Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I simply do not recognise the scenario that the hon. Lady has just articulated. There is access to GP practices throughout England outside of working hours.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Ind)]

21. I am delighted to ask the Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, a question. Will the efforts to get more work through a seven-day NHS mean an extra effort to improve the take-up of the flu vaccine this year, not least for those suffering from lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma? About 50% of people with those conditions did not get the vaccine or did not take up the opportunity to do so last year. Will that be improved this year? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those individuals and the people who support them get the necessary flu vaccine this year?

[Ms Dorries]

It is a delight to take a question in my first Health questions from my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. If he pops into Shefford pharmacy, I am sure that Jamil will give him a flu vaccine as he walks through the door because Jamil does not require anybody to wait; anyone who wants a vaccine can have one—think pharmacy first. We are also ahead on flu vaccines for pensioners compared with last year. As my right hon. Friend articulated, it is crucial that those in the at-risk groups are vaccinated first to protect themselves this winter. We are targeting patients through the “Help Us, Help You” campaign, which highlights the impact of flu on those who are most at risk, and we are ahead of our targets from last year.

Mental Health and NHS Performance

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

I will try to interpret the questions in what the hon. Lady said. If she was asking whether the problems in England are similar to those in Scotland, I think that we share problems, particularly across the busy winter period. She has observed that Scotland is also failing to meet the target. She is right to say that bed capacity is absolutely critical, and that is something we have not always got right in England. There have been times when beds have been decommissioned and the alternative provision that was promised has not been made, which has big knock-on effects. When it comes to what happens in Scotland and England, I think that Scotland has gone further than England in the use of community pharmacy, which is to be commended, but England has gone further in our plans to reform and increase investment into general practice. That was what the president of the Royal College of General Practitioners was talking about over Christmas when she said that she was keen for Scotland to match the package that we have in England.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement. Of course, we all know the work that is done in our local areas by all those working in the NHS at such a difficult time. In relation to mental health, will he confirm that the Prime Minister’s very welcome speech this morning also emphasised the importance of perinatal mental health, and that some of the extra resource will continue the great work on that? Will he also emphasise the point about transparency, because knowing what CCGs are doing assists Members of Parliament not only in calling for extra resource, but in ensuring that our areas do the best they can compared with others, rather than simply making a general point about resources, which is always the easiest point to make?

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. Friend did a huge amount of good work on mental health when he was a colleague in the Department of Health. On perinatal mental health, we know that 20% of mothers suffer some form of pre or post-natal depression, which has a huge impact on the child, with lifetime costs of around £10,000 for every birth in this country, caused by lack of proper mental health provision. The plan announced today means that we will be able to treat an extra 30,000 women better—we think that is the number who need to be treated. He makes an important point about transparency. I would put it like this: funding matters, and we have some of the best mental health provision in the world, but it is not consistent. The only way that we can make it consistent is by shining a light on the relative performance of different parts of the country, so that we can bring all areas up to the standard of the best.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

He has finished his answer. Very well; I call Alistair Burt.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

To ensure not only that unnecessary costs are reduced, but that the best community pharmacy services are provided, will the Minister do all that he can to make sure that clinical commissioning groups engage as effectively as possible with pharmacies? Preferably, that would be by getting more people on CCG boards to ensure that the crucial connection between the provision of health services and pharmacy is absolutely at the heart of what we do.

[David Mowat]

My right hon. Friend is right; CCGs are variable in the extent to which they commission pharmacy services. However, we have set out the minor ailments scheme, it will be rolled out nationally by April 2018 and we expect every CCG to take a part in it.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating my friend, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), on her consistency on this issue and the work that she and the all-party group have done over a long time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to be held. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench. We know that this matter is not among her responsibilities—it belongs to our noble Friend Lord Prior—and I know how difficult it is to deal with something that is not in one’s own portfolio, but I am sure that she will communicate faithfully to the Government the points raised in the debate, although she will not be in a position, I think, to answer all our questions. However, the fact that we are again raising these questions in the Chamber is an important point for her to take back to the Secretary of State and other colleagues.

