Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

The distinction the hon. Lady fails to make is that in England we are increasing the number of nurses in training by 25%; we are ensuring that nurses who have left the profession can return through the return-to-work programme; and we are introducing significant additional pay through “Agenda for Change”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we are also creating new routes so that those who come into the NHS through other routes, such as by joining as a healthcare assistant, are not trapped in those roles but are able to progress, because the Conservative party backs people who want to progress in their careers. Healthcare assistants who want to progress into nursing should have that opportunity.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

When defending the decision to scrap bursaries, the Secretary of State said that, if done right, it could provide up to 20,000 extra nursing posts by 2020. Well, that figure now looks wildly optimistic, with applications down two years in a row. Is it not time that Ministers admitted they have got this one wrong and joined the Opposition in the Lobby tomorrow to vote against any further extensions to this failed policy?

[Stephen Barclay]

If Members vote against the policy tomorrow, the reality is that they will be voting for a cap on the number of postgraduate nurses going into the system, and therefore they will be saying that more people should be rejected—more people should lose the opportunity to become nurses—because they want to have a cap that restricts the supply of teaching places.

Cancer Targets

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate and on his considered and balanced speech. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, he commands a great deal of respect on both sides of the House for his commitment to improving the way we deal with cancer, as has been reflected in the tributes paid to him by hon. Members.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), the shadow Public Health Minister. She contributes a huge amount through her work as co-chair of the APPG on breast cancer and as chair of the APPG on ovarian cancer, and through her involvement with countless other organisations. Were it not for a long-standing, important commitment, she would be responding to the debate.

We have heard several contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) spoke movingly from personal experience about the difficulty of getting the right care for her daughter. She described feeling a lack of support when the condition moved away from traditional treatments. I hope that her time in the House and her experiences will enable an improvement in the treatment experience of patients, particularly those suffering from secondary breast cancer. She made an important point about the geographical inequalities in treatment for secondary breast cancer. She also said that the transformation funding should be decoupled from the targets, as did most other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay talked about retrospective conditionality, which neatly highlights the absurdity of the situation.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for his work on the APPG on pancreatic cancer. He spoke in defence of the 62-day target and set out very well why it is important, not just for measuring some elements of performance, but because the wait between first being suspected of a condition and receiving treatment is probably the most anxious time for a patient. He also said that the link between the 62-day target and access to the transformation fund should be broken, and that funding should be available for conditions that are harder to treat, such as pancreatic cancer. He spoke in some detail about the fast-track surgery pathway. I am pleased to hear that the NICE guidelines have been amended to reflect the success of that initiative, but it was disappointing to hear about the funding difficulties and the fact that it has not yet been rolled out to other areas of the country.

As all hon. Members have said, cancer is a difficult subject to talk about. It touches all our lives in some way. One in two people will be affected by cancer at some point in their lifetime. Every two minutes, someone in this country is diagnosed with cancer. It is right that the tone of the debate has been about trying to do the best we can to improve outcomes for people touched by cancer.

As has been said, there has been a steady and welcome improvement in cancer survival rates in this country, which can partly be attributed to considerable improvements in early diagnosis, but the sad and inconvenient truth is that we still lag far behind our European counterparts, as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said. Five-year survival rates in the UK are far behind European averages in nine out of 10 cancers. Of the five largest EU countries, we have the highest mortality rates and the lowest survival rates. It is estimated that up to 10,000 deaths a year in England could be attributed to lower survival rates compared with those in the best- performing countries. The OECD has said that our survival rates for certain types of cancer are near the bottom of the table. Several hon. Members made the point that although we have improved, other countries have progressed at a similar rate, so our relative performance is still a considerable challenge.

There is an international element, but there is also a local one within England. If all clinical commissioning groups were able to achieve the level of early diagnosis in lung cancer that the best CCGs manage, 52,000 people would be diagnosed earlier, which could save lives. The introduction of the CCG dashboard has helped to raise the visibility of such issues and, as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said, the flexibility afforded to CCGs has enabled them to adjust their approach and take account of local priorities.

The hon. Gentleman was right to express the concern that process targets can have funding consequences, which sometimes have a distorting effect on priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe raised an important issue about the applicability of blood cancers to the CCG dashboard.

We all agree that the most important element of any cancer treatment is time; as hon. Members have said, it is key to a successful outcome. It is generally agreed to be the single most important reason for lower survival rates in England, so it is vital that we do better not only on early diagnosis, but on prevention and awareness. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke well about the challenge we face in encouraging people to go and see their GP as soon as symptoms present.

That is why it is vital that early diagnosis continues to be a priority. As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said, we should take a wider view about longer-term survival rates. We know that 35% of lung cancer patients are diagnosed only after presenting as an emergency, and one in 20 are not diagnosed until after they have died. The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation found that if a person is treated early, their chance of surviving for five years or more is up to 73%, but the current five-year survival rate is only 10%. For ovarian cancer, the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service found that more than 25% of women are diagnosed through an emergency presentation. Of those, just 45% will go on to live for a year or more, compared with more than 80% of women who survive beyond a year if they are diagnosed following a referral from their GP.

We also know that once patients have been diagnosed, they have an agonising wait for treatment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe said. The 62-day target has now been met only once in the last four years since January 2014, and more than 100,000 people have had to wait longer than two months for their treatment to start. Although we are talking about some of the merits of those targets, it is important to ask the Minister if he can update us about the steps that are being taken to meet them in future.

One of the key elements in meeting those targets is having an adequately staffed workforce. From our experiences of visiting hospitals, we all know how reliant we are on the members of staff who go above and beyond the call of duty each day. Without them, the staff shortages that we are experiencing would have a much more significant impact on the services that are offered. Across the workforce, we have immediate challenges and demographic issues that are likely to have a significant impact in the near future, and that is before we consider the implications of Brexit.

Cancer Research UK has observed that the vacancy level across diagnostic radiographers, radiologists, gastroenterologists and histopathologists is at least 10%. In the cancer patient experience survey, 7% of cancer patients said that there were rarely or never enough nurses to care for them properly. The most recent report by the APPG on cancer highlights that 28% of radiographers are forecast to leave the profession by 2021. There are also reports that visa restrictions are hampering trusts’ recruitment plans.

[Karen Lee]

This is not meant to be a political point, but if we want people to train as medical staff, we need to look at the funding for that, such as the nursing bursary, which has now gone. It has been noted that the number of people applying for training has fallen since the bursaries were withdrawn.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have touched on the impact of the nursing bursary on a number of occasions, and Labour has a commitment to restore it. There are also implications for the ongoing training and continuing professional development for nurses and other health professionals who wish to specialise. The budgets available for those kinds of initiatives are being continually squeezed.

Turning back to the issue of overseas recruitment, it is worrying to hear that there is a block on recruiting trained and “ready to go” staff from other parts of the world, because it is evident from the numbers we have talked about today, and not only in this area but in other areas across the NHS, that there is a funding crisis and a recruitment crisis. Actually, staff in some of the disciplines that we have talked about do the essential behind-the-scenes work that helps us to reach patients that bit quicker and makes the targets easier to meet.

Only yesterday, Macmillan Cancer Support released research showing that hospitals in England have more than 400 specialist vacancies for cancer nurses, chemotherapy nurses, palliative care nurses and cancer support workers. Macmillan said that cancer patients were losing out, with delays in their receiving chemotherapy, and that cancer nurses were being “run ragged”, as they were forced to take on heavier workloads because of rota gaps. It also reported that vacancy rates for some specialist nurses are as high as 15% in some areas. Clearly, those kinds of gaps will have an impact on our efforts to achieve the outcomes that we all want to deliver.

