What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what we are seeking to do. We have had evidence of people moving back in with families and dependants purely on the basis of trying to put forward this claim.
I am afraid that I disagree. I remind the Committee that, just because family life is established, it does not mean that an individual will automatically be able to remain in or enter the UK. Instead, all cases where family life is found to exist will also be considered at the second stage test, where the courts will have to consider whether it is in the public interest to refuse leave to remain or enter.
I will just explain a little bit more, and I will hopefully answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. The word “normally” is deliberate and necessary. It allows us to establish a clear and deliberatively restrictive framework in which article 8 family life will ordinarily be confined to the core family while retaining the limited flexibility required for ECHR compliance. Family relationships, as we have said, do not always fit neatly in formal categories or involve cohabitation. In exceptional cases, a relationship outside the core cohabiting family may, in substance, be akin to one within it. “Normally” enables a court to recognise genuine family life in those limited circumstances, based on the facts of the individual case. Removing it would turn a strong presumption into an inflexible rule, which would risk the exclusion of genuine family relationships and therefore be incompatible with the ECHR, potentially opening us up to even more litigation. Crucially, this is only a threshold test. Establishing that family life exists does not mean that an article 8 claim succeeds, or that an individual has the right to remain. It simply means that the court moves on to the next stage to consider whether interference with that family life is justified and proportionate, taking account of public interest. Accordingly, the Government do not support the amendments. Amendment 103, also tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, seeks to remove subsection (6) of this clause, on the basis that it undermines the effect of subsection (5). I do not, however, accept that that is the case. Those two provisions address different questions: subsection (5) clarifies what cannot independently establish family life between adult extended family members, while subsection (6) preserves the fact-sensitive assessment that is required once family life is engaged. Subsection (5) makes it clear that financial support, emotional reliance, illness and concern for someone living amid war or instability do not, when taken independently, establish the necessary dependency. Those circumstances do not, however, cease to be relevant for every purpose. If family life is established, the court must then undertake the separate public interest and proportionality assessment. Subsection (6) therefore provides an important safeguard to ensure that, at that stage, the full factual circumstances can be considered when balancing any interference with family life against the public interest. It also protects the Home Office’s freedom to consider those factors when arguing that the public interest requires a refusal of leave. Turning to the Government amendments, it is right that children are given additional safeguards in article 8 decision making. Given those well-meaning protections, a tenuous relationship with a child can be used by an adult to remain in the UK. The first step to prevent people from relying on weak parental links to children in article 8 claims is to ensure that the genuine and subsisting parental relationship test under this clause operates as intended. Government amendment 44 therefore makes it clear that a parent does not normally have family life with a child under the age of 18 for the purposes of article 8 unless there is evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship. It broadens the application of the test so that it applies consistently to all parent-child relationships involving a child under 18, regardless of whether the parent and child live together. That clarifies what is relevant: the substance of the parental relationship, not simply the living arrangements. The amendment aims to reduce the scope for weak or limited parental relationships to be relied on in article 8 claims, including where cohabitation has been resumed opportunistically for immigration purposes; it does not remove protection for genuine parent-child relationships. Where there is evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship, family life will continue to be recognised. Government amendment 45 builds on amendment 44 to ensure that the genuine and subsisting parental relationship test under the clause will have its intended effect of preventing people from relying on weak parental links to children in article 8 applications. Government amendment 45 provides additional detail on how courts and tribunals should assess whether a parent has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child for the purposes of article 8. It sets out factors that may be relevant to that assessment, including the nature of the relationship, the duration and frequency of contact, and whether contact has recently been established or re-established. The amendment aims to promote greater consistency in the application of the genuine and subsisting parental relationship test, ensuring that courts and tribunals focus on the substance of the relationship; the amendment does not prevent genuine parent-child relationships from attracting article 8 protection. Courts and tribunals will continue to consider all relevant circumstances in each individual case.
