NHS Pay

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am very pleased to have secured today’s debate alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley).

Workers across the public sector have faced unprecedented challenges during the pandemic, and NHS staff have been at the forefront of our response to the coronavirus, spending long hours in suffocating PPE in overwhelming environments. A nurse described to me that it felt like they were part of a horror movie. Frontline NHS staff at Luton and Dunstable hospital have told me that colleagues have broken down on many occasions, and that the past year has had a severe psychological impact on them owing to stress associated with separation from their families, sleep deprivation and heavy workloads. The whole of society is extremely thankful for their work in protecting us, looking after our loved ones and keeping the country going.

The country came together to clap for our carers, but claps do not pay the bills and NHS workers deserve to be rewarded for their dedication. The Government’s recommendation of a 1% increase for NHS staff in England is truly shameful. After a decade of austerity, TUC research shows that if the 1% increase goes through for 2021-22, nurses’ pay will be £2,500 less than in 2010 when adjusted for inflation, with an equivalent fall of £3,330 for paramedics and £850 for porters. Experienced nurses will take home only an extra £3.50 a week. Not only does the 1% pay proposal reflect the Conservative party’s complete undervaluing of NHS staff, but it even breaks their previous measly promise of a 2.1% pay increase set out in the NHS long-term plan.

The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and Unison have all told the Government to reconsider the pay offer. A recent poll from Opinium found that 72% of UK adults believe the Government’s 1% pay proposal is too low.

We have heard already that there is a nursing vacancy crisis that is compromising staff safety. Although the Government state that they are recruiting more nurses, there are still more than 36,000 nursing vacancies, including 3,314 in the eastern region where my constituency is, which has barely changed over the past year. The issue is retention. How do the Government expect to retain experienced nursing staff who have suffered a sustained real-terms pay cut over the past decade? How can the Government expect people to aspire to a future career in the profession when there are reports of nurses having to access support from food banks?

A nurse at Luton and Dunstable hospital told me that they deserve proper recognition of the level of skill and responsibility needed for the roles that they do. They also said that there is no motivation, no incentive, no value or appreciation.

The latest figures from the NHS staff survey show that more than 300,000 staff worked unpaid over the past year. That is 13,000 more staff working overtime than in 2019. The Government might point to the uncertain financial situation and current low inflation for the real-terms pay cut, but that is economically illiterate. If affordability is the Government’s main contention, they should consider the knock-on benefits. The Government hope—

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. I am afraid the three minutes are up. You can have half a sentence.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Apologies. We know the NHS staff will spend pay rises in their local economy, and that will help to rebuild as well.

Covid-19: Government’s Publication of Contracts

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that the decisions, as I touched on and as the PAC was told, were made following an eight-stage process run by civil servants and not Ministers. He is also right that there has been no evidence found, either by Committees of this House or the NAO, or indeed in any court cases, of any inappropriate involvement in terms of conflict of interest by Ministers. On his final point, he is absolutely right, and I know that going forward, as we always do, the Government will look to co-operate fully with the NAO in seeking to supply all and any information that it seeks, so that it can form its judgments and inform the PAC and the House of them.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

Back in December, in the public interest, not just playing politics or sniping, I and other MPs highlighted cronyism and waste in the Government’s pandemic procurement. Three months on from that Westminster Hall debate, does the Minister agree that responding then, by increasing transparency reporting on those companies that won £1.7 billion-worth of contracts via the Government’s VIP fast lane and were 10 times more likely to receive a contract, would have been better than waiting to be taken to court?

[Edward Argar]

In respect of the appropriateness of contract awards and whether there are any conflicts of interest, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I just gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). The hon. Lady talked about last December and the debate, I think, in Westminster Hall—although I could be wrong on that—where this was discussed, and I point her to the lines used by the judge in his judgment:

“The evidence as a whole suggests that the backlog arose largely in the first few months of the pandemic and that officials began to bear down on it during the autumn of 2020.”

At the time that she was speaking of—in December—the judge acknowledged that the Department and the Government were working at pace to meet their transparency requirements, so that was already being done.