I want to pick up on a couple of points arising from the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I agree with her about who should administer the scheme. This is not an area in which we should be looking to outsource for ideological reasons. There is an important concern at the heart of this issue. Given everything that we have learned from the United States, we know that the profit motive involved in selling the blood in the first place was a primary source of everything that has happened since. It is really important that we recognise that and show some sensitivity to the fact. I actually think that Government can run some things, and it is good to run some things publicly. We have to choose. In our political lives, we have lived through the Government running British Telecom, British Airways and so on. Things have changed, but it is important that some things be publicly owned, run and dealt with, and this is one of them. I therefore join her absolutely in saying that the Government should think again about how the scheme is administered. They should keep it in public hands where there is at least some democratic accountability. Above all, as she said, we need a group that will act on behalf of the beneficiaries, rather than solely in the Government’s interest. It would have to be very carefully put together.

[Tim Farron]

The right hon. Gentleman is making some really important points. Does he agree that one area in which the private sector could and should be playing a part is in contributing to the compensation? Is there not an analogy—an off-the-shelf scheme we could consider—in how the thalidomide victims were supported through a composite of public funding and funding from the drug companies responsible? Like the Scottish scheme, that system has introduced annual payments and allowed people struggling with conditions that they contracted because of thalidomide to have some security throughout their lives. The same could be afforded to the survivors or the loved ones of those who passed away because of contaminated blood.

[Alistair Burt]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will develop that point in his own speech. Of course, the thalidomide compensation was based on a clear line of accountability as the company admitted responsibility. The situation has not been quite the same in this case, for reasons that we all know, but perhaps I can come on to financial matters in a second. I will now move on from the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, the majority of which I supported wholeheartedly.

It is a matter of some despair that we are here again. I remember those friends who came to the public meetings in the House of Commons a couple of years ago saying they were actually sick of coming here as they had done so so often over the years. I would be grateful if the Minister could relay to the Government—I have not been able to get this point across—that this drip, drip approach over the years is just not working. The Government can find money at various times for some big affairs. If there is a natural disaster, a dramatic crisis or a banking collapse, vast sums suddenly appear. We have not been able to give this issue the same priority, but it cries out for it. That we are here again is proof that these concerns are not going away and cannot be dealt with drip by drip. Somebody has still not grasped the fact that, for the many reasons that I know colleagues will raise, a settlement is of the highest importance.

I will not rehearse the history, because colleagues indulged me when I raised it in a Back-Bench debate a couple of years ago, so I will not go into it at such great length again. Neither will I cite the accounts of individuals who have come to us because, frankly, I find it too difficult to read them into the record. I have done that before, but I am not able to do so again. Instead, I want to make a couple of personal points and three comments about where we might go from here.

I campaigned on this issue for many years—in government and in opposition; and when I was a Minister and not a Minister. I was pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned David Cameron, because his response to my contribution at Prime Minister’s questions in October 2013 began the current chain of events and continued the progress made over many years. I was grateful that he met me, a constituent and a dear friend of ours. He seemed to understand where we were going, and more money has come into the scheme, which I appreciate.

In June 2015, I was re-invited by the then Prime Minister to join the Government in the Department of Health, at which point I went quiet on campaigning as far as the public were concerned. I know that some people misinterpreted that. My position in the Department of Health was not conditional on the fact that I had been involved with contaminated blood, and neither was my positon in the Foreign Office or my decision to leave the Department of Health of my own accord earlier this year. However, the ministerial convention is clear: Ministers say only what the Government’s position is. We cannot have two colleagues firing away on the same issues, so I did indeed go quiet publicly for a period. Inside the Department, I made my representations to the then responsible Minister, and I want to put on record my appreciation for what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) sought to do with the scheme. She worked extremely hard, saw a lot of people and tried to do her best.