Exactly such a circumstance is why we have provided flexibility within the Bill. The individual case will be assessed under article 8. In such a situation, there is space for that individual case to be assessed. Together with clause 19, Government amendments 44 and 45 provide a clearer and more consistent framework for determining whether removing an individual with a tenuous relationship to a child in the UK is compliant with article 8. I will just add something on the key principles behind clause 18. The clause establishes clear boundaries for where family life exists, consistent with Strasbourg case law, providing the foundation on which clause 19’s strengthened public interest test is applied. Together, clauses 18 and 19 will ensure that article 8 is not used routinely to circumvent immigration rules, supporting a more ordered and controlled system where those who do not meet the rules are not routinely able to stay in the UK. Members have suggested that the clauses are too expansive and may widen where family life can be found to exist, but that is not correct. A recent Court of Appeal judgment reaffirmed the existing legal framework for assessing family life under article 8. Clause 18 provides greater clarity. The reforms will make clearer how family life and dependency should be assessed, promoting greater consistency in decision making and curtailing expansive interpretation of where family life can be found to exist. I had intended to talk more about the ECHR, but I shall not test the patience of the Committee. Other points made during the debate included whether the clause was relevant or whether the courts would just ignore what we are trying to codify. Successive Governments have recognised concerns about how article 8 operates in the immigration system, but this Government are undertaking the hard work to understand the comprehensive reform required to restore order and control to the system. We are working within our international obligations to reset this balance, and to provide a more comprehensive and consistent framework to article 8 decision making. Clause 18 works alongside clause 19 by establishing the clear basis on which the Home Office can argue that family life does not exist before consideration of whether the public interest warrants a refusal of leave. Together, the clauses provide a clearer framework for how article 8 should be assessed to promote greater consistency in decision making and ensure that when considering article 8 immigration decisions, the courts place appropriate weight on what Parliament considers to be in the public interest. In response to some of the other points made by hon. Members, the framing of proposed new section 117AA preserves the small degree of flexibility necessary for decision makers and the courts not to be constrained to determine claims made under article 8 that are inconsistent with the article. Reference was made to the definition of an eligible partner. That definition will be set out in rules and guidance; it is not appropriate to have that level of detail in primary legislation. We need to have flexibility to be able to change and respond to patterns of behaviour and abuse. One hon. Member spoke about young adults. The word “normally” in clause 18 is a caveat to preserve flexibility for young adults who have family life with parents. I was asked for more evidential requirements; here some case studies might be helpful. The family immigration rules are intended to create a fair system that balances the important of protecting family and private life. When 71% of first-time grants are made to applicants who have arrived illegally or who have overstayed the time they are permitted to be here, it is clear that article 8 is not operating effectively. I was also asked about retrospective claims and whether the measures would impact people already in the UK. Clause 52(9) allows part 2 of the Bill to be commenced with retrospective effect; we will set out our plans for how the measures will be commenced in due course. I was asked how the adjudicators would be able to interpret the complexity of clause 18 without legal training—something the Committee spoke about quite a lot in the first sitting of its scrutiny. Adjudicators will be properly trained, with all the safeguards that we talked about in the Committee sitting last Tuesday, to apply the new framework and immigration law. The authority will have legal support, underpinned by clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked about interference. Clause 18 is not about whether interference is proportionate—that is assessed under clause 19. The grounds for interference, such as for the effectiveness of the immigration system, are consistent with ECHR case law. Nothing in the Bill prevents individualised decision making; we have deliberately kept that ability, and that is a clear requirement of article 8 compliancy in decision making. Hon. Members also spoke about Home Office decision making. As I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, we will of course continue to work to improve decision making. The reforms in the clause clarify how family life should be assessed and strengthen the role of public interest in maintaining effective immigration control, which will help to improve decision making by providing the courts with greater clarity, consistency and predictability. On mental illness and whether that is a route, it is correct that under proposed new section 117AA(4), family life can be engaged where a person suffers a mental illness or infirmity. However, they would need to be incapacitated to the extent that they need constant care and support, and there would have to be no other viable care options. Examples in established case law include where an adult or child becomes paraplegic after a serious illness, or where an adult or child suffers from Down syndrome and is fully incapacitated. It is worth remembering that the provision is only about establishing family life, and that the decision makers and the courts will go on to consider the public interest question. I hope I have answered all colleagues’ points, and I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of all-party parliamentary groups as chair of the APPG on carers. