future of our NHS and for social care that works for those who work in it, but also, crucially, for all the people who rely on it. Our constituents deserve nothing less from him.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he pauses for just a moment, I will turn to capital investment and seek to address his point.

• 29 Oct 2024 · IPP Sentences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and a privilege to speak in today’s debate. Doing so from the Opposition side of the Chamber takes some getting used to, though I fear I may have time to get used to it. I am very pleased to see the Minister here; I know him well and he is a thoroughly decent and able man, so it is a pleasure to see him back in the House after a brief absence from this place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate on an issue on which there are strong and sincerely held views. I know the hon. Gentleman well. He spoke eloquently and with typical decency and humanity. Before moving to the substance of the debate, as a Leicestershire MP I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that he and the Minister might have another ally in their footballing cause in this House. [Clive Efford in the Chair ] As we have heard, the IPP sentence has understandably been called a stain on our justice system, not least by my predecessor in office, the former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, among others. It is a sentence that can keep people essentially in limbo in what could be termed preventive detention, not because of something they have done, but because of something that they may do. The sentence was brought in under the previous Labour Government by the then Home Secretary, David—now Lord—Blunkett. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for what he has done subsequently. He has become one of the greatest advocates for reform, which speaks of his integrity. It takes a big person to acknowledge the botched introduction of the legislation in 2005 and the error that was made; it speaks well of him that he has been willing to do so. A decade on from the 2012 abolition, the Justice Committee report of September 2022 was hugely important in what it said and the look it took at this issue. It made a number of constructive recommendations, which the previous Government considered very carefully. I am pleased that in the final days of the previous Parliament, a consensus was reached that enabled the then Victims and Prisoners Bill to progress into legislation. I am grateful to the now Government for the constructive approach they took in those final days. Changes to the IPP sentence were a key part of that. The hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) called for those changes to be enacted. That has already been done through that legislation, reducing the licence period from 10 years to a review at three years, reflecting what the Justice Committee said—although going a bit further than the five years it suggested—with the Parole Board then considering the termination of the licence. There is a presumption of termination, but it is a rebuttable one were there to be any other considerations to be taken into account. Were that not acted on after the three years, after a further two years the Secretary of State must terminate that licence, unless there had been a recall during that period. Those changes have already been made, and I believe the implementation was carried out relatively recently by the new Government. That new test creates a presumption for licence termination unless public protection considerations mean that the Parole Board deems that licence to be needed. There is a hugely difficult balance to be struck, rightly, between the challenges the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green, among others, set out and the challenges that the sentence poses—to hope, and to the ability to see a way forward and make progress, for those serving way beyond the time that would be handed down under the current sentencing regime for the equivalent crime. That must be set against public protection considerations, which must also be at the heart of the approach. Where the Parole Board has deemed it will not agree the termination of the licence, that is because the Parole Board has refused on the grounds of public protection. We have heard today of the huge impact that the nature of that uncertainty, lack of hope and clarity has on those serving IPP sentences. That lack of hope has an impact on those people’s mental health. The nature of the sentence has a huge impact not just on individuals but on their family, friends and others. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) set that out very eloquently, as he does. I must always be careful in lavishing praise on the right hon. Gentleman, as it will probably not do my political career much good, but I found myself reflecting carefully on what he said because he made his point in a measured, and very human, way. This is why the changes contained in the Victims and Prisoners Act were needed. However, although the Justice Committee recommended resentencing, that would potentially see those whom a parole board had very recently considered not safe to release on public protection grounds released immediately, even if that went contrary to the board’s view. Just last week, in her response to questions following the statement she made to the House, the new Lord Chancellor set out her view that His Majesty’s Government continue to oppose resentencing, as set out in the Justice Committee’s report. The hon. Member for York Central highlighted the huge importance of progress—of people being able to see their progression towards release and the termination of their licence. Engagement and support is absolutely central to that. The changes to licence times, and the approach to licence termination, will help people progress, but it is important that we reflect, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, not just on those IPP prisoners but on the victims of those crimes, and it is right that we consider both in the round. Before I turn to that, I think we are beginning to see some progress. When this matter was debated in the context of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the figures were that around 3,300 IPP prisoners were still detained; the latest figures from the House of Commons Library show that there are now just under 2,800. That is a degree of progress. Equally, it is important to remember that at that time about 1,200 had never been released or had the opportunity to make progress and be released, so more progress needs to be made. I will put a number of questions to the Minister, and I expect he will respond in his typically helpful and constructive manner. Can he set out what progress is being made on the action plan? I think the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) touched on this, but my understanding is that, with the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act through Parliament, it was deemed that there might be an interaction between that and the action plan. That explains the delay: the plan would have been published earlier this year, but the changes made in the Act were—and are—significant. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), clearly and eloquently set out the importance of mental health considerations in this context. Mental health can have an impact both on those with an IPP sentence and on their families and friends, and there is a need for mental health support and care to enable that progression, both inside prison and on release so they can continue to abide by the terms of the licence. What support is available to IPP prisoners before they appear before the Parole Board to best demonstrate what they have achieved? If victims anticipate a release date further in the future, they might well be concerned about what happens if a licence is breached, or if there is suspicion of that. How is that reported—to probation, or to the police—and how is it acted on? What action would be taken? Once a licence is terminated, would the victims’ understanding be right that at that point they have no further options, because that person is deemed to have served their time and to be a free citizen? To conclude, Mr Efford, I am conscious that the previous Lord Chancellor continues to look very carefully at the issue. We saw the approach he took in the Victims and Prisoners Act, and he was clear that he would always continue to look carefully at any changes recommended by Committees or others, ensuring that balance between justice for IPP prisoners and addressing the concerns of victims and public protection. Will the Minister confirm that he and the new Lord Chancellor will continue to adopt a pragmatic and measured approach in considering this incredibly challenging issue?

