Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I am going to call Philip Davies, and I am sure he is aware that other Members are trying to get in.
Community Hospitals
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I advise Members that if I am to get everybody in I will have to introduce a seven-minute limit. If people start to take interventions, I will have to drop the limit again. Everybody will get in, but please be patient and let us try to ensure that everyone gets a fair chance.
National Health Service
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I was not reading the book that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned at the weekend, but I was listening to Radio 4 last night while I was doing the washing up, as I do. I heard one of his colleagues, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), say that Labour was committed to repealing the Health and Social Care Act in its entirety. Will the shadow Secretary of State tell me whether, when I am in Winchester over the summer recess, I should tell the clinical commissioning groups that are getting on with their work that all that work would be undone, and that the Hampshire primary care trust and the South Central strategic health authority would be recreated if Labour were to form the next Government?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are short of time, so may I request short interventions, please?
Andy Burnham
There is a simple answer: yes, we will repeal the Act. It is a defective, sub-optimal piece of legislation and it is saddling the NHS with a complicated mess. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board, whom his Secretary of State appointed. He has called the legislation “unintelligible”. In those circumstances, it would be irresponsible to leave it in place.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Hon. Gentlemen, the Minister has given way quite a bit, and I am sure that if he wishes to give way he will let you know. You do not need to keep standing and hovering for so long.
Mr Burns
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Because I want to make progress so that other people can contribute, I will not accept any more interventions.
On the South West Pay Consortium—[Interruption]—an issue on which I hope the right hon. Member for Leigh will listen, given that during his speech he seemed keen to hear the Government’s response—the Government’s position is clear: it is for employers, not for the Government, to lead negotiations on the terms and conditions of their staff, and to do so with the agreement of staff.
This Government are committed to the principles of “Agenda for Change”, a national framework. The ongoing negotiations on “Agenda for Change” are about ensuring that patients and taxpayers get the maximum value for money from every penny spent on the NHS, and that it is spent efficiently and effectively. The negotiations are not about a pay cut, and we would not support one.
The Health Act 2006, brought in by the previous Government when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister of State in the Department of Health, gives NHS trusts the power to set their own terms and conditions. Although they are free to opt out of the national pay framework, they cannot do so unilaterally; they must consult and seek agreement with their staff and representatives.
Almost all trusts have until now chosen to stay on national terms and conditions. I believe that most still want to, but that has to be fit for purpose and fit for the future. Only one trust—Southend—has opted out of “Agenda for Change”. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) may be a Whip, but he is rather foolish to fall into the trap that I have just set. That trust opted out of “Agenda for Change” under the last Labour Government. Perhaps he would like to apologise.
Pay is the largest element of NHS costs, and pay systems must evolve. The trusts in the south-west wish to work and negotiate with the trade unions to agree changes, not to dismiss and re-engage staff.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I inform hon. Members that there is now a five-minute limit on speeches.
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Sir. I shall try to respect your advice.
In November 2011, the following announcement appeared on the Central Middlesex hospital website:
“A and E at Central Middx Hospital is temporarily closing overnight between 7 pm and 8 am starting from Monday 14 November 2011.
The urgent care centre next to A and E will remain open 24 hrs a day 7 days a week to treat patients with minor injuries and illness.
We are making this temporary change to ensure we continue to provide a safe service to patients during the winter months.”
In those three paragraphs, we hear twice over that that overnight closure is temporary, which gave minimal comfort to my constituents in Brent who used the facility. The overnight closure is indeed temporary. On 2 July, a consultation entitled “Shaping a healthier future” was launched in north-west London, and residents can submit their views until 8 October this year. The consultation, promoted by a transitional body called NHS North West London, aims to centralise and rationalise hospital services in the area. Each proposal outlined in the consultation includes the closure of the A and E at Central Middlesex—not overnight provision, but the 24-hour facility—for good.
The motion speaks of
“the growing gap between Ministers’ statements and what is happening in the NHS”.
I may have trouble agreeing with that, because it depends on which Minister and which statements. The Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), received an e-mail from me today advising her that, if called to speak, I would quote her in this evening’s debate. I wanted to do so, because she made the following three statements. First:
“The Tories would be a disaster for the NHS, they plan a part privatised service”.
The second quotation:
“These cuts will hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest”.
The third quotation:
“The government must take urgent steps to safeguard our local NHS”.