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I commend her for securing this debate and for her work on this issue on behalf of her party. For nearly 6 million unpaid family carers across the UK, and over 8,000 across my constituency, caring is an act of love. Whether they are caring for a severely disabled child, a partner who has dementia or a parent who is at the end of their life, their everyday help demonstrates a deep love, whether by helping them to wash, dress, eat, get off to school or work, or providing emotional support through periods of pain, loneliness, fear and frustration. That is when we see human relationships at their best, yet for too many, that act of love can quickly turn into an act of sacrifice that involves giving up work, putting their own life on hold, ignoring their own health and well-being, or experiencing stress and financial hardship. Those are just some of the ways in which carers are impacted. Unpaid carers give so much, but often get too little. I have seen at first hand the difference that unpaid carers make to the lives of the people they care for. I grew up with my disabled grandma Frieda, who suffered life-changing injuries in a road collision. The decades of support that my mum gave her enabled her to live semi-independently—to go out to church, connect with her friends and live a full life—but I saw the impact on my mum. She gave up her own career as a doctor and carried additional worry and responsibilities, including having to make sure that care was in place for my grandma every time we went on a family holiday. I have dedicated my career to securing better care and support for older and disabled people and their carers, and I am pleased to have carried that on in Parliament through the APPG. I am grateful to Carers UK for all the support the organisation gives and for enabling us in Parliament to hear carers’ powerful stories. I also commend colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for sharing their personal stories of juggling care and this job, which is not easy. Around two thirds of people will provide unpaid care during their adult life. It is a huge issue, and I am delighted to see that it is finally getting the attention it deserves from this Labour Government. What support do carers need, what are they getting, and what more do they need? As others have said, they need support financially to stay in work and to find work, and when they take on a substantial amount of care, they need direct financial support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, unfortunately, carers’ allowance is just not high enough. According to Carers UK, 1,500 people leave employment every day to take up caring responsibilities. I was pleased to meet the Minister for the Future of Work, my neighbouring MP, earlier this week to discuss the recently closed consultation. In that meeting, I underlined the importance of introducing statutory paid carers leave, extending unpaid carers leave to enable people to take longer breaks and return to their job, strengthening flexible working and improving employer practices. I hope that the Minister present will urge his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to go far on the response to that consultation. Much has been done to reform carers’ allowance. I am hopeful that the Government will bring in a taper system to replace the current cliff edge. I add my request to the one made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex that Ministers call in DWP officials to ask exactly what progress they are making on assessing cases. At the rate they are going, it will take 40 years to complete the process. That is simply not good enough when carers are being worried by debts and civil penalties. Secondly, we need to support carers’ own health and wellbeing. About a quarter of unpaid carers in my constituency describe their health as not good. They have no time for themselves, no time to attend routine check-ups and no time to take a break. Short breaks, respite care and sitting services are vital, such as those provided by the excellent charity Carers’ Resource in Bradford and the innovative Shared Lives respite model provided by Bradford council. I also welcome the Government carers action plan, and I hope the Minister will outline what the NHS is doing. Finally, I commend the Government for bringing in a national care service. I will do everything I can to make sure that carers’ voices are heard in shaping it for the future.
Obviously, most unpaid carers are women and the sacrifice they make not only affects them in the short term but feeds into their poverty in later life through the gender pension gap. Does the hon. Member recognise that?
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. The Minister sadly knows from personal experience the challenges that family members face in trying to secure care and support for our loved ones, and it is even more distressing when they are close to the end of their life. Will she outline how the Government will ensure that the national care service gives peace of mind to families and carers that care and support will be there when they need it, regardless of their finances or where they live?
McDermott is building 71 homes in my constituency on a sensitive site in Bacup. The development was originally refused by the council, but was approved on appeal. From the outset, McDermott has been dismissive of planning conditions and residents’ concerns, particularly regarding ecology, site access and road safety. The issues persist, despite a stop notice, three breaches of conditions and magistrates fines, which seem to offer no deterrent at all. The council is left managing numerous complaints, despite having refused the original application, and the community bears the cost of decisions made by a remote inspector in Bristol. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on how we can better support local authorities in such situations, and ensure that developers such as McDermott are held accountable when they repeatedly breach planning conditions?