I think that I made a mistake when the original proposals that the current scheme is based on came forward in January this year. I sat beside my hon. Friend on the Front Bench and while I understood the general thrust, I had not fully grasped the detail, which became clear only in the consultation. My mistake was to think at that time that we had solved the problem—we clearly had not. I got that wrong, but I hope that I have tried to contribute to the debate since, both inside and now outside the Department, as we try to deal with the present proposals. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, they move us on from where we were, but we are not yet there, so perhaps I could say a couple of things about where I think we might go.

First, we got the issue of discretionary payments wrong in the original proposals. A number of discretionary payments have effectively become fixed and people have become dependent on them. That should have been known to the Department, but clearly it was not known in enough detail, which has accordingly led to uncertainty and to people feeling that they might not be financially compensated to the extent that they are at present. That cannot be the case, and I am certainly not prepared to support anything that will make my constituents worse off than they are at present. That was not the intention, so we must make sure that those discretionary payments are included in the new scheme.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for the work that they have done. One of my constituents is co-infected with many conditions as a result of receiving contaminated blood. It has affected literally every part of his body and his life. He worries that he may lose up to £6,000 in discretionary payments and that the cost of his many treatments may count against him in the settlement. We know that our hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully, so will my right hon. Friend join me in urging her to look carefully at those concerns so that the Government can do the right thing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt]

Yes, I will. I will turn to those who are co-infected, but staying on discretionary payments for a moment, I just think that the position was not clear enough. As the trusts were administered separately and not by the Department, I do not think that there was full awareness that the discretionary payments had become a fixed part of people’s income. There is much more awareness of that now, and dealing with this is essential because people are extremely worried as they do not see such payments specifically included in the scheme, and I hope that they will be part of it.

I would also like a small amount of money to be made available for some of the things thrown up through the system that are not recognised. I am thinking in particular of a family in which two young boys lost their father and two uncles, and were taken into care. Their lives were changed hugely because of that. There is no part of the scheme that fits the agonies that they went through, so I wonder whether there could be some recognition of that, with a small part of the fund kept for unusual circumstances.

I must reiterate my determination that there should be some form of inquiry into what has happened. We know—it is on record—the sense of scandal about this. We have heard from former Ministers, including Lord Owen, who made a speech relatively recently in which he was very clear about what happened. He spoke about ministerial documents being “scrapped” and said:

“I have become convinced that there has been a cleaning-up of documents”,

and that

“there was a decision to clean up all the files and stop some of the incriminating evidence”.

Given that this major issue has led to so many deaths and so much misery, and that people know that something went wrong, it cannot be right that there is still not a public space so that the people affected can know what happened.

The inquiry process worked well for Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday, although we know that the position is currently clouded by what is happening with the child abuse inquiry. I do not think that a full public inquiry is necessarily the only vehicle to deal with this, but there needs to be some way for the Department to answer in a way that it has not done up to now, which it cannot do through the mere revealing of documents. It remains essential that we press for such a process.

[Mr George Howarth]

rose—

[Alistair Burt]

I will not give way, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. I have taken two interventions and will not get any more time.

I now want to raise specifically the issue of those who were co-infected. The majority of those infected by contaminated blood were infected with hep C. Some 1,200 people were co-infected with HIV and hep C, and perhaps only 250 of them are left alive. The suffering experienced by those who were co-infected is different from that of those who were mono-infected. There is now the possibility of treatment for hepatitis C, which we all welcome. Such treatment has considerably changed the outlook for many people, but it is not available for the co-infected.

This discrete group cannot grow any larger; it is diminishing all the time. Those who are co-infected have experienced things in their lives that have not affected others, such as being told their length of life right at the beginning. I know of those who were told when they were very young that they might have only five or six years left. They thought that the education they were going through was of no consequence—what was the point?—and nor was looking after any sum of money they were given, because they might as well spend it if they were not going to live. Their outlook is now different, because medical treatments have allowed them to stay alive, but their condition is still extremely serious and varies almost from day to day.