There is little doubt that we would enjoy much more success in meeting some of our aims, particularly in the cancer strategy, if the workforce had the resources they need. We welcomed the publication of the cancer workforce plan in December, although we would have liked to have seen it much earlier. I shall be grateful if the Minister will update us on the progress of that plan, if he has time to do so when he responds to the debate.

More generally, the “two years on” progress report on the cancer strategy was published last October, and it set out some of the progress that has been made, but we are now six months on from that. Again, if the Minister has an opportunity, I shall be grateful if he will provide us with an update. If he is unable to do so today, could he indicate when the next formal update will be available?

In conclusion, it is wholly unacceptable that we continue to lag behind many of our neighbours with regard to outcomes, but I believe that, with the right funding, the right strategy and support from the Government, the situation can change. I hope that the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will confirm that there are plans to put in place the world-class services that our patients truly deserve.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. If he could leave two minutes at the end for Mr Baron to respond, that would be most helpful.

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (NHS Recruitment-Protected Disclosure) Regulations 2018

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 General Committees

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. We welcome the Government’s implementation of one of the key recommendations of Sir Robert Francis’ “Freedom to Speak Up” report on whistleblowing. The report shone a light on the completely unacceptable treatment that hard-working and committed NHS staff experienced when making protected disclosures. One individual told the Francis inquiry that

“finding employment is proving very difficult and I question whether any of it was worth it”.

Another said:

“I have often been so depressed by this experience that I have often considered suicide.”

It is important that we give those who want to speak out the confidence that doing so will not harm their future employment prospects. The way workers are treated, simply for raising concerns to prevent harm to patients, is shocking and unacceptable. We welcome the offer of additional protections, but we have a range of concerns about the approach taken, and I will welcome the Minister’s comments on those.

Although we understand that the draft regulations stem directly from the Francis inquiry report, we struggle to understand why they are limited to one sector. Other sectors have identified a need for such protections—for example, financial services, and we know that in social care a number of people have felt the need to blow the whistle on various issues. There is a case to be made for these protections to be extended to all job applicants.

Not only do the draft regulations leave employees in other sectors without these important protections, but, as we understand it, they provide only partial protection for NHS workers. They would not protect an NHS whistleblower applying for a job with an employer outside those covered in section 49B(6) and (7) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended. Although that is a long list, it is by no means a comprehensive one. It appears, for example, that neither NHS England or the Department of Health and Social Care is included in that list; nor are other bodies such as GP surgeries or agencies supplying staff to the NHS, including the NHS staff agency, NHS Professionals.

It also appears that private companies supplying services to the NHS are not included. As we know from the Westminster Hall debate on Monday—leaving aside the merits of private involvement in the NHS—there are many private providers embedded within the health service and other bodies in the wider health sector that do not appear to be covered, including academia, private health organisations, pharmacies, medical research and public health. Agency workers in particular raise an important issue: we know that many staff working in the NHS choose to work through agencies, rather than be directly employed by a trust, and often move from workplace to workplace.

Often, those coming into a workplace with a fresh pair of eyes can spot problems that may not be readily visible to those who spend all their time in a specific work situation. Does the Minister think it sends the right message to those who may want to blow the whistle that there are potentially hundreds of providers in the NHS that are not covered by the draft regulations? Whether there is full protection depends on which part of the NHS receives the job application.

Also, the regulations fall short in terms of future-proofing. We are all aware of new models of care, with accountable care organisations, integrated care systems and so on. While these may not yet be formal legal entities, the lack of legislation on that emerging framework is a matter of great concern. We simply do not know at this stage whether the new organisations will ultimately become NHS employers, but we do know that limiting what the regulations cover may create more gaps where NHS staff will not have the same protection as others.

There are developments now, for example in relation to wholly owned subsidiary companies, where it is anticipated that under current plans around 8,000 NHS staff will see their employment transferred to the new companies. Is it intended that the regulations will cover wholly owned subsidiary companies? If, as I suspect, the regulations will cover the rather narrow remit I have set out, will the Government look at widening their scope in due course?

In common with many of the respondents to the consultation, we are concerned about the complexity of the regulations. Simplifying legislation is something I think we all want to achieve and that could have been done. Concerns about employees who might be missing out because of the narrow scope of the employers and suppliers covered could have been dealt with by amending the definition of “worker” to include applicants for employment under section 49B of the 1996 Act. Will the Minister explain why she took this approach, instead of the one I just outlined? Will she also respond to comments made by the National Guardian’s Office, which said that the regulations could cause more litigation and make it more stressful for the applicant, which would

“inevitably have a negative impact on their relationships and family life”?

In “Freedom to Speak Up”, Sir Robert Francis wrote:

“When asked for advice by NHS organisations about issues around public interest disclosure, legal advisors have tended to be influenced by an adversarial litigation—and therefore defensive—culture.”

That is a description that I think applies across a range of issues in the NHS. Does the Minister recognise that, by drafting the regulations in this way, the Government risk continuing rather than challenging that culture?

Although we welcome the fact that regulation 3 removes any restriction to action being available only in cases where a protected disclosure has taken place, we are concerned that the use of the phrase

“because it appears to the NHS employer”

might have the unintended effect of opening up a range of technical defences to NHS employers. Will the Minister consider, for example, the instance where a protected disclosure has taken place, but the employer is able to argue that it did not appear to it to be a disclosure, or even that it simply did not consider whether a disclosure had taken place at all?

There seems to be an anomaly involving the original whistleblowing legislation, where an employee is dismissed or suffers a detriment as a result of protected disclosure, and the regulations before us. The employee could find themselves without any protection if it turns out that they have not made the disclosure, although the employer has mistakenly concluded that they have. This appears to be at odds with the draft regulations, which suggest that it is irrelevant whether that individual has made the disclosure. The only consideration under the draft regulations is whether it appears to the trust that the disclosure has been made. I would welcome any comments the Minister has about whether there are plans to regularise this situation in the future. Given that it will be for the court to interpret the employer’s belief and how the test is applied, would not applicants be placed at a clear disadvantage, requiring them to take expert legal advice?

We are also concerned that, unlike discrimination protection provided by the Equality Act 2010, the legislation provides no whistleblowing protection for a worker who is victimised for supporting another worker who made a protected disclosure. It may be, for example, that two workers are known to have investigated a concern together, but that only one of them makes the disclosure. What protection will be offered to those who are associated with or give evidence in support of a whistleblower under the regulations?

It is also unclear what position an employee will be in if they believe that they are being discriminated against, based on matters that are subject to an existing settlement agreement. In the Minister’s view, could bringing an action under the regulations leave an applicant in breach of such a settlement agreement?

We welcome the confirmation in regulation 4 that the burden of proof will apply to the employer rather than the employee,

“in the absence of any other explanation”.

Will the Minister confirm that a high bar will be set for the kinds of explanation that a tribunal would consider reasonable?

Regulation 5 applies a three-month time limit on making a claim, consistent with existing rules on applications to an employment tribunal, but there are clear differences between cases brought by an employee and those brought by an applicant. The applicant will know that they have been rejected for the position, but they may not know for some time—if at all—that that rejection is connected to their having previously made a protected disclosure. For example, in response to the consultation on the regulations, the British Medical Association raised concerns that the applicant might be able to obtain the required information about the conduct that might give rise to a claim only by using the Data Protection Act 1998, which is often a time-consuming process. Given how long it can take an applicant to understand that they may have been discriminated against, a better time limit might start the clock from the claimant first becoming aware of the conduct, as is the case for negligence claims.