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a member of the GMB. I welcome today’s statement, and thank the Minister for grasping the issue of a national care service. For too many of my constituents, it has been a national profit service, with many of the big care providers owned or backed by private venture capital. All of us MPs will recognise from casework and from speaking to constituents that people feel that they have no voice when it comes to the care system, be they people in care, their families, or our amazing and brilliant care workers, who do not get listened to enough in the system. The Prime Minister yesterday spoke about his father, and gave a powerful commitment that co-operation and co-operative values will be integral to how we build a service that we can be proud of. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that the likes of the Co-operative party, but also Co-operatives UK and brilliant care co-operatives, will be fully involved in the Department’s work as we think about the diversity of provision that we need?
It was my pleasure to host the British Retail Consortium in Parliament for its announcement of Opening Shift, a partnership between Government and 40 retailers, providing over 11,000 work placements to help support young people who are not in education, training or employment into work. Could the Secretary of State update me on what progress has been made on getting other retailers involved, but also on how we could extend Opening Shift to ensure that semi-rural constituencies like mine can benefit?
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the much-loved Next Page Books in Hitchin to learn more about its “Ask Me What I’m Reading” campaign, which is getting people right across the town talking about the joy of a good book. I have always been a huge fan of “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”, but could I tempt the Leader of the House to share with the rest of us what he is reading at the moment? Perhaps we could have a statement from the Government about what more we can do to support much-loved independent booksellers such as Next Page.
I think most of us or our friends and family will be familiar with the really personal, emotional, financial and, frankly, human cost of our broken system. It is a cost resulting from successive generations of politicians’ failure to face into the difficult choices and act, and I hold my own party as accountable as any other in that. I thank the Minister and the Prime Minister for not just stepping up on this but facing into some of the difficult choices, including the triple lock adjustment, that will be needed to fund it. My constituents tell me they will be perfectly happy to pay more and to make sacrifices if they can be confident they will be getting the care they need when they grow older. Will the Minister assure my constituents that, over the next Parliament, every penny we are saving through that triple lock adjustment will be invested in ensuring that we have the care service my constituents deserve?
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I make a statement on the creation of the national care service, I want to pay my own tribute to Sir David Amess and his family. We are all thinking of them today, and I am reflecting in particular on how much Sir David gave to this House. It is in the news this week that Audrey Joughin is celebrating almost 80 years of service in the NHS. This remarkable lady has been working in the NHS since the day it was founded in 1948, and today she is volunteering at the Royal Liverpool hospital. I want to also wish a happy birthday to my constituent Vibeke Nicklin, who is turning 80, having spent 60 years as a nurse caring for patients. When I read about these women, I feel nothing but pride; to know that they are from my home town in Merseyside just about makes my heart burst. These incredible women show what a wonderful thing it is that people are living longer—more grandparents are living to see their grandchildren as adults—but it also sets a test for our generation of politicians. When Audrey began her career, there were fewer than 6 million people aged over 65 in the UK; today, that figure is over 13 million. According to the Office for National Statistics, by 2050, 18 million people will be aged 65 and over; the number aged 75 and over will rise to more than 10 million; and the number aged 85 and over will have doubled. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we cannot turn away from the question of social care. People who depend on care deserve better, and the dedicated staff deserve better, too. This issue of social care has often been overlooked for two reasons. The first reason is who does most of the care. I can explain this simply in three words: working-class women. Working-class women never get a fair hearing in this country, but those in social care need to be heard right now. The second reason is what happens to people when they experience a failing care system. It is not that people do not like talking about getting old; too many people who go through our care system are traumatised by the experience, and it is too hard for them to talk about it. As the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference, social care workers often feel invisible. Who can blame them, when 80% of care workers working for independent providers receive within 10% of the minimum wage? We are all looking forward to the findings of Baroness Casey’s important review, but the truth is that we cannot afford to wait for her to finish that work before getting on with the job. Ask any family who have gone through the nightmare of trying to sort out care for their loved ones—the status quo cannot be accepted. Beyond the immediate impact on families, the NHS is paying the price of our failure to get a grip; hospitals are dealing with 999 calls from a failing care system, and we have the appalling spectacle of corridor care in hospitals across the country. If we carry on like this, our broken social care system will break the NHS, too. We cannot let