Those three quotes date respectively from 2003, 2007 and 2007, when the hon. Lady was campaigning to keep open the accident and emergency centre at Central Middlesex hospital—campaigning for something which she, in her government, is now closing. No wonder her latest comment is:
“This flawed consultation, which does not allow residents to say that they want to save the A and E, is a kick in the teeth for all local people.”
I do not speak Parseltongue—I do not understand it—but I deplore the pretence of opposing a policy that you are pushing through in government. That is really disgraceful.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Mr Cunningham, you have until 7.10 pm before the Minister responds.
Care and Support
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Lots of Members want to get in and there is pressure on time. Brevity is in good order and I hope that we should then get everybody in. I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Health.
Community Hospitals (North-East)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Blenkinsop
I am not surprised, to be honest. A couple of days ago, the Newcastle Journal reported that a freedom of information request had demonstrated that even after the NHS redundancies that we have seen, which I think cost approximately £60 million, a further 1,000 nurses are set to be cut in the north-east region.
The role of community hospitals is as important as ever. Despite the apparent importance of community hospitals, I fear for the future of hospitals such as those in Brotton and Guisborough in my constituency, the five other community hospitals of the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the trust’s district general hospital, the Friarage, which is at the heart of the Foreign Secretary’s constituency. All those hospitals are seeing a reduction in services as a consequence of the Government’s health reforms and austerity package—whether the reduction of minor injuries provision, the closure of the Chaloner ward at Guisborough hospital or the downgrading of maternity and paediatric services at the Friarage, which even the Secretary of State has branded “unacceptable”.
Ultimately, communities, patients and employees recognise that only so many services can be cut before the future of the hospitals themselves is brought into question. They are concerned that the Government are failing to do anything whatever to prevent those reductions in services. [Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) that if he wants to intervene, it is better if he actually stands up rather than waving his hand?
Ian Swales
Thank you for your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), on securing this important debate. My daughter was born in Guisborough hospital in his constituency, but that would no longer be possible as the maternity unit closed in 2006. The withdrawal of services from older community hospitals, and the failure to put services into new community hospitals such as Redcar, are top-down decisions. Does he support more locally based commissioning driven by clinicians?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why some Members, when they are outside the House, support petitions to retain hospitals and community services, but in the House vote to stop them?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I allowed the intervention, but I am not sure what the connection is between the north-east and Northern Ireland.
Tom Blenkinsop
The current Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, identified Northern Ireland and the north-east as areas where the public service cuts should primarily take place. That is the similarity. Of course, the north-east leads all other regions in the United Kingdom on exports, so there was some smoke and mirrors in that argument. There are indeed a number of Members who are introducing petitions against the closure of health services, including a number who are in the Cabinet.
The centralisation process is well under way at Guisborough hospital, in my constituency, and that is just one example of what is happening across the north-east. The hospital has already been forced to operate a reduced service owing to staffing pressures, opening only from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays and 8 am to 8 pm at weekends instead of the usual round-the-clock service. The Chaloner ward there is an eight-bed unit providing palliative, post-operative and respite care, with dedicated nursing care for a variety of medical conditions. There is also an out-patient suite and a minor injuries unit. Closing the Chaloner ward could eventually mean the end of the hospital. The maternity service has already been lost, and closing the ward would leave only a residual out-patient service and the Priory ward on the site. East Cleveland hospital, in the Brotton area of my constituency, offers even more limited services than Guisborough, and I have often spoken to constituents who have been forced to seek treatment elsewhere.
My main concern is that hospitals such as Guisborough and Brotton will become marginalised owing to a continuous reduction of funding from South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, as more and more services are consolidated at James Cook university hospital. It takes nearly an hour to reach that hospital by bus from Guisborough, and even longer from the more rural parts of my constituency—and that is under the very generous assumption that such bus services will still be available.
It may be politically expedient for some to argue that such decisions are solely the responsibility of the relevant trust and are somehow detached from being the responsibility of central Government, but they are unfortunately a worrying national trend. No one trust can take the blame, and the scrutiny must instead be of the Government who force them into such a position. For example, I have read that in Sutton,
“a cloud has gathered over St Helier”
district general hospital, where accident and emergency services are under threat, to such an extent that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, has started a petition against the closure in his own constituency, despite the fact that it seems to be part of a broader pattern that is perhaps caused by his own Department’s policies.
