Lewis Atkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely do, and that applies to both the regular forces and, for example, the cadets and reserves, as others have mentioned. The 6% pay increase last year and the 4.5% increase this year are hugely important to ensuring that serving personnel of all types receive above the national minimum wage, but equally important is action on housing, not only for serving personnel but for their families. We are talking about serving men and women. Historically, of course, personnel in the north-east and across the country were men, but the recruitment of talented, patriotic women into our armed forces is critical. We should not apologise for saying that for anyone, men or women, serving needs to be compatible with family life. Everyone who is inspired to serve understands that, at moments of conflict and crisis, they must be willing to go wherever our nation needs them to go, without notice and at significant cost to their families. The psychological bargain, as it were, is that in times of peace and for planned activities in the UK—for example training—the more certainty that we can give serving personnel about where they will be, the better. That allows them plan their lives, increases retention and, critically, increases attraction into our armed forces in the first place. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on that. Finally, at the end of that cycle through from recruitment to retention is aftercare and care for our veterans. The veteran population in Sunderland is fortunate to have a fantastic veterans’ charity, Veterans in Crisis—it was an honour to host the Minister for Veterans and People there recently. Ger Fowler, the founder of the charity, says that people feeling they will be looked after when they leave is another advert for the forces.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the estimates and the CSR settlement from the Government —a record settlement for the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS. Given the time constraints, I will focus on three key points: financial management, underlying demand and the prioritisation of spend in the estimates. We rightly focus on the headline settlements in estimates such as these, but what we do not talk about enough is the importance of good public administration in the Department. In the 19 years that I spent in the NHS before coming to this place, I saw how the previous Government had a sticking-plaster approach not just to politics, but to public administration. Budgets were confirmed at the last minute and planning guidance was outlined at the very last moment of the financial year, meaning that there was no opportunity for NHS leaders and health leaders to plan appropriately for resource spending. I particularly welcome the emphasis the Secretary of State for Health and the new chief executive of NHS England have put on restoring accountability through the foundation trust model and multi-year settlements that mean that, although I am sure NHS colleagues would like more, they at least know and can plan investment and spend-to-save decisions over that period. Secondly, Members have queried why the NHS seemingly continues to require increases. I draw the House’s attention to the Nuffield Trust’s work showing that this is about not health inflation but underlying health demand. The Nuffield Trust estimates that, as a result of population changes—mainly the ageing of the population—there is a 1.1% increase in demand every year. In addition, advances in technology add a further 1.8% increase in healthcare demand, so there is already a 2.9% increase in underlying demand before inflation, which highlights that the Government’s emphasis on reform accompanying investment is critical. Finally, to deliver that reform, the investment going in must be very carefully targeted. The evidence base is clear that investment in primary care—and we are fortunate in this country to have a world-leading gatekeeper system of healthcare through general practice—represents the best return on investment in health. Work done by Michael Wood and the NHS Confederation confirms that. Alongside investment in mental health services and wider public health, this creates the best chance for the health system to live within these estimates and to meet our constituents’ expectations.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My instinct is that it would not. If the Bill becomes law, it would be a lawful choice. The hon. Gentleman may not characterise it as healthcare, but it would be part of healthcare and end-of-life services. We would not accept such stipulations on other healthcare services. I can see a sketch that some may choose to draw; someone mentioned housing supported by a religious institution. The reality is that people do not go out of their way to offend, and they try to live in harmony with those around them. If people are clear that they might actively explore assisted dying as an option, they will not choose to spend their last days in a community where others are ideologically opposed to their choice; it would be uncomfortable for the individual. They would, however, have the legal right to do so.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will move on, because we have started slightly late and I am not sure that we are going to add anything on this point. There is a fundamental distinction between providing assistance and being the location in which people may self-administer an assisted death. In his speech on new clause 22, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire somewhat overlapped those two things, if I may say so. Having established that a hospice would be under no obligation to provide, an individual would clearly not be able to turn up and say, “Your staff must help me to do this.” However, that is different from a situation in which someone living in their own private home— that might include a room in a care home or sheltered accommodation—decides that they want their healthcare team to carry out entirely lawful and appropriate activities under the Bill. I therefore cannot agree with new clause 22. People are legally resident in these premises. They are registered to vote. In some cases, such as in warden-provided accommodation, they have a lease. It is not a landlord in absentia. I know that the hon. Gentleman has provided an opt-out for some situations, but what about warden and supported housing situations? We would not accept operators or owners policing what lawful activities should happen in someone’s own home within that environment. That is entirely different from the situation that the hon. Gentleman sketched out, in which everyone has to be involved. There would be no obligation whatever on any staff of that establishment to participate in an ancillary manner or otherwise, but in a private residence, such as someone’s room in a care home, we cannot allow that to be prohibited.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Could the hon. Gentleman help us by giving some more examples of when the new clause would apply? For example, would it apply to supported housing schemes or nursing homes that are a person’s normal place of residence and, indeed, home?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a question for Baroness Falkner. I want particularly to probe the socioeconomic duty. What is your assessment of that as it relates to agency and control at the end of life? My constituents in Sunderland, unfortunately, are on average notably less well off than the rest of the UK. Is it not the case that at the moment there is choice at the end of life for people who are well off and able to travel to Switzerland, but poorer people do not have that choice? What is the EHRC’s view from a socioeconomic point of view? Baroness Falkner: For clarity, a socioeconomic duty has not been incorporated. It is the current Government’s intention to incorporate that part of the Equality Act, but it has not been incorporated so we are not looking at it through that specific prism. But you make a very valid point because inequalities in healthcare, housing and all the associated factors that play into good health and wellbeing are there, and they exist palpably—even across geographical parts, from one bit of an area to another. They play actively into it. Ms Hadi will be able to give better testimony than I could on this but, from what one understands, GP provision and general access to healthcare are poorer where demographics are poorer than it is in the better performing parts of the country. One other factor to consider in terms of a postcode lottery is that people in wealthier parts of the country tend to be more highly represented in private healthcare than in public healthcare and use of the NHS. That also impacts their choices and the care they get. Fazilet Hadi: On health inequality, I take your point about how some of us can afford to fly off to Switzerland and some cannot, but some of us live in boroughs where we will die 10 years earlier and some of us have learning disabilities and might die 27 years earlier. I know you are looking at clauses, but this Bill will go into the real world, and that is what is happening in the real world—people are not getting social care and not getting palliative care. They are dying earlier. More poor people will die earlier and more poor people will have fewer options, fewer choices, less nice homes and fewer facilities to support them. As Baroness Falkner said earlier, they will unfortunately have insufficient social care and palliative care. When we are looking at inequalities, we need to note that this Bill is going to be plunged into a society that has deep, entrenched health inequalities that do not play out well for people who are poorer.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Housing: Military Personnel and Families · Hansard source

  More

  21. What steps he is taking to improve housing for military personnel and their families.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Housing: Military Personnel and Families · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of a forces family, I welcome the Government’s landmark decision to renationalise service housing. For too long, military families have been living in substandard accommodation. How will the Minister ensure that this investment leads to tangible improvements? In what timescales can our servicemen and servicewomen expect to see those improvements start?