that happen. We on the Government Benches remember that we were elected on a manifesto that said that we would build a national care service, improve the lives of the people who draw on care, and build a system that puts people before profit, and we are already working hard to deliver Baroness Casey’s early recommendations, whether on motor neurone disease, dementia or safeguarding. That is why the Prime Minister has taken the decision to build a national care service, with free personal care, adjusting the triple lock to make it possible. Baroness Casey will report next summer; meanwhile, we will prepare the ground now for the new service. I am sick of people looking down their nose at social care staff, who do a highly skilled job that could provide the young people of this country with a great career. Yesterday, I spoke to our partners at Skills for Care about our workforce action plan. At the heart of this is a commitment not just to older generations who need care, but to younger generations who just need their chance in life. Being unemployed for any period can damage someone’s confidence, but doing a skilled job like social care can give people a sense of pride, and a pay packet they earn themselves. That is why we will offer thousands more academy places to help young jobseekers into good jobs in care, and are bringing in the first national collective pension scheme dedicated to care workers; and it is why we have already passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, which gave more than a million people—many of them care workers—access to sick pay, and raised the minimum wage. We will introduce the first fair pay agreement in adult social care, backed by half a billion pounds. It will put care workers under the protective umbrella of collective bargaining and give them the power that they deserve—not just as a one-off, but forever. For unpaid carers, we have announced the biggest expansion to the carer’s allowance since the 1970s. We will soon appoint the first unpaid carers’ champion to be a voice for people who provide unpaid care. For too long, social care has been a Cinderella service, with care staff held back by not having the tools they need to look after people. Recently, however, we have been making good progress. Digital social care records are helping to reduce paperwork and improving the quality of information available to staff, which is vital for good care and saving precious time. Today, I can give the House the update that digital records are now used by 84% of care providers, compared with just 72% when this Government took office, and 92% of people who draw on care are now benefiting from that modernisation. We are supporting the adoption of preventive technology that was the stuff of science fiction just 10 years ago—home monitoring kits to identify infections early, reminders to avoid missed medication, and specialised sensors to detect and prevent falls. If we can put the best technology in the hands of skilled and emotionally intelligent people, the result will be working-age adults with self-determination, choice and independence in life, and older people at home for longer, in better health, and with a much, much better chance of dying at home, in comfort and in dignity, when the time comes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said on Tuesday, “A good retirement…is about more than income.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 198.] There are those who say that we cannot afford the national care service; I say that they are asking the country to pay for the cost of failure. This issue is not going away. If our response to the test of an ageing population is simply to find an even larger bucket of sand to stick our heads in, the impact on the NHS—already plain for all to see—will only grow worse. If the decade after 2010 taught me anything, it is that we do not save money by tearing chunks out of the fabric of our society and then making the NHS pick up the pieces. Most importantly, if we improve population health, people will have a much better quality of life. I do not pretend that it is easy, but our pensioners deserve security and peace of mind. Our national care service will be better for them, families and the NHS. It will ease the pressures we see today; failings in our social care system mean that many pensioners are kept in hospital for longer than they need or want to be, because social care beds are unavailable. The cost of inaction will only be more pressure on the NHS through more ambulance call-outs, more A&E admissions, more corridor care and more people stuck in hospital when they do not have to be there. We are at a crossroads. Our choice is: either pay the financial and human cost of the failed system that we have now, or build the national care service, stabilise our public finances and enable people to live happier and healthier lives. I urge colleagues to think of not just the consequences of inaction, but what it means for our constituents if we get this right. In place of fear, the rising population of elderly people we represent can grow old in a good society. Instead of corridor care, we would have a thriving NHS, in which unnecessary admission was prevented and people who become unwell recovered quickly and enjoyed their life. Care workers would be recognised for their work, and all of us would gain peace of mind about what happens later in life. When Audrey began her lifetime of service to our country, she was part of a generation that left the greatest legacy that anyone could hope to build. It meant that when a person falls ill, they never have to worry about the bill. Today we have the chance to carry her generation’s torch into the 21st century, and to leave to our children and grandchildren something as significant as the creation of the NHS. We are ripping off the plaster. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the shadow Health Secretary for his response. I will try to respond to his questions, but if I miss anything I will follow up in writing afterwards. Let me say to him that he is absolutely right that while politics is what it is, as much as possible we want to work across the House on this issue. For that reason, I would be very happy to meet with him regularly to discuss this. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Baroness Casey is free to consider issues as she wishes. She obviously has terms of reference, but my personal experience of Baroness Casey is, just you try stopping her having opinions about anything she wants to have opinions on! We are obviously working closely with her. I have met her a number of times and was really pleased to welcome her to my constituency too. What we mean by personal care is help using the toilet, cleaning, having a shower and so on—