For that diminishing number, a lump sum, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others have mentioned, might be a possibility. They do not want to be dependent on the system; they want recognition of what they have lost, including their opportunities, and a lump sum might be the answer for them. I would be very grateful if there is now some consideration for the co-infected, because much of the debate has tended to be about the majority. I do not think that that is necessarily wrong, because what is provided for the majority is very important, but the co-infected matter.

We have been here too often. I doubt, sadly, that my hon. Friend the Minister will be the last Minister to talk about this issue, but we will not go away and the House will not leave this. This is a collective shame, because Government after Government have not grasped that this just needs a final settlement. We can find the money for other things. This issue cries out for that sort of settlement and we will not stop.

Social Care

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I cannot promise anything as dramatic as what we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who speaks with great authority and knowledge. I follow three fascinating speeches. He was correct that no one knows more about care and older people than the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who speaks for the Opposition. She always speaks in her quiet but incredibly knowledgeable way and puts a strong case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the challenge that he faced on coming to office and in dealing with many of the issues outlined by the right hon. Member for Leigh.

The narrow nature of an Opposition day debate does not allow us to go into all the issues that have been raised between the three of them, but the truth is that we will need to do something different in due course to deal with adult social care. These issues have not been tackled as well as they could have been in the past. Everyone has had a go, but everyone draws back at a certain stage. The ageing population means that we cannot continue to do that.

There are two straws in the wind that the House should be conscious of. The first is the integration processes that I was asked to start delivering when I came to office. There was a determination from the former Chancellor and the Secretary of State to make sure that integration actually happened, to deal with the issues that have been outlined today. There is a determination right the way through the process to deliver that at last, instead of just talking about it—we have passed that stage.

The second is devolution in areas such as Greater Manchester, which will give the right hon. Member for Leigh the perfect opportunity to put into practice exactly what he has been talking about, along with the skilled and experienced director, Jon Rouse, who has moved from the Department of Health. No one knows more about it than he does. That provides the perfect opportunity to deliver on what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying.

I should declare an interest not only as a former Minister, but as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. In the few brief minutes allotted to me, I want to take the opportunity to thank carers for what they do and speak about how this issue impacts on them. It is obvious that the difficulties of provision elsewhere impact very much on the 6 million carers in the United Kingdom, who provide largely unpaid services to care for their loved ones and who do an exceptional job.

I am very pleased to have kicked off a review of the carer’s strategy, which is working its way through the system. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), will deliver that review in due course, and I am very interested to hear what will be said.

To give some background on finances for a moment, the financial situation is very difficult. I want to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Lobby tonight because I know how hard he tried in the financial settlement of 2015 and the extent to which he succeeded. I will mention two things. First, he got an increased amount into social care. Secondly, in recognising that more money was needed and introducing the social precept, the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), crossed quite an important barrier. No longer would the Government’s position be that there was enough money in the system; allowing local authorities to raise more money was a recognition that more money was indeed necessary. The nature of the settlement means that the early years are difficult, but more money will be going in in due course. The situation is exceptionally difficult. No former Minister or Member of Parliament would say that things are not incredibly stretched—they are—but I know how hard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fought to get that money coming through.

The key point my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made, which is desperately relevant, is this business of variation in practice. I was constantly concerned about how it could be that, at a time when it has never been easier to transfer knowledge from one area to another, two neighbouring areas could have radically different processes that meant one area had more difficulties than the other and the best practice in one area delivered better results. Until there is the sense that best practice can be followed everywhere, we will not get the changes we need—my right hon. Friend highlighted some of those. We see the same thing in terms of delivery of the Care Act 2014 and in relation to work on the better care fund.

As for areas where things will continue to improve, I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend said what he did about Andrea Sutcliffe and the Care Quality Commission in relation to care homes. It is very important that the work continues to identify bad practice and to deal with what I call a tolerance of standards of care in some places that would not be accepted in acute hospitals but are sort of tolerated in care and in mental health. It is very important to address that, so that there is no longer such a difference.