Regulations 6 and 7 relate to compensation. We welcome the fact that there is no upper limit on compensation, consistent with existing practice on the settlement of whistleblowing claims, although the Department has a self-imposed limit on compensation claims made to employees upon loss of office. However, I have a concern about regulation 7(5), which relates to the conduct of the applicant. It is difficult to see, if a tribunal finds that a job application was wrongly rejected on the grounds of a protected disclosure, how an applicant’s actions could have contributed to the rejection. I would welcome some guidance from the Minister about the types of situation in which that might apply, as it seems to give employers an opportunity to water down the amount of compensation that they may pay, perhaps on spurious grounds.

In effect, regulation 8 includes injunctive relief, restraining employers from imposing detriment or requiring any detriment to be brought to an end, which seems akin to an interim relief application in respect of an existing employee. As a number of the consultation responses highlighted, the costs of bringing actions in the county court and the High Court are significantly higher than in the employment tribunal. Will the Minister therefore consider making representations to her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about whether the costs regime used in employment tribunals could be applied in those cases? Will she also comment on whether there are any plans to reintroduce employment tribunal fees, which act as a barrier to justice?

There are also concerns about injunctive relief from the perspective of NHS employers. There is clearly a prospect that the injunction process could cause recruitment exercises to be delayed, disrupted or abandoned altogether, which could have a significant impact if there is an urgent need to fill a vacancy, or if a very specialist role is vacant. As we all know, there are significant vacancies across the NHS in a range of disciplines. Putting a process on hold would also have an impact on other applicants for that position.

If the applicant is successful in obtaining injunctive relief, that gives rise to a question: what if they would not have been offered the job in any event? Having been ordered by the court to disregard a protected disclosure, would the employer then feel obliged to employ that candidate, even if they did not consider the candidate to be the best person for the job? Is it realistic to think that an employment relationship that starts on the basis of a court order can last?

Subject to the Minister’s response, we are minded to support the draft regulations. Although they are piecemeal in many ways, and do not go far enough in their scope, they still represent a significant improvement on the current position and, I hope, the start of further improvements to protections for whistleblowers.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support in this important matter. For too long, we have failed to protect those who are brave enough to speak out when others do not. We learned from the Mid Staffs case about what happens when there is a defensive culture and people cover up mistakes. We want to make the NHS the safest healthcare system in the world, so we must build a culture of openness and transparency. If we are to do that, healthcare professionals need to feel that they are safe to speak out about problems in the workplace. We want them to feel safe in raising problems, so that speaking out becomes the norm and not the exception. These important measures should ensure that staff can raise concerns, knowing that they are protected by the law and that their career in the NHS will not be damaged as a result of doing the right thing.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of important questions and I will attempt to answer as many as I can, but I will respond in writing on any that I omit, if that is acceptable. We need the draft regulations, in addition to the Employment Rights Act 1996, to protect people from detriment when they have spoken up in the public interest when they reasonably believe that they witnessed wrongdoing. “Worker” has a wide meaning in this context: the original legislation does not include job applicants, so the draft regulations address that. In addition, they provide that discrimination against a job applicant by an NHS employer is actionable as a breach of statutory duty. That gives job applicants additional protection and includes the right to bring a claim in the civil courts for a breach of statutory duty—for example, to prevent discriminatory conduct.

The draft regulations also treat the discrimination of an applicant by a worker or agent of the prospective NHS employer as if it were discrimination by an NHS employer. NHS staff who are prepared to speak out are an important asset, and workers who have previously had the courage and the compassion to do this should also be considered a valuable asset by the NHS body that is considering whether to employ them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees.

The draft regulations give NHS job applicants a right to complain to an employment tribunal if they feel that they have been discriminated against. The draft regulations set out a timeframe of three months, as he identified: that is consistent with the time limit for employment claims generally. The draft regulations also make it clear that, in the case of a decision by an NHS employer not to employ or appoint an applicant, the three-month time limit starts from the date that the decision was communicated to the applicant and not the time that the decision was made by the employer. The draft regulations enable the tribunal to consider a complaint that is otherwise out of time, if it considers it just and equitable in the circumstances.

[Justin Madders]

I know that the Government want to reduce the number of tribunal applications made. Does not the hon. Lady feel that there is a risk that, if employers are putting in applications not in possession of the full facts, more litigation would actually be encouraged rather than less?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The Government will keep that under review. It is important that we keep this as consistent as possible with the time limits for general employment cases, but if there do appear to be any issues along those lines, they can be reviewed.

The draft regulations also set out the remedies that the tribunal may or must award if the complaint is upheld. The employer may be ordered to pay compensation or the tribunal may recommend that the employer take other specified steps or make a provision on the amount of the compensation that may be awarded.

The application to an employment tribunal under the draft regulations is subject to the early conciliation regime, which provides an opportunity to resolve the claim via ACAS. We often find that, when people are able to resolve their differences via ACAS, it helps to alleviate the problem of someone who has had tribunal experience to the detriment of their future employment. It should also help to ensure that only cases that cannot be resolved through other methods actually reach the final step of an employment tribunal.

The draft regulations enable an employment tribunal to order compensation to be paid where there has been an actual breach of the prohibition on discrimination. The power to award damages is discretionary. Ultimately it is for the court to decide whether damages should be awarded, and we expect the court to take into account all the relevant factors when deciding whether that is appropriate, and to act fairly.

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask why the measures focus specifically on NHS employers. That was the original reason behind the legislation. The freedom to speak up is important, though, and we shall keep the regulations under review and assess their impact on the NHS before we assess the possible impact on other employers, such as social care providers.

[Justin Madders]

It was not just the fact that it is applied only to NHS employers, but that it is applied only to some NHS employers. I gave examples of various organisations within the NHS that are not covered by the regulations.

Privatisation of NHS Services

Justin Madders Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on the eloquent and knowledgeable way in which he introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He took us through a brief history of the health service and private sector involvement in it, and talked about the fears that have been expressed about the future of private involvement, particularly through the tendering process and the potential trade deals with other countries. I was very sorry to hear about his constituent, Connor McDade, and I would like to send my condolences to his family. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the staff who looked after Connor and to all staff in the NHS, who make it the institution we feel passionately about.

That passion is demonstrated by the fact that, by the time we finish the debate, more than 20 Members will have spoken. Unfortunately, because of the number who have spoken, I am not able to go through every single contribution, but I want to draw attention to some of them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones) made an excellent speech in which he told us in detail how Lancashire has fragmented under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and said that a High Court judge has blocked a £4 million Virgin Care contract. Later, I will talk about some of the adverse consequences of the 2012 Act in terms of litigation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) rightly raised concerns about the fact that the pursuit of profit can put patient care at risk. He gave a number of examples of the litigation that has been forthcoming, and he was ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) talked about the wholly owned subsidiary that is proposed for his area. He is right that such a major change should not be proposed without being referred to hon. Members or members of the public. He asked a number of pertinent questions, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s replies.

Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) talked about the wholly owned subsidiary company in his constituency. I was pleased to hear that his trust has at least responded to hon. Members’ concerns and is taking stock before moving on. I agree that there needs to be equality across all trusts in respect of the funding base upon which they make such decisions. He was absolutely right to say that it is not only clinical staff who make the NHS what it is today. Sometimes we do not recognise the valuable contribution that those who work behind the scenes make to the smooth running of our services.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) gave a tour de force of a speech. She is a greatly experienced health campaigner and described three fundamental problems with how the health service is run at the moment: transparency, accountability and the prioritisation of shareholder gain. How can it be right for a publicly funded service to refuse to answer questions from an hon. Member on the basis of “commercial confidentiality”, a phrase that can cover a multitude of sins? My hon. Friend is absolutely right to continue pursuing such matters, as she has done in many areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), as always, gave a formidable speech about the issues affecting our national health service. She set out clearly how the cherry-picking of some services by the private sector damages the NHS as a whole and loads risk on the public sector.