Cleaning oneself. I will happily pick up the question that he raised with me in writing. On continuing healthcare, there are a number of ways in which, as was the case under the previous Government, the interface between NHS funding and social care funding really matters—not least the better care fund and continuing healthcare. We continue to look at those, and I will happily discuss them. There are improvements we can make in the short term that will help, even as we wait for the Casey review next summer. Likewise on integration with the NHS, Members across the House will all know of good examples where, because of collaborative working on the ground, we see systems that are well integrated. The problem is that that is due to good fortune and good relationships rather than a system and structure that enables it. The right hon. Gentleman asked about taxation. That is a matter for the Chancellor. We will have the Budget shortly, and I am sure that there will be many questions asked of the Chancellor. He asked me a couple of other questions that I did not quite catch, but I will review them and write to him.
My hon. Friend is right that at the heart of the problems we have in the social care system are the way in which the workforce are looked down upon by others and the problems with low and uncertain pay in too many areas. We are cracking on with the fair pay agreement for all the reasons that I mentioned and that she knows only too well. It is about time that social care was seen as the great and fantastic career that it is.
The House will have heard the interchange between the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Prime Minister yesterday. I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the rather extreme impact of this situation on the NHS. We all have a choice; we cannot leave it as it is.
I thank my hon. Friend for all she did as a Health Minister and for raising that extremely important question. It is an often overlooked fact that in end-of-life care, the members of staff who might see a person and their family the most will be social care staff. If we cannot get the NHS working together with social care for people when they are dying, we will not be able to do it at any time. That is a priority for the work that we can do before the Casey review, and I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further, if she would like.
The point raised by the Father of the House is an important one, and it is one for the further discussions that we will have next summer once the Casey commission has reported. The steps that I wish to take in the immediate weeks and months are focused on improving what we can within the care system now. None the less, he raises an important point.
I will, of course, meet my hon. Friend. She will know that I am also the Minister for Mental Health, so across those two responsibilities, I will happily work with her to fulfil that commitment.
The hon. Lady rightly raises an important issue. One of the interim recommendations of the Casey review was that we create a national safeguarding board. If the hon. Lady wants to send me the details of her proposal, I will happily raise it with the chief social worker.
My hon. Friend’s question gives me the opportunity to thank her for all the work that she does in Parliament to raise the issues that relate to family carers in the care system. She mentions that, sadly, I have recent experience of the social care system, from when my mum died in July. I can only say that the system that we will try to achieve is one that takes burdens off the shoulders of people at that time and not the current one where, unfortunately, the complexities only add to the distress.
The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care; he understands the challenges very well, and was an excellent and courteous Minister. The Prime Minister set out his position, which is his long-standing view. He acknowledged at Prime Minister’s questions, and on other occasions, the ups and downs of the debate we have all been through. We all want to try to work across parties to get to a better place on this. I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the remarks that the Prime Minister made at PMQs yesterday about how determined he is to find cross-party agreement.
I know that the only job my hon. Friend ever wants is to be the Member of Parliament for Harlow—it is such a great job. As we build the national care service, it is important that the voice of family carers and unpaid carers is heard loud and clear. They have a specific viewpoint on some of the changes that we are trying to achieve. Once we have made the announcement, whoever is appointed will work very closely with him, particularly on young carers.
I thank the hon. Lady not just for her question, but for seeking the debate in Westminster Hall. I apologise to her for not replying to it myself, but there is a sort of time clash going on. My very good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), will respond to her. The argument I was making in my statement was that unless we are prepared to grapple with the issue of social care properly, we will pay for the cost of failure, most especially in what we are seeing in the NHS. I feel sure that this is the right thing to do for the country financially, as well as in terms of ensuring that people can live very good lives into old age.