I want to put on the record some areas of concern. Yes, things are increasingly stretched. I want to raise the employment issues there are for carers. We have spent a lot of time and effort on looking at childcare and the ability of people to cope with their childcare responsibilities. We now need to look at those caring for people who may be older, and who are older themselves. I hope that an important part of the review that is coming forward will look at what employers can do to make things easier for carers.

I want to emphasise the dark corners that exist. There have been complaints to the ombudsman because people are afraid of making complaints about the care of their family members due to the fear of reprisals. That simply should not happen, and it is right that we are alert to it. I thank groups such as Your Voice Matters for their work; Jenny Moore from that group came to me with her concerns. Sometimes pressure groups can be an irritant—they are the stone in the shoe that makes the difference. I make a plea to them and others to work together to bring their concerns forward. People should not feel that they face reprisals for raising complaints. That is extremely important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Alistair Burt]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend and to other colleagues. I loved and enjoyed the job. There is much more good work still to be done. I saw good examples everywhere. The concern we all share is how to make the examples of the best the quality of everywhere. There is no reason why that should not be the case.

In the extra minute I now have—I thank my right hon. Friend for his kindness there—I will look ahead. The things that will continue to make a difference include, first, more co-ordinated working and, secondly, new technology. We must look at how technology can be used, including remote monitoring and different ways of providing care, both in homes and for care workers. Increasingly, technology will make a difference.

Thirdly, on environments for living, there will be more retirement communities, more people will live together, and there will be a greater consideration of independence and self-care. I should always mention the work of Men in Sheds to combat loneliness and isolation, as they need more recognition.

Is there a need for more money? I encourage my right hon. Friend to continue what he started with the settlement process, for which he fought very hard. The whole Department needs to be behind the Secretary of State as he continues to make the arguments, because life for some is just too stretched. A combination of the right quality of care and the right amount of money will make a considerable difference.

Care Homes for Older People

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones) and the Minister, I am grateful to be able to take just a moment to speak.

I am here to encourage both my hon. Friend and the Minister. I was very moved by the debate last year, which chimed with my sense that something needs to be looked at in the care system. The stone in the shoe or the grit in the oyster often brings something necessary to the surface. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the progress made by the Department and the CQC in continuing to work to ensure that care homes realise their responsibilities to others. I encourage him and the Minister because great work is done in care homes. However, there are still dark corners on which the light must be shone. To protect families, it is essential that the things brought out by my hon. Friend’s campaign and the media in the past couple of days must come to an end to give the public confidence. I have every confidence that the Minister and her colleagues will continue to work on this and that we will be reassured.

Community Pharmacies

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I want to make a bit of progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

The cuts will mean that patients, many of them elderly and unable to travel long distances, will be forced to go elsewhere for essential medical advice and support. What we need from the Minister now are the details of how many pharmacies will close. The previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, told us that up to 3,000 community pharmacies—a quarter of all pharmacies—could close.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It may be helpful if I make a brief intervention at this stage. I gave an estimate which was based on what we thought was a possible worst-case scenario. The Department never had any plans to close pharmacies. It was the best estimate that I had at the time, but it was not a definitive figure.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced former Health Minister, possibly the most extreme—[Laughter.] He is definitely not an extremist, but he is possibly the most experienced Conservative former Health Minister apart from, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). It is very noble of him to try to get the Minister off the hook, but the fact remains that he was the one who said that 3,000 pharmacies would close, and we will continue to remind Ministers of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron), who runs the all-party parliamentary group extremely well. I agree with much of what he says about the value of community pharmacy.

I start my brief remarks by thanking the people I was involved with in pharmacy for their immense courtesy at all times, even though we were talking about some very difficult things. Those people included my local pharmacists, Arif and Raj in Wootton; Graham Phillips of Harpenden, who spent a large amount of time showing me his shops and is still very engaged with me; those on Bedford local pharmaceutical committee, who invited me at a most difficult time to launch their healthy living pharmacies in the area; and of course my team in the Department of Health.