Covid-19 Update

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The risk of mutations absolutely can and will be managed through the evolution of vaccines, in the way that the annual flu jab changes each year and allows us to protect ourselves. While necessary now, these are not measures that can be in place permanently. We need to replace them over time with a system of safe and free international travel; that is where we need to get to. The first task is to vaccinate the population. If we get good news on the impact of vaccination on hospitalisations and deaths for new mutations, we will be in a better place. If we do not get such good news, we will need to use the updated vaccines to protect against the variants of concern.

The scientists inform and advise me that there are, repeatedly and independently around the world, mutations of the same type in the E484K area of the virus, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). That gives the scientists a good start in where to target the new updated vaccine—if we have to wait until then—but it may be that we get from the existing vaccines enough efficacy against hospitalisation and death that they work perfectly well to hold this virus down. We just do not know that yet; hence, the precautionary principle applies.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

It is hugely important that we keep making progress in tackling the virus and in vaccinations. However, last week I heard from the Catch Up With Cancer campaign, the research of which indicates that we would need cancer services to work at 120% capacity for two years to catch up with the existing backlog. I am concerned that the cancer recovery taskforce lacks sufficient resources and scope to achieve the restoration of services and tackle the backlog. Will the Government, in the March Budget, increase the resources available to the taskforce, to expand the overall capabilities of the UK’s cancer services to tackle the backlog?

[Matt Hancock]

We announced in the spending review significant extra funding to tackle the backlog. I am very proud of cancer services throughout the country, which have kept up the work during this second wave in a quite remarkable way, owing to tenacity, working together, flexibility and, of course, very strong infection prevention and control.

Last week I was at the Royal Marsden Hospital, where they are doing 100% of their normal-time operations. That is not true everywhere—the Royal Marsden has the advantage of being, in essence, a cancer-only site, which makes things easier. The thrust of the hon. Lady’s question is right—we absolutely must catch up on the cancer backlog—but I am optimistic because people have worked so hard in oncology to keep cancer services going. As the number of covid patients comes down, so we must ensure that the backlog is worked through.

Covid-19 Update

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. The second doses are important. Although the time from the first dose to the second is 12 weeks, that does not make it any less important that we have the vaccines ready. We have a high degree of confidence that they will be there and we are already planning for the roll-out of the second doses; we know when each of those doses becomes due, because it is 12 weeks after the first dose. That planning is in hand and, frankly, compared with the time we have had for planning during most of the pandemic, 12 weeks is an absolute age.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation states that the implementation of the vaccine should also involve flexibility in vaccine deployment at a local level, with due attention to, among other things, mitigating health inequalities. Will the Health Secretary outline whether his Department believes that homeless people who have complex health conditions because of their accommodation status should be prioritised for vaccination?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am working with the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary on a specific programme for the roll-out of the vaccine to people who are homeless.

Covid Security at UK Borders

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The failure of the Government to fully secure our borders against covid-19 from the start of the pandemic has undermined the effectiveness of the UK’s public health measures. I support a hotel quarantine system, but it will not be effective in preventing the spread of covid-19 unless it encompasses all arrivals into the UK. The limited quarantine restrictions imposed on travel from only 30 or so countries have come too late and, with 21,000 travellers currently entering the UK every day, are just not sufficient to safeguard the advances being made by the vaccine roll-out.

We are at a critical point in the vaccination process, and we cannot risk importing covid-19 cases and variants that are resistant to the vaccine.

While public health must be the priority, alongside greater public health restrictions must come greater economic support for airports. The Australian and New Zealand Governments have backed up aviation shutdowns with thorough aviation-specific support packages, but here in the UK, the Government’s sector support package is half-hearted. Luton airport in my constituency has been hit hard by the pandemic, and the impact is having a cumulative effect on our local and regional economy, as the airport supports more than 10,000 jobs in supply chain businesses.

As it is owned by Luton Borough Council, significant income from the airport is used to directly fund local services and voluntary organisations. However, Luton airport is only eligible to apply for around £5 million from the recently announced airport and ground operations support scheme, which equates to only 6% of its annual fixed costs—a drop in the ocean. The meagre support offered smacks of a Government who do not fully understand the aviation business cycle and the current precarity of the sector, given the extent of the fixed costs. As the Airport Operators Association states:

“With airports effectively closed again by the Government’s travel restrictions, much more significant support is now needed.”