[Richard Graham]

I was struck by how the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), while talking about the need to find cross-party consensus on these issues, took no interventions from anyone on the Government Benches—[Interruption.]

[Richard Graham]

Furthermore, she made no recognition of the fact that issues such as subsidiary companies and so on are separate from the points she was making and absolutely not about privatisation.

[Justin Madders]

Members are indicating that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central did take interventions. It is not for me to comment on that, but I thought her speech was superb, and it came from many years of experience in the health service. However, on the contribution of the hon. Gentleman himself, I have to say that I disagree with him—this debate is about not a local election or weaponising the NHS, but about the 240,000 members of the public who signed the petition, which was launched some five months ago.

The hon. Gentleman also challenged us to find Conservative Members in support of privatisation—they may not express that support publicly, but we need only look at what has happened to the health service under a Conservative Government to see that privatisation has accelerated since 2010. There is also the famous 2005 pamphlet that advocated privatisation of the NHS. The Health Secretary has, I know, disowned his comments as one of the co-authors, saying that the pamphlet no longer represents his views, but at least five other current Conservative Members were co-authors, so there are questions to be asked about it of those on the Government Benches.

As other Members have said, private sector involvement has of course always been an element of the NHS, but since the Health and Social Care Act came into force there has been a step change in that involvement. After the Act became law, the amount of cash going to private sector partners went up by a staggering 25% in the first year alone. That is part of a broader trend identified by House of Commons Library research—the equivalent of £9 billion a year of NHS funds now goes into the private sector, which is double the figure under the previous Labour Government.

As we have heard, there are also huge problems with litigation arising from the 2012 Act. Money should not be spent on lawyers, procurement processes, tendering and court cases; it should be spent on patients. Given the longest and most sustained financial squeeze in the history of the NHS, we can ill afford money to be used in that way. The financial squeeze has also had consequences for how NHS hospitals are forced to use the private sector. Elective procedures in the private sector have gone up by 58% in the past year alone.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Justin Madders]

I am sorry, I shall take no more interventions, because I am struggling for time.

Patients are voting with their feet. Owing to the deterioration in waiting times, over three years the number of patients going abroad for treatment has trebled to 144,000 last year. With the Government abandoning the 18-week waiting time target, and the widespread rationing of some treatments, that figure will surely get worse. Does the Minister accept that those figures are a matter of concern, and does he expect them to increase or decrease in the next 12 months?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on a matter of record?

[Justin Madders]

Okay.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think he said that the growth rate in outsourcing has increased under this Government and the coalition. Full Fact, however, states that the growth rate was similar under both Governments—the Governments since 2010 and the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I am familiar not with those particular figures but with the House of Commons Library research, to which all Members have access and which was available in the brief for this debate.

A number of Members talked about wholly owned subsidiaries, and how they can undermine terms and conditions and open a back-door route to potential privatisation of the NHS. So far, the Government have kept that back door open. There are no guarantees that such companies will not end up in private hands in future, or that the recently announced and much welcomed pay rise for NHS staff will apply to those employed by those subsidiaries. Will the Minister agree that, as a matter of fairness, staff working in the subsidiaries should also receive the pay rise proposed by the Government?

In recent years many NHS trusts have set up those private companies, and up to 8,000 posts could potentially be affected—some reports have suggested that up to 40 trusts are now considering such arrangements. If completed, that would represent one of the biggest transfers of NHS staff and resources. We know the financial pressures that trusts are under, and some have sought to justify such moves as a way of saving VAT, so we can understand the dilemma facing trusts—the funding restrictions in the NHS have been some of the most difficult in living memory.

The overall position, however, is that there would be no saving to the taxpayer—although individual trusts may make a saving—because whatever is lost to the Treasury has to be made up elsewhere. It is incumbent on the Government to take action to ensure that all trusts are on a level playing field. The fact that they have done nothing so far adds to the suspicion that they are allowing, whether by accident, design or indifference, the fragmentation and privatisation of the NHS. I have some sympathy with the trusts making those proposals, but when one looks at the amount spent on management consultants to come up with the changes, the sympathy dries up.

Near my constituency, for example, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre has spent more than £661,000 establishing a wholly owned subsidiary. The figures show wholly owned subsidiaries to have been extremely profitable for consultants in recent years and, despite a 2010 ministerial pledge to reduce managerial costs by 45%, annual expenditure on management consultants increased by 104% between 2010 and 2014. A study by the University of Warwick evaluated the expenditure, and the principal finding was that the use of management consultants was associated with a small decrease in efficiency. Has the Minister considered that report by Professor Kirkpatrick, and will he look again at the role of management consultants in the NHS?

I appreciate that I am running up against the time limit, so I will conclude. The people who have signed the petition are clearly articulating a concern about a hostile environment created by this Government. They wish to see a return to a properly funded, comprehensive, reintegrated and public NHS that is of course free at the point of use. It is time for there to be a Labour Government to deliver that vision.

Leaving the EU: NHS

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I join other Members who have expressed their remembrance and condolences to the families of those who died last year, particularly PC Keith Palmer. There was a very moving service in Westminster Hall this morning, which was a very fitting tribute to those who lost their lives this time last year.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this extremely important debate on one of the aspects of our exit from European Union that has not received the attention that I believe it warrants.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) on the extremely clear way he introduced the subject. As someone who has served in the Foreign Office and as a Health Minister, before becoming a member of the Health Committee, he is perhaps more qualified than most to address many of the issues that we have discussed. He talked about the Select Committee report and how the wrong deal or no deal at all will be extremely damaging to the NHS in a series of ways, most of which I will touch on. It was also clear from his comments that there is a need for the Government to have a strategy in place to deal with the potential impact of no deal. It would useful to hear from the Minister on that.

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the loss of the European Medicines Agency to Amsterdam. It was a matter of great regret that we lost that wonderful institution. The fact that there were so many countries bidding to take it over shows how important it is to individual member states. My right hon. Friend set out some of the risks of no deal, leaving us on World Trade Organisation arrangements, with the potential risk of the seizing up of the medical supply chain. He also talked about staffing, which most hon. Members touched on. He gave the stark example of the number of midwives from the EU. If the current rate of attrition continues, we will have no EU midwives left in a decade. I remind hon. Members that we already have 3,500 midwife vacancies. He also talked about research and gave some clear examples of how investment is being lost now, before we have actually left the EU, and the impact on reciprocal care.

My right hon. Friend also touched on several things that were not in the report, but which are also important, such as the fiscal impact of our leaving, the potential risk to food standards and, of course, the risks from future trade deals. It is ironic that the NHS and other public services are specifically exempted from trade deals at the moment, as a result of agreements that we have with the EU.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick). I commend him for the ingenious way he got subjects of great importance to him into the debate, but I think that is probably the best I can say about the contribution, so I will move on. I am sure he will continue to fight for those things that are extremely important to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke from his experience as a passionate campaigner on health issues in his constituency. He set out the importance of the NHS is in his constituency and his pride in what it has achieved. I would characterise what he said about the current situation for services in his constituency as a damage limitation exercise. He gave a startling figure about the number of EU staff who have already taken legal advice on their positions. That should be a very clear warning that uncertainty is still very much in the forefront of people’s minds. He set out well how staffing will be affected in London more than in other regions.