Given all the campaigns that are emerging throughout the country to save services at local hospitals, I find myself asking why there seems to be such a decline in the provision of services. Despite the Government’s localism agenda, it appears that services are becoming more centralised to larger hospitals, leaving community hospitals with empty beds and abandoned wards.
Mental Health
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Given that 19 Members wish to catch the eye of the Chair, it would be beneficial if each of them could aim to speak for about eight minutes. I hope that that will make it possible for everyone to contribute.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
It was beginning to look like a Whips’ cabal in the Chamber. I was quite worried. A number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is busy disappearing from the Chamber, mentioned care for, and the mental health of, veterans—[Interruption.] I am making a plea to keep my small audience. To my delight, the shadow Secretary of State mentioned a famous organisation in that field: Combat Stress—[Interruption.] He is also leaving the Chamber the moment I mention him. He can read my speech in Hansard as he has obviously been urgently called away.
Combat Stress was supported by the previous Government as it is by this one. Combat Stress clients—ex-servicemen, or veterans—suffer from the appalling conditions of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression or anxiety, or all three. Anyone who has seen such individuals with such conditions will recognise that they are exceptionally debilitating. They destroy the normal life of victims and those around them.
Combat Stress has three centres—the main one is in my constituency—an outreach service throughout the nation and a liaison team. It has been making a difference for some considerable time. Some 83.5% of Combat Stress clients are ex-Army. Three per cent. are female. Most of the veterans contact the Combat Stress service themselves or through family referral, but only 3.6% are referred by general practitioners, 6.9% by community health teams, and 0.3% by a hospital service. I hope the Minister thinks about that.
To make access to those services more available, Combat Stress set up a 24-hour helpline in March last year. It may interest the House and the Minister to consider statistics from the helpline from March 2011 to January 2012. Combat Stress received 6,279 calls, including voicemails. A few people hung up—a tragic few calls were silent, which I think says a lot.
Of the callers who were contacted, 74% were male and 26% female. Army veterans made a total of 2,248 calls. The second largest group of callers were family, friends and carers of the victims, who themselves were therefore victims. Seventy-seven per cent. of callers called about themselves. Perhaps tragically—I hope the Minister makes a note of this—just 6% of callers were given the number and contact details by a health professional. The call centre seems to be catching on. In March, it received 286 calls, but that doubled to 604 the following January. The organisation is funded by the Government, and I plead with the Minister to keep the funding going. I am sure he will.
The average post-service delay is a staggering 13 years. The Minister should be aware that after such a delay an individual’s condition will have developed in complexity, meaning that their recovery treatment can last for years, whereas if treatment is early, it can last just weeks and months. Early diagnosis and referral can lead to faster and cheaper treatment, and greater success, and can mean that the potential side effects of alcoholism, drug problems, which have been mentioned—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Will the Minister wait while the hon. Gentleman is standing? The Minister was right in my line of vision, and it is not fair to the person speaking. This is the third time it has happened.
Sir Paul Beresford
As mentioned by several Members, the result can often be imprisonment, yet all these side effects could be avoided. On average, it takes veterans just over 13 years from service discharge to first approach Combat Stress. This is an ongoing issue for veterans.
Community outreach teams across the country now provide much support for veterans. They provide support and advice in veterans’ own homes and nearby community-based clinical care. Yesterday, we made much of the Falklands war, which ended 30 years ago today, on 14 June 1982. Of the 4,800 veterans Combat Stress is helping, 221 served in the Falklands war. The youngest is 46 and the oldest is 74, and on average the Falklands veterans have waited 15 years before going for help. Last year, 18 Falklands veterans contacted Combat Stress for the first time, and this year, to date, 10 have contacted it. But of course the case load is not just from the Falklands. Of the 4,800 ex-service men and women being treated, 589 served in Iraq and 228 served in Afghanistan. Between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011, Combat Stress received 1,443 new referrals.
Having set the scene, I shall touch on a few key points for the Minister to consider. First, all the UK Governments must acknowledge the ongoing need. Most of the Governments contribute considerably towards Combat Stress and its costs. Combat Stress estimates that in 2012, 960 service personnel will leave the armed forces with the likelihood of suffering from PTSD. I shall follow up a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford. We must persuade the MOD to look specifically at their decompressing veterans-to-be and, if there is any suspicion, to refer them to Combat Stress. It would make treatment by Combat Stress easier, because it would be given earlier, and all the pain and suffering of these men and women could be reduced to a tiny fraction of what it is for many of those in Combat Stress now.