• 29 Oct 2024 · IPP Sentences · Hansard source

  More

  Shadow Minister.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  I followed it closely.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  As always, I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for early sight of her statement, and for her coming to the House to deliver it, giving us the opportunity to ask questions. She is always unfailingly courteous in her dealings with this House. The Lord Chancellor made several announcements today. It is important that we see the detail of her sentencing review, and that, whatever the outcome, it ensures that victims’ voices are heard throughout, that the worst offenders—for example, violent or sexual offenders—stay behind bars for longer, and that, as she alluded to, prolific offenders who cause so much blight and harm can still be subject to a custodial sentence where appropriate. We saw an overall fall in reoffending since 2010 under the last Government, from around 31% to just over 25%, but there is of course still more to do. It is right that we look at all sentences, including tough community sentences, through the prism of what reduces reoffending, boosts rehabilitation and best protects the public. With that in mind, I know David Gauke well; he was my first boss as a Minister. He is a decent, honourable, able and thoughtful man, and I regard him as a friend, so I will not prejudge what he will conclude in his review. But the Opposition will rightly, as the Lord Chancellor would expect, scrutinise the review when it is published, and hold the Government to account on the choices they make on how to proceed subsequently. I hope the review’s terms of reference might include not just male prisoners, but female prisoners and female offenders, building on the female offenders strategy that David Gauke and I put in place many years ago. As the Lord Chancellor has set out, prison capacity has been under significant pressure for some time, and while the situation was incredibly acute in 2008, 2009 and 2010, it remains a significant challenge. That is due to an increased average sentence length for first offenders—for which we make no apology—matched by the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era, with thousands of additional places built while tackling the legacy of the crumbling prison estate we inherited in 2010 and the Labour party’s absolute failure to build the 7,500 Titan prison places it promised while in government. Of course, though, the impact on the remand population of the decisions to not mass release during the pandemic and to rightly retain jury trials, compounded by the Bar strike, undoubtedly significantly increased pressure despite our prison-building programme. The Lord Chancellor has set out her chosen approach, with more convicted criminals released today at the 40% point of their sentence, rather than the 50% point in tranche 2 of SDS40. We are seeing significant levels of concern from victims of crime about that approach—Sky News ran a powerful package this morning highlighting that concern—so I have several important questions on that aspect of the Lord Chancellor’s announcement. She said that she will publish data on SDS40 in the coming weeks in the normal run of statistics. I understand that, but we would be grateful if she could provide the date on which those statistics will be published. In the media this morning, she alluded to the rate of recalls being “very high” but disputed—based on her internal data—that it was as high as 50%, as was suggested on Radio 4. Can she expand on what that rate looks like? In response to a written question from me, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) acknowledged that hotels are now being used in some cases to accommodate released prisoners under SDS40. In the light of the Lord Chancellor’s commitment at oral questions last month to be transparent about this matter—although it took a written question from me to get that confirmation—how many hotel rooms or places are being used, and at what cost? We have heard little thus far about deporting FNOs, so I am pleased that she has focused on that issue in her remarks, but when will she set out more details of her plans to improve the deportation rate of FNOs, and what targets is she setting for that? Does the Lord Chancellor now acknowledge that—as we pointed out at the time, and as victims also pointed out—although the Government claimed that domestic abuse and domestic violence offences would be excluded from SDS40, that is simply not the case? DA offenders committing actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm are not excluded. Will she revisit the exclusions list to review this matter? Will she also commit to building more prisons, over and above the six new prisons that we funded and have already been completed or are being built, and will she commit to funding that additional prison building? Home detention curfew will further reduce the time that convicted criminals spend behind bars. Someone with a four-year sentence who is not excluded from SDS40 would now be out at around 19 months; with the possibility of 12-month HDC, that could mean that they were only inside for just over six months of a four-year sentence. I recognise that the interaction between different schemes and calculations is complex and may be different in individual cases, but can the Lord Chancellor reassure the House that a fixed minimum percentage will always be served by those sentenced to prison? The Lord Chancellor will appreciate that with layer upon layer of reductions, some people will struggle to see that punishment or public protection are at the fore, so can she clarify a number of further points? While most DA offences would be presumed ineligible for HDC, that presumption is not absolute, and again, many common