Aviation needs Government to commit to extending the business support and job retention schemes, to extending the airport and ground operations support scheme to cover 2022 and to alleviating airports from regulatory and policing charges for 2021-22. To help airports bounce back, there needs to be phased support while commercial activity is rebuilt—support that facilitates the protection of jobs and provides an ideal opportunity to accelerate the transition towards green technology.

On a final note, with the recent announcement that Public and Commercial Services Union members working for Border Force at Heathrow have voted for industrial action against the imposition of fixed-term rosters, I urge the Transport Secretary to work with the Home Secretary to ensure that the pandemic is not being used as a cover to force through new working arrangements.

Covid-19: Dental Services

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

The breakdown of talks on NHS dentistry targets between NHS England and the General Dental Practice Committee is a failure of leadership on the Government’s behalf. The Government should intervene to reach agreement and alleviate the concerns shared widely across our dedicated dental profession.

Like others, I have been contacted by a dentist in my constituency who is concerned that, with the new covid variant being highly transmissible, and with the national restrictions, or lockdown, it is

“unfathomable that the government has chosen this time to introduce an increase in the target for activity required by dental practices holding an NHS Contract, by effectively more than doubling the minimum requirement of activity to 45%”.

I agree that, with covid rates still high, many patients will be understandably reluctant to go to the dentist. Indeed, British Dental Association analysis shows that more than 20 million appointments were lost between March and November 2020, more than half the treatment in a typical year. I agree with my constituent who queries why Ministers are encouraging potentially unsafe volumes of patients into NHS dentist practices under the imposed new activity targets.

The imposition of severe penalties for not reaching these minimum targets will be untenable for many practices already struggling to meet additional costs due to covid. Many will be at increased risk of closing for good. This would be a terrible situation for my constituents in Luton South, as Luton struggles with a very high level of poor oral health in our children: the severity of tooth decay in children aged five years is above the national average, at four teeth affected. Evidence suggests that deprivation accounts for 40% of the variation in levels of dental decay. Children aged five years living in the most deprived areas of Luton have higher rates of tooth decay than their counterparts in the least deprived areas and are two and a half times more likely to have experienced dental decay. If dental practices are forced to close, it will be harder for my constituents and their children to access the vital dental care they need. The long-term impact of poor oral health affects people not only physically but psychologically, as it influences how they look, speak, eat and socialise.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, access to dental care must not become a middle-class luxury. The current target and penalties are bad for practices and patients. I urge the Minister to get back round the negotiating table and revisit the activity targets for January to April to protect our vital dental practices during the pandemic and give them the support they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Extra funding is available through the NHS Test and Trace budget for state schools for the testing programme. We are working with independent schools to make sure that they can reopen as soon as safely possible to reopen schools across the country.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

  Will the Secretary of State set out what additional measures are being put in place to support areas with diverse communities, such as Luton, where English not being a person’s first language could be a barrier to ensuring the equitable roll-out of vaccinations across all our communities?

Public Health

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]]

First, I thank our dedicated and brilliant scientists who have given us the hope of a way out of this extremely difficult period.

At the start of the first lockdown, the Prime Minister stated that the virus would be under control within 12 weeks, yet 10 months on, we are rerunning the devastation caused at the inception of the crisis. The virus is spreading exponentially, many people are in hospital and thousands of lives are at risk. This lockdown is necessary to restrict the spread of the virus and to protect our NHS, and yet again the public—my constituents in Luton South—at very short notice are doing their bit to tackle the spread of covid-19. But lockdown is a blunt tool. Being able to move out of it is contingent on the success of the vaccination programme across the country, so the Government must ensure that they carry out their side of the deal effectively, by acting quickly to make sure the programme is a success.

Meeting the target of vaccinating those in the top four priority groups by mid-February will require the vaccination of 2 million people a week and a total of 14 million vaccinations. Although we all want the vaccine to be rolled out as quickly as possible, I am concerned about the capacity of the UK’s vaccine manufacturers to meet that target, given that the sustained lack of investment in vaccine manufacturing has left the UK acutely underprepared. The chief medical officer has stated that the vaccine shortage is a reality that cannot be wished away, and the Government recognise that, having already dropped the 30 million dose vaccine target set in May.