That brings me to the crux of the problem, which has been touched on. Because mental illness is not a physical but a mental wound, a stigma is attached to it. A lot of Members have mentioned that. Combat Stress tells me that 81% of veterans with a mental illness feel ashamed or embarrassed, which often prevents them from seeking help—it certainly delays them seeking help—and sadly one in three veterans are too ashamed of their condition ever to tell their families about it. As a result, many of those families break up. Among the other side effects are crime, disorder and alcoholism. This is a mental health problem, then, that could and should be alleviated early.
Much has been done to raise the profile of the condition and the availability of help, so that those individuals do not feel that they are unique or, perhaps, weak. Much needs to be done to encourage them and their families to seek assistance. We need to put these valuable individuals back on their feet—and they are valuable: they have already performed valuable service, and there is still valuable service available if we can do that. Amazingly, there appears to be a considerable lack of understanding among GPs. Research conducted in September 2011 showed that only 5% of the veterans receiving help from Combat Stress had been referred by their GP. Perhaps those GPs failed to recognise the condition or were unaware of the existence of Combat Stress—or, more likely, both. I urge the Minister to ensure that the word is spread among our GPs. Combat Stress has done a clinical audit, and it would appear that approximately 80% of the veterans who come to it for clinical treatment tried to get help from their GPs or other specialist services first, and did not get it. Appallingly, that support and treatment was not forthcoming. It should be.
I hope that the Minister will consider joining me in a visit to Combat Stress, to see the value of the work first hand, to understand its difficulties and to help to build on the opportunity to prevent some of the tragedies that we see. We need to remember that for those veterans the physical war is over, but the battle is still raging in their heads.
Health and Social Care Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is, as ever, making the case for the NHS, not for the privatisation that the Tories and their Lib Dem friends are pursuing. We are talking about the future of the NHS, so let me quote Victoria Roberts, a student nurse from Merseyside, who starts her training in two weeks. She says:
“I am a student nurse due to start my training in 2 weeks. This is not the NHS I want to serve or work in, but rather will help only those who can pay the most.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree with that assessment of where the Tories are taking the NHS?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We must have shorter interventions. A lot of people want to speak and we have got to get on with it.
Andy Burnham
I wish the Government would listen to voices such as the student nurse that my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) quoted—people who want to dedicate their lives to the NHS. Frankly, their views are brushed aside by an arrogant Government.
It gets worse as the Bill enters a new crisis, with one of the coalition parties formally withdrawing permission from its peers to support the Bill. It is not at all clear what happens now—whether Lib Dem peers will defy the wishes of their party or their leader. Given the developments of the last few days, it is simply inconceivable that the Government can continue on their current course and present the discredited Bill here in seven days. The only responsible thing to do is listen to what Lib Dem Members are saying and support what the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St Ives seeks to do. I will deal with that shortly.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Front Benchers need to be a little calmer. A lot of Members want to be called, and we want to hear the Secretary of State.
Mr Lansley
Let me just say this to the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. There may be many things that we can debate in this House, including the policies, but I deeply resent any implication that I do not care about the national health service. I believe that I have demonstrated that I do; and his hon. Friends—and, to be fair, the right hon. Member for Leigh—have made that absolutely clear, time and again. Dr Clare Gerada, on behalf of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has said clearly that she recognises the Prime Minister’s and my passion and commitment and that of the Prime Minister to support the national health service.
Mr Lansley
There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that promotes or permits the transfer of NHS activities to the private sector. Of course, NHS trusts are technically able to do any amount of private activity at the moment, with no constraint. The Bill will make absolutely clear the safeguard that foundation trusts’ governors must consent if trusts are to increase their private income by more than 5% in the course of one year, and that they must always demonstrate in their annual plan and their annual reporting how that private activity supports their principal legal purpose, which is to provide services to NHS patients.
Labour sought to oppose the Bill in another place, but its motion was defeated by 134 votes. We have reached a stage at which the Labour party, and the right hon. Member for Leigh in particular, having embraced opposition —for which they are well suited—now oppose everything. They even oppose the policies on which Labour stood at the election. Labour’s manifesto stated that
“to safeguard the NHS in tougher fiscal times, we need sustained reform.”
