Karin Smyth MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 May 2025 · English Devolution: Integrated Care Boards · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member tempts me slightly on local accountability, on which he has been a strong campaigner. As he knows from meeting me, I agree that it is important that such local bodies respond properly so that where there are expansions of housing, which we want to see, they are supported by local infrastructure. I am happy to come back to him with any further detail.

• 6 May 2025 · English Devolution: Integrated Care Boards · Hansard source

  More

  Our mission-driven approach to this issue means that we are working with all Departments to deliver an NHS fit for the future. We expect integrated care boards to work closely with their mayors to maximise public health and contribute to the Government’s health and growth missions.

• 6 May 2025 · Perinatal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely join my hon. Friend in recognising the importance of supporting women’s health throughout pregnancy and into parenthood on Maternal Mental Health Day. We are committed to improving the support available, and it will form an important part of our 10-year plan. We are investing £126 million in family hubs and Start for Life services, to support parents from pregnancy to their child’s early childhood, and we will continue to work with her on this.

• 6 May 2025 · Perinatal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on taking forward that work. The Minister responsible will be happy to continue to work with him in any way possible to support that work on this important aspect of parenthood.

• 6 May 2025 · Perinatal Mental Health · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for her work on such an important topic; I know it is very personal to her. Specialist perinatal and maternity mental health services are available across England, providing vital support to parents before, during and after pregnancy, including increased access to evidence-based psychological therapies. We are training thousands more midwives to better support women throughout pregnancy, with mother and baby units and community services providing postnatal support.

• 6 May 2025 · Maternity Improvement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that point, which has been found in all the reviews that have been undertaken. It is completely unacceptable. That is why the Secretary of State has continued to meet families and hear their experiences to ensure that we learn from them, continue to support the implementation of those recommendations and, crucially, ensure that women’s voices are taken forward as part of our 10-year plan.

• 6 May 2025 · Maternity Improvement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is not correct: maternity funding is not ringfenced at the same level—I think that is what he is referring to. It has, however, absolutely been committed to as far as ICB allocations are concerned. Local leaders will decide how best to allocate that money. We will continue to work with Donna Ockenden and the families who have been affected by previous incidents and ensure that the recommendations of her report and the maternity review are fully implemented.

• 6 May 2025 · Maternity Improvement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  To be clear for the shadow Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is continuing to look at all those recommendations and consider how best to respond.

• 6 May 2025 · Maternity Improvement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I know the Liberal Democrat spokesperson follows this issue very closely in her own local community. As she knows, we are committed to ensuring that the recommendations of the reviews are fully implemented as part of that three-year plan, but I gently say to her that the Liberal Democrat party has consistently opposed the extra £26 billion that this Government raised to support the wider health service. Without that extra funding and the decisions that the Chancellor has made, we would not be able to make the progress that we are now starting to see.