The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) set out powerfully how important the NHS is and how people feel strongly about it in their hearts. She is right that we need to show staff how much we value them. She also set out the importance of reciprocal arrangements for qualifications and, indeed, for healthcare. She raised the importance of clinical trials, particularly in relation to rare diseases. I am sorry I did not get the chance to hear her singing the other week. She was absolutely right that there are particular risks for rare diseases and the development of new medicines. She was also right when she said that Brexit can seem a little abstract to people, but she and other hon. Members have set out in tangible ways how Brexit will affect many of the things that we hold dear.

It was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), as always. He is one of those people whom we rely on in the NHS to keep the service going, and he rightly paid tribute to the whole range of professions, and the services provided by NHS staff. Of course, it is the staff who make the service what it is. He was right to say that the message is not getting through to EU staff about the future. We need to do more to reassure them. He clearly set out the gravity of the situation, in relation to the impact on staff. He was right to say that some impacts of Brexit are being felt now. GlaxoSmithKline provides evidence of that: about £70 million that could have been spent on cancer research being spent on preparations for Brexit was certainly a startling figure, and not one that we might expect to see on the side of a bus.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised an important point about protections that we need to maintain against bogus medicines. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance about the falsified medicines directive. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) talked about the importance of the Scottish life sciences sector and, in particular, its distinctiveness in relation to the sector in the rest of the UK. She also raised important issues about staff.

I want to say something about those from whom we have not heard today. As several hon. Members have observed, not one Back Bencher who campaigned to leave has come to speak in the debate. That is the same as in November when we discussed the future of the European Medicines Agency. No Back Benchers who advocated leave came along and spoke. There is a lack of ownership, candour and realism from people who campaigned to leave about the consequences of the vote and I would have welcomed a contribution from those Members.

The issues are, as we have discussed, of central importance. We have heard today how almost every aspect of the NHS could be affected by Brexit. Those issues were not articulated in the referendum, but whatever side of the debate people were on, no one, I believe, voted with the intention of causing damage to the NHS. It is our duty to vote according to our conscience, but we must make sure that when we leave the EU we do so in a way that protects and defends the NHS, which is so valued by so many, and that the Government will be held to account for the decisions that they take in the process.

Last year, more nurses and midwives left the profession than joined. Much of that is attributable to the way morale in the health service has plummeted in recent years. The exodus is even more pronounced among staff from the European economic area. As Members have mentioned, according to the Nursing & Midwifery Council, the number of EEA nurses and midwives joining the register decreased by 89% in the past year, while the number who left increased by 67%. That is exacerbating an already parlous situation. The NHS has about 40,000 nursing vacancies at the moment. To put things in terms that the Foreign Secretary might understand, we are missing enough nurses to fill 450 double-decker buses.

It is not just in nursing and midwifery that we face those issues. Figures from the Royal College of Physicians show that 9.3% of doctors working in the NHS are from EU member states, while, according to the General Medical Council, the number of new doctors coming from the EU fell by 9% last year. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow said, a survey of doctors showed that 45% of EU doctors were now considering leaving, with a further 29% saying they were unsure about the future. Given that 60% of junior doctors already report working on a rota with a permanent gap, and 45% of advertised consultant posts are not being recruited to, that is an extremely worrying position. A number of surveys have shown that one of the key reasons EU citizens are leaving is that they believe there is uncertainty about their future status. It is simply not good enough that the Government’s plans for migration will not be available until the end of this year.

I would be grateful if the Minister updated us, if he is able to, about when the immigration White Paper and Bill will be introduced. I also urge him, as I am sure other Members will, to be as loud and as clear as he can in reassuring EU staff in the NHS that they are valued and have a right to stay.

We welcome the fact that EEA citizens and their family members will be able to apply for settled status. How that will work in practice remains unclear and it is concerning that the new system will have issues, because when we look at the way the current tier 2 system operates, we see that it is hardly an exemplar of perfection. The Royal College of Physicians has stated that it is aware of 44 examples under the existing system whereby junior doctors have had certificates of sponsorship refused, due to increases in salary requirements. Will the Minister let us know what representations he is making on this particular issue and what the Government will do to try to solve this particular difficulty? Can he also reassure us that the new system that we have for EEA residents will not have similar problems?

In addition to the issues that I have raised about the potential impact on recruitment and retention, many hard-working NHS workers have also spoken about their concerns about impacts on their terms and conditions. As the Minister knows, at Health questions recently we discussed the increasing trend in NHS trusts setting up subsidiary companies. Of course, staff in those companies should be protected by TUPE regulations—legislation that is, of course, derived from the acquired rights directive. So I hope that the Minister can reassure those staff that there are no plans or intentions to water down TUPE regulations, and that they will be implemented in UK law in the form that they take now.

There is also a concern about other EU legislation and the possible threat to the working time directive, which provides safeguards not only for staff but for patients. I understand that last December various royal colleges wrote to the Prime Minister, asking for assurances that the directive would be implemented in UK law, but they have not had any such assurances.

We know from the most recent survey that around 60% of staff have concerns about their work-life balance, and they said that they were working unpaid additional hours, along with the increasing reliance on overtime in hospitals. It is important that we get a clear and unambiguous statement that the working time directive in relation to weekly hours will not be amended or watered down in any way.

Of course, the impact of Brexit will not just be on staff. If we do not secure the best outcome in the negotiations, there could be implications for access to treatments and reciprocal healthcare. As I said earlier, last November I spoke in Westminster Hall in a debate on the European Medicines Agency and it is fair to say that at that time there was some way to go before we had clarity about what the future arrangements will be, so I would be grateful if the Minister updated us today on any progress in that regard.

The Office of Health Economics recently set out just how stark the impact could be if a solution is not found in this area, because it warns that the average lag in submission for a marketing authorisation in the UK could be up to three months, that up to 15% of applications could be submitted more than a year after the EEA submission, and that some products may not be marketed in the UK at all. At the time of its analysis in January, the OHE found that 45% of applications had not been submitted to Australia, Canada or Switzerland following submission to the EMA, so can the Minister give us assurances that we will not be left behind when it comes to gaining early access to medicines and technologies?

In November, I also asked the Minister to confirm that Department of Health budgets would not be used to fund any additional Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency costs. Again, we have not had any confirmation of that and again I would be grateful if the Minister provided reassurance in that respect today, as we know that NHS budgets are already extremely stretched.

As we also know, there are risks arising from the decision to withdraw from Euratom, simply because it falls under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, because of course Euratom facilitates a free trade in nuclear material, including radioisotopes, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter said, those materials degrade very quickly. They cannot be stockpiled, so it is essential that there are no delays to imports.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is my hon. Friend able to say whether we will support the Euratom amendment that was passed in the House of Lords two days ago when it comes back to the House of Commons? That would be warmly welcomed on both sides of the House.

[Justin Madders]

That is slightly outside my brief, but I understand the intention behind the question and hope that we will be able to come back on it positively.

There are concerns about the risks to patient care. Will the Minister set out how he expects us to address those?

The free movement of people was presented very much as a one-way street during the referendum. We know that about 1.2 million UK citizens live in other EU member states. There is a risk that if a similar arrangement on reciprocal healthcare is not implemented after we leave, that could impact on the arrangements those people enjoy. This could cause a huge amount of disruption for patients and health services. It will probably affect those with the most serious conditions most, in particular those with kidney failure who may not be able to travel in future if assurances are not gained. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on that.