At the beginning of 2020, the UK did not have the capacity to produce vaccines to meet the demand created by a pandemic, so, shockingly, we are seeing the UK relying on repurposed infrastructure to make the Oxford vaccine. Sir John Bell has stated:

“The government has been completely disinterested in building onshore manufacturing capacity for any of the life-sciences products”.

In addition, one of the companies manufacturing the AstraZeneca vaccine in bulk is transporting vaccine doses to Germany to be put in vials. A decade of Government austerity has hampered our ability to tackle this pandemic, and after the Government’s failures in PPE procurement and the outsourced test and trace system, and their failure to provide sufficient economic support, particularly to those who have been excluded, they must now not fail in the roll-out of the vaccine programme. I hope the Minister will explain to the House how the Government intend to address the frailty of the vaccine manufacturing supply chain and to rapidly increase the number of doses available.

I am also concerned that the Government have not published a detailed strategy for the vaccination of all key workers. As we go into another lockdown, we will once again see the real value of key workers, who keep our country going. There have not been sufficient assurances that teachers, posties, firefighters, police officers—all frontline key workers—will be prioritised in the vaccination process. Will the Minister outline—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry Rachel, but we are going to try to squeeze someone else in.

Covid-19 Update

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment at this decision. We looked very closely at Trafford, Stockport, Tameside and nearby High Peak, and the proposal to take a different decision for them from the one that had been taken for their near neighbours. The challenge is that each time we have done that in the past, we have then seen cases rebound, and there continues to be significant pressure on the NHS in the north-west, including in Manchester. I know that my hon. Friend and I have proposed different approaches on this one, and I look forward to working with him and people right across Manchester to get this sorted.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

We need to make sure that schools continue to be a safe environment for students and staff, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank all school staff and headteachers across Luton, who have done so much to make their schools as covid-secure as possible. I note the point made by the Secretary of State about the announcement later regarding testing in schools, but will the Government be publishing the evidence to support the use of lateral flow tests for serial testing of students, as this is outside the licensed use and requires a change to the legal duty to isolate?

[Matt Hancock]

We are working on exactly that proposal, because the need to use testing and use the easily available and rapid-return lateral flow devices is incredibly important. They have an important role to play, used in the right settings, in the same way that the PCR tests have an important role to play, but it takes longer to get the results back with those tests. I look forward to working with the hon. Lady, with Luton council, and with all those across Bedfordshire to try to get this sorted. Clearly, case rates in Bedfordshire are shooting up in a very worrying way, and I thank her for her efforts and public health messaging to say to everybody right across Bedfordshire, including in Luton, “Let’s work together to get this sorted.”

Covid-19 Update

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We look at all five indicators essentially equally. The point about pressure on the NHS is a more sensitive indicator on the decision to go into tier 3. If an area is in the situation that Buckinghamshire is, for instance, where the case rate is elevated, but not as high as in many other parts of the country, the key thing to do is to keep that case rate where it is or lower. We could not make the decision to put Buckinghamshire into tier 1 because, if it went up from where it is, it would not be long until Buckinghamshire were in trouble. Therefore, the decision was to put it into tier 2.

I very much hope that the cases can continue to go down until they are very low—like they are in Cornwall and on the Isle of Wight, for instance. We will then be able to review and consider tier 1. I hope that that is a reasonable explanation. We need to continue to debate this matter as we try to ensure that we get the judgments around these geographies exactly right.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The good people of Luton will want to get out of tier 2 as soon as possible, but the current resources provided to Luton Borough Council for the lateral flow rapid testing pilot are insufficient to enable it to provide the level of mass testing that is being described nationally. The contained funding—£8 per person—just will not cover tests for 10% of Luton’s population, as the funding also needs to be used for the wider covid response, including wellbeing support for vulnerable residents. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there are national plans to provide additional support and resources to expand testing if the intention to test close contacts daily is pursued?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, there will be further funding for those areas that go into tier 2 and yet more funding for the areas that go into tier 3. That funding will go to the councils for the extra support that is needed.