• 6 May 2025 · Maternity Improvement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  We expect all women to be shown the utmost care and respect when receiving maternity and neonatal care. This year’s planning guidance requires integrated care boards and providers to deliver the key actions in this final year of NHS England’s three-year delivery plan. It is clear from listening to the harrowing stories of bereaved and harmed families, however, that we must do more. The Secretary of State is urgently considering the significant action needed to ensure that all women and babies receive the care they deserve.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Gender Incongruence: Puberty Suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I am tight on time. Uncertainty is common to many new treatments, but through that process, we ensure that those treatments are no longer used in the absence of such evidence. During the trial, an independent committee checks whether new results have emerged from other countries around the world—a question that was raised several times—and, if those results provide evidence that the benefits or risks are clear, such that we could issue clinical guidelines based on them, the trial would be stopped. We need better-quality evidence to support the NHS in providing reliable and transparent information and advice to children and young people, and their parents and carers, in making important treatment decisions. That is exactly what NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research programme will provide. I was asked to provide an update on implementing the Cass review, which, beyond that research, we are absolutely committed to doing. From what we heard this afternoon, I am not entirely sure what the Liberal Democrat position is, but we are very clear that we will continue to work on that in lockstep with NHS England. We have opened the three services, and a fourth is planned in the east of England from this spring. Those services operate under a fundamentally different clinical model, where children and young people get the tailored and holistic care they need from a multidisciplinary team of experts in paediatrics, neurodiversity and mental health. At first, those services saw patients transferred from the now-closed gender identity development service at the Tavistock, but I am pleased that all the services now take patients from the national waiting list. NHS England aims for there to be a service in every region of England by 2026. That will help to reduce the waiting list and bring the services closer to the homes of the children and the young people who need them.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Gender Incongruence: Puberty Suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I hope to get on to that subject in my speech. It is important that people are aware of that progress. I know that many people are concerned about the ethics of this research, as the hon. Member for Reigate and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) both noted. I assure hon. Members that the UK has, as we know, extremely rigorous and robust ethical approval pathways, and that no clinical trial can proceed without the necessary independent scientific approvals. We already regularly use those processes to consider clinical trials in children so that we can evaluate new treatments for a whole range of conditions, including cancer, depression, respiratory infections, or any illness. Many aspects of the methodology of this trial are still being looked at, such as how long it will follow children, how many children will be on the trial and how the demographics of the trial will be constructed. That is all still to be confirmed and approved; many hon. Members asked about those points today. All participants in the trial will also be part of the ongoing observational study. Following the decision by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about puberty blockers, which was based on the evidence, we needed to make sure that we got on with helping scientists, researchers and clinicians to do their jobs. Some people have called for the Government to stop those experts from pursuing this line of inquiry, and we have heard such calls again in this debate. They have argued that the decision to halt the sale and supply of puberty blockers should be the end of the matter, and that young people should not have access to this medication, come what may. That would be to ignore the distress and real experiences of young people, and the Government have no doubt that it would drive people towards possible illegal and underground routes, shutting off young people’s access to conversations with professionals and the opportunity to pause and consider other options. Instead, as Dr Cass suggests, we can set out a proper path to treatment that involves young people, their parents, clinicians and mental health professionals. Knowing that they are on a path will reassure young people that they are being taken seriously. The cautious process that they will have to work through before joining a trial means that young people will have access to support and counselling, which may result in them deciding against joining the trial and pursuing a medical route. That is an approach entirely missing over recent years. We all agree that treatment should be offered based on the best available evidence, and clinical trials in the UK are considered to be the gold standard for evaluating healthcare interventions. The Cass review found: “The evidence base underpinning medical and non-medical interventions in this clinical area must be improved.” That is why we have commissioned the PATHWAYS programme of research, one aspect of which includes the world’s first clinical trial designed to help us to better understand the relative benefits and potential wider effects of the use of puberty blockers in affected children. We must look at the most appropriate medical and non-medical approaches to support physical, emotional and psychosocial health. That is why the trial forms just one component of a wider study and a growing portfolio of research, jointly hosted by NHS England. That includes looking at the experiences of the 9,000 adults who, as children, were cared for under a previous model of NHS care, which I know the hon. Member for Reigate has described as a “medical scandal”. Dr Cass was clear in her review that both a clinical trial on puberty blockers and a data linkage study, which many hon. Members have raised today, are important to improving the evidence base on gender incongruence in children and young people. Regardless of individuals’ views on the practices of the Tavistock, I hope we can all agree that learning from the experiences of those thousands of people who have accessed puberty blockers is important; it will provide different and separately valuable information from the clinical trial. That data alone, however, will not provide the answer as to whether we should—or should not—consider routinely prescribing these drugs in the future, or continue the ban indefinitely. The adult gender services have now committed to sharing their data, a point also raised by hon. Members. I acknowledge that we need to move quickly, and I expect to be making progress on this soon. We will consider all data that is relevant to puberty blockers, including from the adult gender clinics. As with all clinical research, the team leading the trial must ensure that approval is obtained from the regulatory authorities, including one of the Health Research Authority’s independent ethics committees and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Those are all standard steps where the research receives full scrutiny. Once approvals are granted, the study protocol will be finalised and published, and only then can the trial commence. I am not able to comment on the finer details of that today, but we will issue further updates when they are available, and I commit to keeping Members updated. I assure hon. Members that entry into the trial will be guided by strict eligibility criteria. It will involve only young people under the care of the NHS children’s gender services who have received a full assessment, where other appropriate forms of support have been offered and where their clinician supports a referral to the trial. Under the law, if a child is under 16, a parent will have to consent to their participation, and the child also needs to agree. I am repeating myself slightly, but that level of caution was entirely missing over recent years. This is a more considered and evidence-based approach. In the past, puberty blockers were presented as the magic pill that young people needed to access; this trial will give children and young people the support they need to make these major decisions. As we have heard today, we are currently in a situation where some people think it is unethical not to provide these treatments, and some think it is unethical to provide them. The reality is that we do not have definitive evidence. When that happens, we routinely ask for the study to be checked by an independent ethics committee. We spell out the uncertainty to young people and their parents, so that they can balance any such risk against their desire to join the trial before deciding whether they wish to participate.