DA offences such as ABH or common assault are not presumed ineligible. What will the Lord Chancellor do to address that issue? Does she intend to examine the list of exclusions for both schemes—SDS40 and HDC—and come back to the House with a tougher list? Tagging is a vital part of HDC, but while there may be the tags, as she has mentioned, it appears that the ability to fit them swiftly is sadly lacking at present. What reassurances can the Lord Chancellor give that there is now no backlog at all in tagging? What steps is she taking to ensure that victims are contacted when perpetrators are released, and what additional resource is going into victim support services and probation, over and above what we had already committed to? Turning to the rehabilitation activity requirement, it is right that experienced staff judge these cases. As the Lord Chancellor knows, the smaller numbers reflect both risk assessment and the complex interaction of RAR with other release schemes. I therefore fear that the bounty she might expect to get from the changes she intends to make will be limited. Will she confirm details of those proposed changes for the House in due course? Finally, and most importantly, as I pressed the Lord Chancellor on last week, it is vital that the criminal justice system is not subject to a flat budget or, worse, cuts in next week’s Budget—cuts that would let down victims, those who work in the system, and the public. I fully appreciate that she will not be able to prejudge that Budget, either at the Dispatch Box or in the media, but a fair financial settlement, alongside her setting out her long-term plans for the system—a little of which I acknowledge we have seen today—will be absolutely essential if victims and the public are to have confidence in her Government on law and order.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Criminal Justice System: Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor and her civil servants for their typical courtesy in giving me early sight of her statement. I am also grateful to magistrates, to whom I pay tribute. In many ways, they are the backbone of our justice system, and like juries they root our justice system in our local communities. Their service is hugely appreciated, as is the work of the Magistrates’ Association, and I recognise their skill and dedication. The Lord Chancellor highlighted the backlog as context. As she will know, in 2010 the backlog that we inherited in the Crown courts was 48,000. It was reduced to 40,000 by 2019, but we recognise that it is a lot higher now. The change? A pandemic. She rightly referred to significant increases in the remand population. During the pandemic, supported by the then Opposition, we opted not to mass-release prisoners, as other countries did, and not to cancel jury trials. That of course led to increases in the remand population, compounded by the effect of the Bar strike. The vast bulk of the backlog is in the Crown courts, as the Lord Chancellor will know, and it is right to recognise the interrelationship between magistrates courts and Crown courts. I believe that the concordat on sitting days had not been formally signed by the former Lord Chancellor at the time of the election, and I therefore saw with concern that, in stark contrast to previous Lord Chancellors who increased sitting days, it appears we will see a reduction of 2,700 sitting days compared with last year. I would be grateful for the Lord Chancellor’s reflections on that. In 2019 there were 85,000 sitting days, and 107,700 last year. This year the cap appears to be at 105,000. That appears to be the Government’s choice, but I would welcome clarity from the Lord Chancellor on that. The changes that the Lord Chancellor has set out were characterised by the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Mary Prior KC, in The Guardian : “This is a knee-jerk reaction, done without consulting—once again—the criminal barristers or solicitors who deal every day with these cases”. There are therefore a number of questions about that and the broader criminal justice system, given the scope of the right hon. Lady’s statement, which I hope she will be able to answer. Has she conducted a complete impact assessment for the changes, and will she publish that and all the modelling on it prior to the statutory instrument being laid? How many people are currently on remand, and will she share with the House the latest, most up-to-date figure? Reports suggest that this measure will in the short term potentially increase pressure on prison places, so will she say by what amount her modelling suggests that will be? What prior consultation did she or her Department undertake with the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society before making this decision? What assessment has she made of the impact of the decision announced today on the backlog and on the number of short custodial sentence passed by the courts? Given that the right hon. Lady explicitly referred to her prisoner early release scheme, I hope she will be able to answer all those questions, but there is also one important question that I hope she will answer today by way of reassurance: are any of the 37 prisoners released in error last month still roaming free, or have they all been safely returned to prison? I would be grateful for clarification on that, because it is important. We will find out in under two weeks whether, in pre-Budget spending discussions with the Chancellor, the right hon. Lady has successfully fought for investment and in the interests of justice and victims of crime, or whether she has sold out the victims and the systems, and conceded cuts to the Treasury. If she has succeeded in securing additional investment, she will have my gratitude and support. If she has not, we will rightly hold her to account.