The system we have is not working. It is far too fragmented, and I have a lot of concerns about the situation faced by the workforce. Hon. Members will have noticed, yesterday, that the Prime Minister responded to a question regarding the role of co-ops in the future of social care. I am interested in all ideas that Members have on how we get the best possible mix of organisations involved in the national care system.
I could not have put the argument better myself. That is exactly the trauma that I am referring to. It is a terrible thing to see an older loved one in hospital, which is not a good environment for them and is likely to make them ill through infection, lose mobility or other things. Nobody wants that. As I said to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) a moment ago, this proposal is the right thing financially, but frankly, it has to be done for quality of life reasons.
Yes, of course, I will. May I, through my hon. Friend, wish her mum an extremely happy 89th birthday? My hon. Friend and I are both daughters of people who worked in the NHS, and nothing makes me more proud.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point forward. We have a lot of work to do with our colleagues in local government to get the system right. Helpfully, my previous job was Minister for Local Government, so I am aware of some of the issues. If the hon. Gentleman sends me a note with that border issue, I will happily look into it. That sounds like the sort of thing that is probably happening in loads of places.
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and, through her, thank all the Unison group MPs and Unison for their input on the issue. The important matter she raises is one of the reasons we are going to appoint a champion for unpaid family carers. We have talked about all the other financial impacts of this failure, but there is also the economic impact on the labour force of people giving up work to care for an older loved one. We have to take that impact into consideration as we build the new national care service.
I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I do not agree with it either.
My hon. Friend makes exactly the argument as to why we have to take steps now to improve the system. In my statement, I mentioned the increase in the number of organisations using digital care records to help smooth the system, but it also takes the working together of NHS organisations, local authorities and care companies. That is happening in some places. The problem is it is not happening everywhere, and he is absolutely spot on that we have to take steps now.
I thank the hon. Member for raising his constituent’s situation. If he would like to send me the details, I will happily look into it and formally reply to him and his constituent. Baroness Casey’s commission is working on recommendations for fixing social care for everyone who needs it, including working-age adults, but I would just acknowledge that some of the challenges are different, so we need to take that into account as we move forward to the future system.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and thank whichever of his relatives is working hard in social care. I have been lucky to be in touch with a wide number of organisations. We had an opening meeting in the Department with lots of organisations a month or so ago, and there is a lot of expertise out there. This issue is seen differently by those involved in the different parts, and also because of the different conditions and experiences that people have. I feel positive about that work so far. Many people have engaged with the Casey commission and, I am sure, will do so going forward.
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She makes a good argument, which I think we all see, about how disjointed and fragmented the system is. [Interruption.] The shadow Health Secretary is trying to help me out by explaining that her question was probably slightly out of scope of my policy responsibilities, but I will certainly mention to the Chancellor, if I bump into him, that she had a view that she would like to share with him.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his experience in this area, which he has shared with me over many years; I appreciate it. He describes the situation well. We need a system that is much less fragmented, easier to understand and that responds to the local context. It is very different providing care in urban areas and rural areas, for example. We have to think through those issues. There are certain things, which I laid out in my statement, that we need to crack on with now, such as giving young people the chance of a job in social care, and other issues we will work through alongside local government colleagues and, as he says, housing providers, too.
I am sure the health board that covers the hon. Member’s constituency will have heard his opinion, which was strongly given. We need to make the system work better, and I am sure that the board will want to reply to him directly.
Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. That is part of the reason for the statement today. Whether it is on workforce, improvements on technology, local authority commissioning or the initial recommendations of the Casey review on motor neurone disease, safeguarding and dementia, we are getting on with those things that are urgent and can be done now.
Let me say “diolch” to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, we can definitely do what he asks; as somebody whose constituency is very close to north Wales, I understand what he means.
The issue that my hon. Friend raises is rightly one for the Home Office, and I will pass on his question to the relevant Minister. I will just say that whether it is the NHS and its creation, or social care down the years, we are grateful to those people who have come to put in a shift and take care of the ones we love.