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Gender Incongruence: Puberty Suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate, on the constructive tone in which she has engaged with me and my Department, and on the way that she opened the debate. The Government’s approach is governed by three principles. First, the health and wellbeing of children and young people is our primary concern—a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Secondly, evidence-led, effective, ethical and safe healthcare must be provided to all who need it, when they need it—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca). Thirdly, this Government believe in the dignity and equality of every single one of His Majesty’s citizens. Since the election, we have been calmly and cautiously guided by the evidence. We take children’s healthcare extremely seriously. That is why we remain committed to implementing the Cass review, and ensuring that children and young people who are looking for support in relation to their gender receive the highest quality of care, as one would expect of any other child health service in the NHS.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and I am sure that officials have talked with the RNID. It is absolutely right that he brings that issue to my attention, and I will make sure we get a reply back to him and the RNID on the detail and on the time it will take to enact these standards. I visited the NHS England team up in Leeds, where we spoke about providing wider access—for example, by using the app—and about working with groups such as the RNID to make sure that what we produce is accessible for disabled people. The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I will make sure that we get back to him on it. With that, I will make sure that we check the record, and if there is anything else, we will get back to the hon. Gentleman. Otherwise, I would be grateful if the Committee could support the SI. Question put and agreed to.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The statutory instrument was laid before the House on 25 March 2025. I am grateful to be here to debate the draft regulations which, if approved, will make provision for the new procedure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England must follow when preparing and publishing information standards. Information standards relate to the processing of health and adult social care information. They provide a common set of requirements that must be followed when health and adult social care providers use, process and share information. They might cover quite technical issues relating to IT systems, or they might relate to how information is collected or managed. They provide the common language or languages through which the systems and organisations of the NHS and adult social care can interact. For the health and adult social care system to work effectively, data needs to be processed in a transparent and standardised way, using common specifications, so that it can be understood and used by health and care professionals across different settings. Information standards can ensure that information is shared easily and in real time between organisations. That supports the co-ordination and delivery of care, clinical safety, planning and research. Let me talk briefly about the benefits of this instrument. Information standards are not new; under powers set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, public health and care providers must have regard to information standards. However, low compliance makes it hard to deliver the improvements required across health and adult social care. The Health and Care Act 2022 made provision for information standards to be mandatory, and the regulations set out the process that must be followed in developing and publishing all mandatory information standards. That includes requirements to seek views and/or advice from those with relevant expertise during the development of an information standard, which will ensure that future information standards are able to meet the needs of the system. The procedures outlined in this instrument are proportionate and transparent. They will ensure that information standards are fit for purpose, kept up to date and reviewed regularly, as needed, and that they keep pace with technical developments and evolving priorities. In closing, a significant burden is created when information held in one system or organisation is not easily available in another—something I think we have all seen. In the health and care system, such constraints are a significant barrier to achieving the aims of the Government’s health mission. We need to create a modern health and adult social care service, and improvements to interoperability, enabled by the establishment of a robust information standards framework, are an important step towards delivering that. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank the shadow spokesperson for the Conservative party’s support in bringing forward the regulations. As he rightly said, some of this work continues work done under the last Government and results, as I said in my introductory remarks, from the 2022 Act. As I also said, standardisation has not been taken up across the system in the way that we would like, and this instrument provides a framework everybody can lean into. To go to the hon. Gentleman’s last question first, that reflects our need to make sure that, for the benefit of patients, clinical safety, patient support and efficiencies in the system, we have a framework that everyone works to and brings their standards into—I will not veer into something more technical that is beyond my ken, on the detail of computer systems. We wanted to make sure that we had that framework in place, and we were keen to bring it forward in an SI that is transparent for the House, so that we can all understand how this proposal is part of the wider Government mission. As I said, this proposal started off under the last Government, and it has been brought forward now. There was an engagement exercise with stakeholders, and the response was published in November. We therefore need to issue the regulations now, particularly in advance of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. So that is the timing issue. I cannot comment further on trade deals, but that is why we are doing this: to make the system in England work better for all our patients. To the hon. Gentleman’s point about cross-border issues, I am an MP in Bristol, and I understand those issues. We are looking at our responsibilities for England. We are keen to work with the devolved Administrations on all healthcare and cross-border issues. The Department will continue to talk to them, and I hope they are willing to continue to work with us. If there is anything further to add, I will make sure that it is communicated to the hon. Gentleman. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the CQC, he will be aware that the organisation has undergone a number of difficult issues in the recent past. We have had new leadership in place since before Christmas, and it is keen to provide support on wider issues. Safety, in particular, is in its remit, and the hon. Gentleman, as a practising clinician, will be acutely aware of the need for different systems to be able to talk to each other to highlight issues of safety and so on. We will absolutely ensure that the CQC is working as part of this wider system. Colleagues and staff at NHS England obviously have concerns about changes, but the need to have data that works across the whole system—that has that interoperability at its core—is a priority for everybody working in it. That is clearly part of what the NHS needs to do, and although some people may move, that is absolutely a priority for the NHS moving forward. To the hon. Gentleman’s point about the RNID, I had not heard that. Clearly, accessibility for all is important. I am happy to make sure that we get back to him and the RNID on that issue.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise me whether it is in order that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who opened the debate for the Conservatives, was not in her place for the close of the debate? I think that is discourteous to the House, and I would like your advice on how we rectify this matter.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It really is a pleasure to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I think there have been 33 contributions from hon. Members from across the House. Nowhere is it more apparent that the NHS is broken than in our crumbling hospitals. Over 14 years, the NHS was starved of capital and the capital budget was repeatedly raided to plug the holes in day-to-day spending. Lord Darzi’s investigation into the NHS in England made it clear that we have crumbling buildings and IT, mental health patients sharing showers in Victorian-era cells infested with vermin, and parts of the NHS operating in decrepit portacabins. Some 20% of the primary care estate predates the founding of the health service in 1948. I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing forward this debate. We broadly agree on the disgrace that the backlog of repairs, the decades-long cannibalisation of capital budgets and the unfunded fantasy of the new hospital programme had become. Where we disagree is on the cause and the solution. As we have heard today, the Liberal Democrats are completely silent on the part they played as members of the coalition Government. They were active and enthusiastic partners in the decision to impose austerity, and our NHS was starved of funding on their watch. The practice of raiding capital budgets to keep things afloat started in 2014, on their watch. The disastrous top-down NHS reorganisation, which wasted billions of pounds and contributed to record-high waiting lists, happened on their watch. As for the solution, the Liberal Democrats are silent on how they would pay for and accelerate the new hospital programme. They are playing the same cynical game that we saw from the Conservative party: they are dangling the prospect of a new hospital while being unable to explain where the funding would come from or how the construction industry could deliver it within the timeframe. It is indeed opportunism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) said. We all remember