Instead of repeating the Minister’s statement and his commitment to pharmacy, I shall say a little about why we are where we are and what I found when I was dealing with pharmacy, and look ahead to the future. This is the sort of debate where the previous Minister finds that, owing to pressing parliamentary business, he is not able to attend and he is somewhere else because all this is now nothing to do with him, guv. I thought that would be most unfair and I wanted to be here to support my hon. Friend and to give a little background.

The process started with the settlement made in 2015 between the Department of Health and the Treasury. In that settlement, extra money was released for the NHS, particularly in my portfolio—adult social care, mental health and primary care—but as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) in speaking for the Opposition, efficiency cuts were required throughout the NHS, as advocated by Simon Stevens. Part of that involved £170 million off the £2.8 billion for pharmacy. I thought that this was appropriate and that, once it was announced, we could work through it.

I regret the 3,000 figure that I gave to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley at a meeting with the APPG. It was a worst-case estimate, taking no account of what changes pharmacies might make to accommodate any reductions in finance, and therefore it was absolutely top-end. The reason that I gave it in conversation with colleagues—it was open and public and I have no objection to the figure being used—was to indicate that I was aware of the difficulty and that we wanted to work very hard to mitigate it, which we then started to do. But the 3,000 figure took on a life of its own. With hindsight, it might have been wiser if I had stuck to exactly what the Minister says, which is that we do not know because the Government do not have a plan to close pharmacies. They are not in a position to do that and we do not know what will happen.

I do not believe for an instant that the outcome will be as dramatic as Opposition Members have suggested, because businesses do adapt. One of the things that I found when I arrived, as several Members have said, is that 18% growth had taken place in 10 years. Pharmacies are a business and pharmacists will make adaptations to their business to cope, so we will have to wait and see what happens. I would not use the 3,000 figure again.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

As Health Minister, the right hon. Gentleman said that 3,000 of the 12,000 pharmacies could close. That has come from pharmacies, not from politicians, so does he not accept that that is the real situation, as he said himself?

[Alistair Burt]

No. I said it, so I know why I said it. I said it because it was an estimate, and it took no account of any business change that people might make. It was a top-end estimate and I said it to indicate that I was aware that there might be closures and that we accordingly wanted to mitigate the effects. With hindsight, I would not have given that figure, because everyone has said that the Minister said that so many pharmacies would close. No, I did not. That figure does not represent the pharmacies that will close. They might have done if we had not had mitigating measures and if businesses had not made changes themselves. I wanted to put that on the record.

Let me say what I found when I took on the role. There was a discussion in pharmacy about its future. There were plenty of voices in pharmacy which said that the funding model that values volume and establishment but not necessarily quality of service was not the right way for pharmacy to go. The pharmacy profession wanted to see some changes. I thought that was relevant. There were differing voices in pharmacy. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee represents some, but there are other voices.

The integration fund we suggested as a way to look at how pharmacy was changing to come into GPs’ surgeries was warmly welcomed. There were innovations all over the country in pharmacy in general. There was a growing move towards healthy living pharmacies providing more services. All this was going on at the same time as we were talking about what changes we needed to make to provide the extra funds for the NHS.

So where are we going to go in the future? I think that we will get through this process. I remember saying to stakeholders in December 2015, “The future of pharmacy will not be decided by this letter. The future of pharmacy in 2020, 2025 and 2030 is still to be decided. It won’t all rest on this; it will rest on changes and progress to be made.”

First, the PSNC consultation process needs to be changed; I am not sure whether it works well when other voices are excluded, and that should be looked at. Secondly, the differing voices in pharmacy should find a way to get together and present a view beyond what is happening on the high street to show where pharmacy is going.

Thirdly, the integration of the NHS could be done better. Why are there not pharmacists on every single clinical commissioning group? There should be more commissioning of services; the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) was absolutely right that we need to do more, but the NHS needs to do more, with better commissioning and pharmacists being involved.

Fourthly, there needs to be a thorough review of what pharmacy can do and provide in the future, and that should be a springboard. Sometimes innovation comes out of pressure, not out of great resources, which we would love to see in a perfect world. Finally, we should ensure there is long-term support for a locally based network—there are models that would remove more from the locally based network that we should all resist—and such an approach would be the start of a good future for pharmacy.