Finally, I would like to say a few words on the impact on social care. According to NHS Digital, it is estimated that about 7% of people in the social care sector, or 95,000 people, are EU citizens. That figure varies for different parts of the country. Recent estimates suggest that the social care sector will face a considerable staff shortage if EU migration is limited, particularly if visas are restricted on the basis of income. Projections from the Nuffield Trust suggest that there could be a shortfall of as many as 70,000 social care workers by 2025. Again, will the Minister set out what steps the Government plan to mitigate the potential impact on social care and staff? Can he assure us that we will have an immigration system that addresses staffing needs in the future?

Nobody voted to leave the NHS worse off. Nobody voted to reduce their access to treatments. Nobody voted to make themselves less safe if they require treatment. Nobody voted to reduce the number of staff in our hospitals. Yet all those scenarios are possible if the Government do not get the negotiations right. Members of all parties have expressed their concerns and the need for clarity. I hope that the Minister can now provide that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

Had the hon. Lady been able to attend the recent Westminster Hall debate on this issue, she would have heard that in the trust under discussion the staff survey showed an improvement in responses as a result of the subsidiary because many staff valued the flexibilities in the new contracts that the subsidiary could offer.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Minister may be in denial about privatisation, but is it not the case that the question-and-answer document from North Tees and Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said that its subsidiary organisation could be taken over by a private company in the future? If the Minister wants to put these privatisation stories to bed, will he rule out the possibility of any of the subsidiary companies’ being taken over by private organisations in the future?

[Stephen Barclay]

The party that is in denial is the Labour party, which, in 2006, passed the legislation through which subsidiaries could be offered. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, perhaps he should listen to NHS Providers, which says:

“It is…inaccurate and misleading to say that the establishment of wholly owned subsidiaries is a new phenomenon or being pursued to avoid VAT, privatise the NHS, or to reduce terms and conditions for NHS staff.”

Labour Members should stop scaremongering over legislation that their party actually passed.

East Midlands Ambulance Service

Justin Madders Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Davies. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) had a call from his lawyers.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

He has called an ambulance, I should think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) on securing this debate. She has again shown that she is a strong advocate for issues in her constituency. She described the ambulance service as the glue that binds the NHS together; I would go further and say that all the staff are that glue who bind the service together.

My hon. Friend reeled off a whole range of statistics about performance in EMAS. The ones that stuck out for me were the nine-hour wait for an ambulance and the queuing times at hospitals, which were also mentioned by a number of other hon. Members. She talked about the risk-averse approach of 111; although clearly no one wants that to go too far the other way, I know that more clinicians are now working for 111. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister feels the balance between clinicians and non-clinical staff in that service is now right.

We heard from a number of Members, but unfortunately I will not have enough time to go through all the contributions. In a very thoughtful and relevant speech, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) made some interesting points about whether staff are utilised as effectively as we might like.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made some interesting points about geography—he should look at some of the sustainability and transformation plans too, to see whether the geography there makes any sense—and privatisation, which probably got a fairer hearing from Members on our side of the Chamber than those on the Government Benches, but that is something we need to examine closely.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who spoke movingly and passionately from her personal and professional experience. We heard about people with chest pains waiting two and a half hours for an ambulance—we can only begin to imagine how stressful that must be.

As a number of hon. Members said, geography is clearly a big issue. As we also heard, the trust is one of the most poorly performing in the country. The sparsity of population is clearly driving that problem. The staff are not to blame. Last year the Care Quality Commission report expressed serious concerns but also commented on

“caring, professional staff delivering compassionate, patient focussed care in circumstances that were challenging due to the continued demand on the service.”

It is important to remember that across the whole of the NHS, providers struggle to meet the demands.

The financial squeeze has been pointed out on more than one occasion, not only in this debate but by many politicians, patients and staff, and by the assistant coroner for Nottinghamshire, Heidi Connor, in her comments in the regulation 28 reports to prevent future deaths, all of which have been sent to the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and NHS Improvement. As Members know, the reports are made when a coroner believes that action should and can be taken to prevent future deaths. In May 2016, in the second of two reports expressing concern, she said:

“The issue in this case…was essentially a matter of resource. In essence, I found that there is only so much an ambulance service can do where they simply do not have an ambulance to send. Demand is clearly greater than the resources they have most of the time”.

We have heard that echoed by Members.

We know that there will be occasions when demand peaks, but Heidi Connor makes it clear that that is not an exceptional spike in demand but a situation that exists most of the time. She goes on to say:

“I consider that there is a risk of future deaths...unless an urgent review of resources is undertaken”.

Will the Minister confirm what specific steps were taken by the Department in response to the regulation 28 reports issued on 11 and 26 May 2016?

Those statements are not the only ones we have heard about the resource situation. After the 2017 CQC report, the chief executive of the service said:

“EMAS was not commissioned to meet the national performance targets during 2016/17, and therefore was not resourced to do so”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said, there can be no doubt that finance is the root cause of the issues we are hearing about today. We are in the longest and most sustained financial squeeze in the history of the NHS, and that is having real consequences. The fact that EMAS receives the second lowest urgent and emergency income per head of population in the country is a challenge, in particular given the sparsity of the population and the geographical challenges, as we have heard.

Despite the pressing need to invest more in frontline services, I am concerned that EMAS is having to service debts that have increased from £35,000 to £376,000 in the past year as a result of a loan taken out from the Department of Health in 2015-16. How can the service deliver the improvements we all want when it has to divert money to repay debts, just to keep things on the road?

It is true that EMAS’s performance is below average; it is also true that trusts have deteriorated significantly in their performance since 2010. The same is true of all targets in every part of the NHS. This Government have failed to hit any of their NHS ambulance targets since May 2015. The truth is that underfunding of the NHS has pushed ambulance services to the brink and left record numbers of patients everywhere suffering in discomfort and in terrifying circumstances, as we have heard today.

New performance standards are an opportunity to build a system that has the support of paramedics and patients alike. I conclude by asking the Minister to give an assurance that the new series of standards are based on the best clinical evidence and not just designed to obtain what is achievable with the money that the Department has allocated.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Minister, we will end at a quarter to, so you will have time to allow a couple of interventions should you wish.

NHS Staff: Oxfordshire

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on securing the debate and on the powerful arguments she made about the recruitment and retention crisis affecting NHS services in her area and across the country.

As the hon. Lady said, the NHS has been a frequently raised issue in recent times, certainly since her election. I join her and the other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today in praise of the dedication and commitment of the staff who work in our health service. She said that we are close to a crisis in the NHS. I believe that only the dedication and commitment of staff prevent a crisis from turning into a complete catastrophe. She was also right to say that the good will of staff is propping up services at the moment. That is something that, I am sad to say, I have to keep repeating every time we have a debate: it is the good will of staff that keeps the show on the road.

I was concerned to hear that some staff had approached the hon. Lady to say that some of the levels of experience in particular wards were raising concerns about patient safety. She highlighted in particular the shortage of mental health specialists. She is right to say that the good intention to try to achieve parity of esteem will be extremely difficult to meet when there are so many shortages.

The hon. Lady diagnosed a number of issues that have contributed to causing the crisis. Uncertainty around Brexit has certainly accelerated some of the staffing challenges already in place. The abolition of the nursing bursary has also created issues, and I will come back to that later on. I agree with her that reliance on agency staff is unsustainable, and we can talk about that in a little more detail later. She mentioned the pay cap, as I think every hon. Member did; that is something else I will come back to later, but I remind her that when her party was in government it enacted that policy for a full five years.