the Rose Garden, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) said. The Liberal Democrats opposed the autumn 2024 Budget, which delivered record investment in our NHS. In sharp contrast, this Government are prepared to take the decisions needed to back up our promises with the funding needed to deliver them, and we are determined to rebuild confidence and trust in politics by promising only what we can deliver. I have met many hon. Members in person and heard them in the Chamber today, and I know others are not here who would have wanted to contribute. As the Minister, let me say plainly that I agree with everyone’s anger. I share that anger because, when I tour hospitals up and down the country—I did so recently in Doncaster and in Oxfordshire, where I visited the Warneford hospital—I often see equipment and infrastructure that was procured 20 years ago when I was working for the NHS in Bristol. Seeing these physical reminders of the past when I tour hospitals fills me with a mixture of pride and shame. I feel pride because I was part of a generation of leaders who delivered hospitals fit for patients in the biggest hospital programme in NHS history delivered under the last Labour Government, and I feel shame because our legacy was squandered and patients have paid the price. We understand the legacy, and Lord Darzi was very clear that the task for us is to take action. That is why the Chancellor took the necessary decisions in her Budget to meet this challenge, and why we have put the programme on a firm financial footing. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Care said, we are not just writing the wrong; we are taking pressures off hospitals, shifting the focus of our NHS from hospital to community, recruiting over 1,500 more GPs to take the pressure off A&E and harnessing the power of AI to help people who depend on care to stay at home. That point was well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Opher), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). As he made me sponsor him, may I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley good luck in the marathon this weekend? The challenge before us is immense, but every member of this Government is up for the fight. Members made a number of points, and I will try to get through them in the time available. I could not agree more with those who made the point that we have to break out of the vicious cycle of false economy. This Government were elected on a manifesto to end short-termism, easy answers and sticking-plaster politics. When we came into government we were saddled with a bill of almost £14 billion in backlog maintenance. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has given us the funding this year to back NHS systems with over £4 billion of operational capital. A lifesaving cash injection of £750 million for targeted estate safety funding is a vital first step towards fixing our crumbling estate. That is crucial not only for patients, but for staff morale, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said. There is also £440 million to tackle crumbling RAAC concrete, keeping patients and their families safe. We are opening new mental health facilities, with more in construction, and that state-of-the-art provision will give the best possible care outcomes. Furthermore, I assure Members that, unlike the previous Government, we will never raid capital budgets to plug day-to-day spending, and the Treasury has updated its fiscal rules to make that impossible. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) said that big promises with no plans are what got us into this mess, and that was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), who talked about the false hope and the waste of the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) echoed that point and reiterated the point about trust, which was almost shared by the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). Members have called on the Government to reverse course and commit to a timeline that is unfunded, unrealistic and undeliverable. That has been recognised by a National Audit Office report, which stated that “some schemes publicly promised in 2020 now face substantial delays and will not be completed by 2030…with implications for patients and clinicians.” The delivery of these hospitals existed only as a figment of Boris Johnson’s imagination and this Government are doing the hard yards of putting the new hospital programme back on track. The NHP previously received a red rating from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, now known as the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. Its latest review, which it carried out in January, rated the NHP as amber. That reflects the measures that we took to put the programme on a firm footing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) rightly said. Some Members, including the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), have asked us to publish the individual scores of each scheme following the outcome of the review, but may I just take issue with the hon. Lady’s use of the word “shady”? The Secretary of State and the Department will continue to co-operate with her Committee, but to be clear, as part of our analysis, schemes were prioritised into upper, middle and lower thirds, which gave a delivery schedule for the programme to align with the funding envelope, and there was no final individual score for each scheme. There is no formal delineation among schemes in wave 2, and schemes remain scheduled to start construction as outlined in our plan for implementation. I briefly say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) that it was a pleasure to meet Councillors McCabe and Garrod from her constituency and to understand their passion about the loss of resources. That is echoed in many low-income areas, and we have to reverse that loss of resources as we go forward with our 10-year plan. We are taking a systematic approach to building the next generation of hospitals, known as Hospital 2.0, allowing trusts to benefit from economies of scale, provide excellent patient care and facilities, and ensure that staff are supported with technology for decent working environments. It contributes to our growth mission, putting more money in people’s pockets and supporting our supply chains. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), we do abide by the Hospital 2.0 scheme. It is a systematic and centralised approach that will save taxpayer money, while driving innovation and laying the foundations for a new relationship between Government and industry. I am disappointed if it is official Liberal Democrat policy to oppose that approach. I know the clock is against me but I want to end by saying that I completely understand why colleagues are so concerned about the plans, when previous Governments have so badly let them and their constituents down. I also hear the point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland benefits from the Barnett consequentials for revenue and capital. It is devolved and it can look at alternative means. The Department will continue to work with all devolved Administrations across all issues, but they do have particular problems. Staff and patients deserve better, so I want to offer them some reassurance about our record since July. We promised to sit down with resident doctors and end the damaging strike action—promise made, promise kept. In October, we said we would recruit more GPs by April and we recruited more than we said—promise made, promise kept. We promised 2 million extra appointments in our manifesto and we smashed that target seven months early—promise made, promise kept. Last month, over 80% of patients in England referred for cancer had it ruled out or diagnosed within 28 days, the first time that target has been met for years, and waiting lists are now consistently falling. We have gripped this critical issue since July, from day one with the review. The Secretary of State and I met MPs and the NHP team before the completion of the review. I met all colleagues the day after the announcement in January and I have had individual meetings. I will keep my promises to visit, when the diary allows. I am really looking forward to North Devon. I am also visiting Hillingdon, where I grew up, with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), and possibly visiting some old haunts. I have committed to visiting Basingstoke, with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy). We will progress at pace on RAAC and wave 1. I am committed to holding more meetings with wave 2 and wave 3 MPs in the coming weeks and months to keep colleagues abreast of updates and to provide them with the opportunity to ask questions directly of the team. That is how I will work with colleagues across the House to make sure the programme happens. Finally, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about her experience of the PFI scheme she worked under and the nonsense she had to deal with. Her Government could have changed that at any point. My experience of a PFI scheme in Bristol was waking up about a year ago after I had had my melanoma removed, in an almost brand new hospital with fantastic facilities in a single, individual ward with my husband beside me. Maybe it was the drugs that made me feel a little bit bleary-eyed, but what I thought then was how proud I was to have been part of the development team, as part of the primary care trust board, bringing forward a fantastic hospital for north Bristol that serves patients so well. That would never have happened under another Administration. We rebuilt the hospitals under the previous Labour Government. I am proud of that record. We did it before; we are going to do it again. That is what a Labour Government do. Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