Community Pharmacy in 2016-17 and Beyond

Alistair Burt Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

The quality system that I have mentioned is about potentially investing more in prevention and linking the best pharmacies—the high quality pharmacies—more closely to local authorities, public health schemes and all that goes with that. I make the point again that there is a requirement for efficiency savings, but we do not believe that they will affect access overall. We do not believe that this will affect the public’s ability to use pharmacies as they do now. This will be part of modernising and digitising the service and providing resources for other parts of the NHS that need them very much.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Bearing in mind my responsibility for the difficult equation that my hon. Friend has had to solve by coming to the House this morning, I should like to thank him and welcome his statement, which finally brings clarity to these long discussions. Will he repeat very clearly the Government’s absolute commitment to a strong community pharmacy network and to doing all they can to ensure that the NHS delivers on the essential commissioning of quality services? Looking ahead to the future, now that we have got past this, will he ensure that a good review of community pharmacy services is carried out, so that we can see what value they bring to the NHS? I am sure that, like me, he will find that sector extremely valuable to work with.

[David Mowat]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his fantastic work with the pharmacy sector. He makes the important point that we are trying to move the sector more into services and added value. The two announcements that I made two weeks ago are part of that, as is the work currently being done by Richard Murray from the King’s Fund. That will inform how we spend the integration money and enable the sector to move more quickly into the sorts of services that my right hon. Friend is talking about.

Junior Doctors: Industrial Action

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, if I am wrong about this, so are the leaders of the BMA, because they said the contract that he says I should not impose was a good contract, safer for patients and for doctors, and good for the NHS, for equalities and for a range of things. The contract we are proceeding with is one that doctors’ leaders said was a good deal for junior doctors, so if we are going to resolve this, that is the contract we should proceed with.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

May I express my strong support for the Secretary of State, not only for the measured way in which he has handled today’s statement, but for the way in which he has conducted the negotiations, as shown by the 100-plus concessions that have been made to doctors’ negotiating positions over the past four years? Is not the inevitable logic of the BMA’s suspension of the strikes—I warmly welcome that—on the advice of other medical professionals that this should be applied in exactly the same way to the other strikes that have been called? The same logic would apply. Would it not be best for the BMA’s reputation to call off the rest of the strikes and to work with the Government on the other non-contractual areas that need to be dealt with, so that we can move forward from this, end this period of confrontation, get the health service that we all believe in and end some of this silly rhetoric coming from those who suggest that Conservative Members do not believe in the NHS?

[Mr Hunt]

I have a stunning new ministerial team, two of whom I am pleased to see here today, but I wish to take this moment to say how much I enjoyed working with my right hon. Friend last year. Then, as now, his advice and thoughts are very wise. The Government have made 107 concessions, and the BMA might like to think what signal it sends if that many concessions are made, an agreed deal is reached with the union leadership and the reaction then is for the most extreme strike in history to be called. What encouragement will that give to other Ministers to be moderate and reasonable in their negotiations with unions? The position being taken is preposterous and many other choices could have been made when dealing with losing the ballot, but he is right in what he says.

Point of Order

Alistair Burt Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As there is a slightly more relaxed atmosphere, I wonder whether the House will indulge me as I offer a broad thank you. Twenty-four years and one month ago, I answered my first oral questions as a junior Minister, and now I have just completed my last one. This is not a sudden post-Brexit resignation—it is not catching. A few weeks ago, I made it clear to the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip that, after the referendum, I would not seek a post in what I expected to be a reshuffled Government. In the event, I hope to carry on with my duties until September, but that was my last oral questions. Therefore, in taking the chance that most Ministers do not get because we never know when the end will come, I thank colleagues for their forbearance over many years in subjects as varied as child support, disability, and the Arab spring—and in the relentless pursuit of mental health data by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I am looking forward to taking part in more questions from another seat in the Chamber, and I wish all colleagues very well indeed.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—