The hon. Lady also mentioned staffing shortages in social care. It is sad to hear that those doing one of the most valuable jobs in society feel that they have a better prospect of earning a decent living in retail. That brings home the challenge we face. The issues she raised about training and professional development are also particularly relevant.

The hon. Lady was right to mention that behind all of that is the funding challenge we currently face. We are in the longest and most sustained financial squeeze in the history of the NHS, and it is inevitable that those kinds of issues will come up until we reach a sustainable funding settlement. She also raised the question of housing and the cost of living in Oxfordshire. I think most hon. Members touched on that point. She said she was concerned that unless the issues are tackled in a comprehensive way, services will be rationed. I am afraid to say that services up and down the country are already being rationed, as we have discussed here on a number of occasions.

It was a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). She always speaks strongly and passionately about NHS services in her area. She said that staffing issues were a major factor in the proposals to downgrade the maternity unit at Horton. It is a sad fact that half of all maternity units up and down the country have had to turn expectant mothers away at some point in the last year, often due to staffing shortages. We currently have a national shortage of about 3,500 midwives. It was interesting to hear some of the possible initiatives to attract new obstetricians in particular. Certainly, the prospect of free beer is something that works for me, but I do not know whether the hon. Lady can wait quite as long as it will take for me to train in that profession. I think we will have to do without my particular skills in that area.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of transparency and openness. It is disappointing to hear the difficulties she has had with her local trust on that issue, but it is clear from what she has said today that she has a lot to contribute to the wider health economy in her area. She is not alone on that issue. The Government have been pushing through policies on sustainability and transformation plans, accountable care organisations and the capital expenditure processes, which are all done under a veil of secrecy. There are wider issues in play there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) described the current situation as a perfect storm—an apt description. I am impressed at the way in which she has engaged with staff in the health service in her constituency to get to the real meat and bones of the issues. It was sad to hear that staff feel they are forced to leave the profession and go to work for an agency; she was absolutely right to say that forcing staff to go and work for an agency to make ends meet costs us more in the long term. There are ways in which that could be a saving for us if the pay cap was lifted.

The problems with the nursing bursary were again highlighted, particularly how they are exacerbated in the Oxfordshire area by the cost of living. Has the Minister done any analysis of the cost of living in different parts of the country and the income streams available to those undertaking nursing degrees, who, because of the way the degree is structured, do not have the option of supplemental employment?

My hon. Friend explained very well how the proximity to London creates recruitment difficulties. The stark image of staff living in a corridor highlighted to me the impact of eight years of pay restraint. She also highlighted the bureaucratic nature of recruiting overseas staff. I know immigration policy is outside the Minister’s remit, but I hope he is making representations to the Home Office about how we tackle those issues in future. My hon. Friend highlighted how, despite the Government’s various initiatives for getting people on to the housing ladder, it is still too big a leap for many. We need much more genuinely affordable housing to be built.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I agree with him that the problem did not start in the last year. He raised the question of challenges in GP practices, particularly younger GPs not feeling able to make the financial commitments to buy into practices, but also the restrictions on operations. He was right to mention that GPs need to move with the times on technology. A number of interesting initiatives are doing that up and down the country, although we have concerns about some of them and how they may exclude patients.

Finally, we heard from the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). He painted an impressive picture of how healthy the Oxfordshire area is, but a report by the Oxfordshire clinical commissioning group shows a gap in life expectancy of nine years between different parts of the county—something about which the Opposition feel passionately.

It is fair to say, from the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, that the local NHS leadership are not on his Christmas card list. He gave a pretty damning assessment of their ability to engage, but of course the structures we are currently working under were brought in under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which led to the removal of the Secretary of State’s responsibility for much of the system and to the fragmentation with which we are all grappling. I applaud the right hon. Gentleman for his efforts to try to bring everyone together, but he should consider whether the legislative framework we currently work under is fit for purpose. The way in which he has brought people in the NHS together is important and we should be doing more of that. In this particular area, that should be not just on the health economy, but on the wider issues, particularly those relating to cost of living and housing.

As we have heard, the potential impact of the recruitment and retention crisis was brought into stark focus by the issue that sparked the debate: the leaked email from the head of chemotherapy at the Oxford University Hospital’s NHS Foundation Trust that found its way on to the front page of The Times. That memo confirmed to staff that the trust was down on nurses at the day treatment unit by approximately 40%, and as a consequence that the hospital was having to delay chemotherapy patients’ starting times to four weeks. It also stated that there was no prospect of an improvement in the situation for 18 months to two years.

More worrying was a proposal to reduce the number of chemotherapy cycles available to dying patients, which is totally contrary to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, as well as the national cancer strategy. We were therefore relieved to hear that the trust has now backed down from those suggestions.

[Anneliese Dodds]

To be clear, as other Members have mentioned, those were not live proposals. The problem was that the trust had to scope out the full range of potential action, given the challenge it was facing. However, the proposals were not something that it wanted to do—quite the opposite. I just wanted to underline that.

[Justin Madders]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I was not trying to imply that the proposals were live, but the fact they were being considered is of huge concern, which Members have rightly raised. It will be helpful if the Minister could look at what caused the proposals to even be discussed, because they are contrary to so many of the principles and guidelines that we want in our NHS. I hope he will be able to assure us that those kinds of dramatic measures are not being considered in other areas.

The impact of recruitment and retention issues at the trust extends far beyond chemotherapy. In January, 2,159 patients waited for longer than four hours to be seen in A&E, falling well below the 95% target—a measure that the Health Secretary described as “critical for patient safety”. Even more worryingly, since December eight cancer operations and 26 heart operations were cancelled either the day before or on the day itself. Although that is at the upper end of operation cancellations, it is sadly a story that we now hear up and down the country. Cancelling an appointment at short notice causes immense frustration. It is sometimes unavoidable, but we know that it can have devastating consequences and put patients at unnecessary risk, not to mention the emotional impact. On the practical side, cover has to be arranged, spouses and family members have to arrange their own time off, and sometimes even national or international travel is required.

Staffing shortages are not behind every cancellation, but they will be a factor in many, and the vacancy rate at the trust tells us that it is an increasing problem. As we heard, vacancies at the trust for nurses, midwives and nursing support workers have almost doubled in the past year, from 5.99% in October 2016 to 10.8% in October last year, leaving about 400 whole-time equivalent vacancies. As we have heard from hon. Members, local factors have undoubtedly contributed to that. A 2017 study by Lloyds bank listed Oxford as the most expensive city in the UK, with average house prices 10.7 times average annual earnings. As we have heard, there is some support for the introduction of an Oxford weighting-type arrangement.

There is also a national context to look at, with housing costs being exacerbated by the pay cap. It is clear that, although that is probably at the sharper end of the pressures, Oxford’s issues are being repeated up and down the country. We now know that, after eight years of this Government, more nurses are leaving the NHS than joining. That position is particularly sharp in the Thames valley area, where there were 39% more leavers than joiners between September 2016 and September 2017.

While almost all trusts up and down the country have been unable to fill vacancies, Oxford’s is probably one of the more acute situations. However, much of it was completely predictable. One of the first decisions the Government took in 2010 was to cut the number of nurse training places by 3,000, which has led to about 8,000 fewer nurses nationally. We then had the Health Secretary’s farcical decision to take on the junior doctors, which has led to a demoralised workforce.

Then, to cap it all, as Members have said, came the decision to scrap nurse bursaries, which is possibly the most ill-conceived decision the Government have made—and there is plenty of competition for that particular award. We warned at the time that, far from providing more nursing places, the move would lead to a drop in the number of applications, with the biggest impact being on mature students, who bring a huge amount of experience from outside the profession.