• 1 Apr 2025 · NHS Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  As I said in my statement, we have confidence in the business authority to undertake the actions that I have outlined.

• 1 Apr 2025 · NHS Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee makes a good point, as she so often does, about what went on previously. This is an issue from the McCloud judgment that runs across many Departments. It was a problem under previous Governments, starting with the coalition Government. I know that the Public Accounts Committee, on which I served, and the Treasury Committee have looked at the matter over time. The Department will certainly co-operate with any inquiry and investigate what happened across Government. I am happy to get back to the hon. Lady on that point.

• 1 Apr 2025 · NHS Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  As I outlined in my response and in the written ministerial statement, we have taken action. We were made aware of some of these problems when we came into office in July, and we have pushed the NHS Business Services Authority to move faster than it would have done under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, so that action is happening quicker than it would have done before. We do have faith in the NHS Business Services Authority to get on with this and ensure that there is no financial detriment, in line with the timetable outlined yesterday, and as I have further made clear today. Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman could have asked me more about waiting lists, which have fallen for the last five months in a row. He could have asked me about the 2 million more appointments that have been provided to deliver for patients seven months early. He could have asked me about the hundreds more GPs who are now working in the health service, or the impact of cancelling the strikes on services for people, or the record funding. In fact, last week in the Chamber he spoke on behalf of the National Pharmacy Association; this week, he could have congratulated the Minister for Care, who is sitting next to me, on the agreement to produce more pharmacy services. We are making improvements to the NHS every day. The Darzi report reported not only the breadth but the depth of the decline that we inherited. We are resolving that, and fixing the fundamentals of the NHS.