The trade unions have got hold of the Labour party in opposition, and it is now against reform. Its manifesto also stated that
“we will deliver up to £20bn of efficiencies in the frontline NHS, ensuring that every pound is reinvested in frontline care”.
I remind Labour Members, who are all wandering around their constituencies telling the public that there are to be £20 billion of cuts to the NHS, that that £20 billion was in their manifesto. Now they are talking about it as if it were cuts; it is not. We are the ones who are doing it, and they are the ones who are now opposing it. They scare people by talking of cuts—[Interruption.] They do not like to hear this. Actually, this year, the NHS has an increased budget of £3 billion compared with last year, and in the financial year starting this April there will be another increase of £3 billion compared with this year. The Labour manifesto also stated:
“Foundation Trusts will be given the freedom to expand their provision into primary and community care, and to increase their private services”.
NHS Risk Register
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore
The Opposition are asking—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State has already said that risk registers should not be published because they are confidential documents that must be used by policy makers. The Opposition are asking for a risk register that is out of date when what we should have been discussing today was reform of the NHS and how we can deal with an ageing population at the same time as dealing with a rise in chronic diseases.
I thought that it was striking that the shadow Secretary of State said at the end of his remarks that he would put the NHS first, without any mention of the patients. That is what these reforms are here for. They are allowing patients to be put in the driving seat and to sit down with their doctor, to understand what treatments they need and to have a choice of treatment through the opening up of providers. We could have had that debate—we could have spent six hours discussing that instead of this irrelevant document that you want to have a look at, which is out of date and from November 2010 when it is now February 2012. You are two years out of date, you are out of time and you are out of touch. I urge everyone to vote down the motion, simply because it falls outside the point.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not out of touch, and I am sure that he was not suggesting that I was. Others might think so, but I want to reassure him that I am not.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for that point, to which I shall return. In my view, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to use that discretion. The shadow Secretary of State knows the Department of Health well because he has been there, but I should point out to him that a spokesman for the Department of Health said:
“We have never previously published our risk registers as we consider them to be internal management documents. We believe that their publication would risk seriously damaging the quality of advice given to Ministers and any subsequent decision-making”.
I would say to the shadow Secretary of State—[Interruption.] He asked the question; I would be grateful if he listened to the answer. The reason why I say that the Secretary of State is within his powers and is right to do what he did is that never before have any Government or Secretary of State released that information. Being a sensible, considerate and fair man—which the Secretary of State is—he is right to challenge the decision, because that information has never been released before, as stated by the spokesmen for the Department of Health and made clear on page 2 of the information pack provided by the Library.
I also want to refer the shadow Secretary of State to another point. He has previously used the exemptions in section 36. Either we have exemptions or we do not, but the current exemptions, whether in section 36 or section 35, were put in place by the previous Government. If they did not want those exemptions—if they had said that everything should be in the public domain—they should have made that clear. I remind the Opposition of the saying “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. The fact is that you applied similar provisions, whether in section 35 or section 36, to withhold information. If you were able to do that in the public interest, then this Government, applying the same procedures and the same rules, can do so too. There is simply no point having legislation, in the form of the Freedom of Information Act, and now suddenly, when you are in opposition, you move the goalposts. In my view, that is totally and utterly unacceptable. It is also important to note that the Department of Health—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible? He keeps saying “you”, and I assure him that I will not and do not want to take responsibility for the NHS.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry to put the previous Government’s legacy on you.
Moving on, it is important to bear in mind the previous Secretary of State’s decisions in 2008, to which I referred earlier. However, it was not just him who acted in that way; the Secretary of State for Health before him, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), made similar decisions, under section 36 of the Act. In view of the procedure provided under the Freedom of Information Act and the similar decision taken by previous Labour Health Secretaries on public interest grounds, I feel that the Secretary of State is absolutely right to challenge the current Information Commissioner’s ruling.
On such an important issue, it is absolutely right to say that in the interest of fairness and transparency, the matter should be looked at by a higher authority. If a point of law is at stake, I would say that section 59 should be used to refer the matter to the High Court. The debate has touched on the excellent work going on—whether in respect of the cancer drugs fund or the reduction of viruses in hospitals—so I endorse the view of my constituent, Mr Thomas, sitting in the Public Gallery, who says that the Government are doing an excellent job.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A lot of Members still want to speak and time pressure is on. I shall have to reduce the limit to five minutes, and people will have to restrain themselves from making interventions. Those who continue to intervene must recognise that they might end up being dropped down the list accordingly.