As we have heard, statistics show that there was not only an 18% drop in applications in 2017, but a 2.6% decline in England in the number of students accepted on to courses. Among mature students, 13% fewer of those aged between 21 and 25 were accepted. That decision is discriminatory and stands in stark contrast to the Government’s aims on social mobility. Those are not just my words—they are in the equality assessment undertaken by the Department for Education. However, instead of learning from that lesson, Ministers have decided to scrap NHS bursaries for postgraduate students as well.

Alongside that disastrous decision, we have had the counterproductive capping of pay, which has led to hard-working NHS staff losing money in real terms at the same time as their workload has increased. We have heard encouraging noises from the Government recently, but we have seen no firm action. Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarity when he responds. The Nursing Times reported this week that the Treasury apparently still needs convincing that a rise in wages should be “meaningful”. Will the Minister send his Treasury colleagues a transcript of the debate, to persuade them that a strong case is being made for an increase?

Across Oxfordshire and the whole of our NHS, a recruitment and retention crisis is exacerbating a situation that has already reached crisis point. The Government need to act, realise their mistakes and urgently give hard-working NHS staff the belief that their work is valued and the confidence that their concerns are being listened to.

Acute and Community Health

Justin Madders Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

May I start by adding my appreciation for the tenacity my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) has shown in pursuing this matter over a number of years? She has led the way in tackling this injustice fearlessly and relentlessly. In that respect, she is an example to all right hon. and hon. Members in this place. I agree with the Minister that the report is a vindication of her courage, but is it not shameful that this scandal only came to light because a Member of Parliament was prepared to give a voice to those who were afraid to speak out?

Today’s independent report on the Liverpool Community Health Trust lays bare a catalogue of failure that caused harm to patients across Merseyside between 2010 and 2014. It is a grim example of a repeat of the regulatory pressures and board management failures at Mid Staffs. What is of huge concern is that some of the failures came after the final publication of the Francis report. As we have heard, incidents identified in the report include the deaths of inmates at HMP Liverpool, patients having the wrong tooth extracted by trust dentists, and patients on intermediate care wards suffering repeated falls and broken bones or ending up with pressure ulcers. We have to make sure that the pain experienced by so many patients and their families is properly detailed and recognised. We must make sure the NHS is able to learn from these events and that systems are put in place to ensure they never happen again.

I put on record our thanks from the Labour Benches to Dr Bill Kirkup and his team for the work they have done in carrying out this investigation and helping us to understand what has gone wrong. Today’s report says that patients of community services suffered unnecessary harm because the senior leadership team was “out of its depth”. Let us be clear what lies at the heart of this: unrealistic cost-cutting by the trust without regard to the consequences that led directly to patients being harmed. The report exposes serious problems around the scale of cost-cutting being imposed on NHS trusts. In the case of Liverpool Community Health, the motivation was the drive to achieve foundation trust status. The trust disciplined and suspended staff who blew the whistle about poor care and its controversial plans to slash staff to save money. What guarantee can the Minister offer that trusts are no longer being allowed to prioritise financial savings over patient care? What protections have been put in place for staff who raise concerns about cost-cutting?

Today’s report notes the irony of staff reductions being agreed at the same board meeting that had earlier considered the implications of the Francis report. That alone should have raised alarm bells about the capacity of board members to challenge the trust. The NHS still faces huge workforce shortages, so what update can the Minister give us on how the 10-year workforce strategy has been received? What additional measures will the strategy include to guarantee safe levels of staffing in all areas of the country, in community as well as acute services?

I am pleased that the Minister recognises concerns that managers responsible for these extreme failures can often go into leadership roles in other parts of the health service, or indeed for private providers to the NHS in another capacity. Will he advise the House how many people who refused to co-operate with the investigation are still employed in some part of the NHS? Is there anything in the existing terms and conditions or structures that can be used to require future co-operation? Is there any redress in existing policies and procedures that we can use against these people?

The report said that regulators were distracted by higher-profile services such as acute care. The Health Service Journal said today that oversight failures were partly attributable to organisational changes that were taking place under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, so what will the Government do to ensure that national priorities are not allowed to interfere with local oversight?

Finally, the report raises serious concerns about the quality of healthcare in prisons. HMP Liverpool still has significant challenges, and the new provider of the prison’s health service—the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust—has just said that it cannot continue with the contract on the level of funding currently available. The Ministry of Justice will investigate these matters more generally, but will the Minister assure us that prison healthcare is properly supported and resourced in Merseyside and elsewhere across the country?

Paragraph 1 of the review’s findings sums up the devastating impact of these multiple failings:

“Staff were overstretched, demoralised and—in some instances—bullied. Significant unnecessary harm occurred to patients.”

In the unprecedented financial squeeze that the NHS currently faces, we need assurances from the Minister that patients and staff will come before finance and that today will be the last time we hear such a damning message about what is going on in our NHS.

[Stephen Barclay]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and the manner in which he put them before the House. His first key question was to what extent measures are in place to address this sort of issue, should it arise again. Post Francis, and following Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of 14 trusts with high mortality rates, a new regime has been put in place. There is a new chief inspector of hospitals, Professor Ted Baker, and a specific regime involving NHS Improvement, which commissioned this report. NHS Improvement has a new chair, Dido Harding, a very senior figure from the business community.

That regime has put 37 hospitals into special measures so far. The methodology that is used to alert regulators to areas of concern has also been revised. For example, far more importance is now placed on staff and patient surveys. However, it remains to be explained why a trust could pay so many compromise agreements, for example, in response to so many staff disciplinary issues. I assume that many concerns were raised by trade unions locally, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware. We must also consider the extent to which earlier reports, such as the Capsticks report, raised concerns that should have been addressed. That is why, in my statement, I signalled my desire to look at those issues and ensure that they are addressed by the fit and proper person test in particular. As he will be aware, though, that test pertains only to board-level appointments in the NHS, not to all roles. We will need to look at that scope, at the effectiveness of the investigation and particularly at the revolving door element of the problem, which he recognised.

Turning to the other issues that the shadow Minister raised, we clearly need to ensure that due process is followed. I do not need to remind the House of the difficulties of any enforcement against for instance, Fred Goodwin in financial services or Sharon Shoesmith in child services. People rightly expect due process, and all hon. Members would ask for that. The victims will rightly ask, “How can the chief executive, with this catalogue of issues, move within the NHS rather than be fired?” I know that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) has many concerns about that, as do the Health Committee and many other Members.

I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in the spirit in which he raised these issues. We share concerns, and I know the House as a whole wants us to get to the heart of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Justin Madders Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Perhaps I should set the record straight for the hon. Lady. We have 52,000 nurses in training—more than was ever the case under the last Labour Government, who were planning to cut nurse training places by 6%. We are planning to increase them by 25%. That shows our commitment to nursing.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Royal College of Nursing reported on the total failure of Government policies to increase the nursing workforce. As we have just heard, the Government hoped to recruit 1,000 trainees to the nursing apprenticeship, but ended up with just 30. This year, the number applying to university to study nursing has so far fallen by a staggering 33%. We have a workforce crisis exacerbated by badly thought out policies, so is it not time that the Secretary of State admitted that scrapping the bursary was a mistake?

[Mr Hunt]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the first time that he has presented a somewhat incomplete picture of what is actually happening. In the last five years, we have 15,700 more nurses, and the reason for those vacancies and for the pressure is that, as he knows very well, under the last Labour Government we had Mid Staffs, which was a crisis of short staffing that this Government are putting right. That is why we want to recruit those extra nurses.