• 1 Apr 2025 · NHS Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are on the road to recovery—and that, of course, is what the Opposition cannot stand. This is a complicated issue, as they well know. As I said, we inherited this complication in July, when we were made well aware of it. The Conservatives could have done more about it while they were in government, but it is yet another issue on which they have let people down—this time, it is staff. We will ensure that we remedy that. The timelines are available in the written ministerial statement that I issued yesterday. We will continue to work with trade unions and employers to ensure that people understand. As my hon. Friend said, it is important that people do understand their own personal positions.

• 1 Apr 2025 · NHS Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that people have confidence in the pension system. That is why we took action in July on coming into office to understand the depth of the problems that occurred under the previous Government. This is a complicated issue, which is why we want to be clear with people that there will be no financial detriment to them. We will continue to work with employers and trade unions to ensure that the issue is resolved as quickly as possible, in line with the timelines I have outlined.

• 1 Apr 2025 · NHS Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  One of our major priorities is ensuring that the entire NHS workforce are doing the work that they are trained and committed to do, so that they can get down those waiting lists and deliver an NHS that is fit for the future. The staff, as Lord Darzi has outlined, have felt very severely the detriment caused by the previous Government. They are working under really difficult conditions, and we want to make sure that, through the 10-year plan and the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan, we offer them hope, so that they are ready to deliver the services that they have been trained to deliver.

• 1 Apr 2025 · NHS Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I do not have to hand the exact number of people working on this, but I will make sure that I respond to her on that point in writing. We are ensuring that individuals do not face detriment as a result of these delays. The NHS cost claim back compensation scheme provides resources for direct financial losses incurred by the NHS pension scheme members impacted by the McCloud remedy, including professional service fees and certain HMRC interest charges that may arise, as I outlined in my statement. HMRC has also confirmed that self-assessment late filing penalties will be waived on appeal in certain circumstances where a member receives a delayed pension savings statement as a consequence of the implementation of the McCloud remedy.