NHS (Private Sector)
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have very limited time and I wish to get quite a lot of Back Benchers in, so I am going to start with a six-minute limit. I may have to reduce it, but I am going to try to ensure that we get everybody in.
John Pugh
My fundamental point is that this is not evidence-led pragmatism. If we join up the policy dots, we see pure, simple, unalloyed faith in the market system to deliver health in this country. Time after time, in issue after issue, ideology trumps pragmatism and prudence.
The Labour motion is a potpourri of varied sentiments, some of which are true and some of which are confused, and some, given the history, that it is surprising the Opposition have the gall to table at all. However, we should be genuinely grateful to them because they have given us an opportunity—a platform—to name the beast, to define real choice and to cut to the quick.
Chris Mullin, in his excellent “Diaries”, describes a discussion with a fellow Member of this place, a Yorkshire MP, “a mild-mannered fellow”—I do not know who that would include—who in 2005, prophetically, said of the Labour party:
“We’re opening the door…Whatever safeguards we put in place, whatever assurances we give will be absolutely worthless once the Tories are in power…I think we will lose the next election. The Tories will come to some sort of understanding with the Lib Dems—”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I will reduce the time limit to four minutes to try to get everybody in.
National Health Service
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I went with my colleagues; in fact, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stood here at the Dispatch Box and reconfirmed support for that project, so I will not have any nonsense from the hon. Member for Copeland. [Interruption.] Withdraw that. I have not misled the House. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury came here and reconfirmed support for that project. I will not put up with being told from a sedentary position that I am misleading the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that accusation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure that it was not intentional, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) would not wish to leave it on the record. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw. The hon. Gentleman has been asked to withdraw.”] Order. I do not need any advice. I am sure that it was not intentional, and that the hon. Member for Copeland would not wish to leave it on the record.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that we have established that it was not intentional. I call the Secretary of State.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will now give way to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Three Members are trying to catch the Secretary of State’s eye. I am sure that he has noted that and that he will give way, but we cannot have three Members continuously on their feet.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are too many side comments coming from the Front Benches. Let us carry on with the debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need any help.
Paul Farrelly
Staff of the High Street medical practice at Newcastle-under-Lyme are dedicated and hard working, yet that practice, which has 5,000 patients, is being forced to close. The Secretary of State has written me a letter, from which it is quite clear that closing directly run GP practices with salaried doctors is NHS policy. It is also clear that the closures are pre-empting proposed legislation to abolish PCTs, which is yet to go through Parliament. If the Secretary of State believed in a patient-focused NHS, surely he would be trying to save such practices, not encouraging their closure.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just before I call the next speaker, I suggest that we have an eight-minute limit. I want to get all the speakers in, as I do not want anyone to be disappointed.
Grahame M. Morris
I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I do not think I will get any injury time if I do so and I have rather a lot to get through.
I have mentioned the transfer of resources from the NHS budget to meet the growing costs of social care. We have also discovered, from evidence that was given to the Select Committee, that there has been an underspend of almost £2 billion—much of it from the capital budget, with some of it, presumably, being saved by cancelling the new hospital that was to serve my area. Meanwhile many NHS trusts are sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds of debt, and figures produced by the Department of Health show that six large NHS trusts in London are predicting year-end deficits of £170 million. The pressures on the system are enormous and will inevitably show through in reductions in services, having an impact on the front line.
The reductions in tariffs for operations and the further pressures in that area will also mean that foundation and NHS acute trusts will bear the brunt of financial pressures within the system. Again, that means that the buck and the spotlight of transparency are being passed away from the Secretary of State to the NHS Commissioning Board, although he might have to reconsider that after last night’s Lords amendments.
Another area of pressure in the NHS comes from the huge redundancy costs being incurred as a consequence of the premature closure of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, which is estimated to cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion. The opening up of the NHS entirely to the private sector, and the prospect of the £103 billion NHS budget being taken out of the public sector and placed within the remit of shareholders in private health care companies, is anathema to the majority of the British public. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is cringing, but the majority of the British public are cringing at the thought of this proposal.