Leaving the EU: Customs

Debate between Martin Vickers and Philippa Whitford

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

I am not listing the countries. I am saying that the main growth in world trade is outside the European Union, and that should be our focus. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has travelled to the far east, South America or some of the African nations that are expanding. By dealing with the developing nations, we are supporting the poorer parts of the world. As a Liberal Democrat, surely she should be behind such proposals.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Vickers]

No. I have given way twice already and I recognise that time is running out.

As I said, the Government have made clear their intentions and how they intend to improve things. They have been very clear that we will leave the customs union in March 2019. Any attempt to thwart that is an attack on the democratic process and the clearly defined will of the British people. Some 70% of people in my constituency voted for leave. They did not vote for half-leave, which is what Opposition Members who want to remain in the single market or a customs union are trying to achieve. They wanted to leave full stop—absolutely and completely.

There are many mechanisms that can be used at the border. We can use pre-notification schemes such as that of the World Customs Organisation and the EU’s authorised economic operator scheme. Those mechanisms are operating and have been tested. The border between Switzerland and the EU is crossed by many more people and vehicles than the Irish border. It is not beyond the wit of this Government and this Parliament to come up with a solution. I am confident that a solution can be found. We voted to leave, not to half leave. The motion would undermine our negotiating position and should be rejected out of hand.

Privatisation of NHS Services

Debate between Martin Vickers and Philippa Whitford

Monday 23rd April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not arguing for privatisation. I am arguing that privatising some services improves patient care, which is surely what we are all interested in.

[Dr Whitford]

Having graduated in 1982, I know that the first services that were outsourced were the cleaners. That has been blamed for contributing to later hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA.

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Lady is obviously very knowledgeable, as we heard earlier. I cannot compete with 33 years’ experience, although I recognise those faults and I can recall the stories of dirty hospitals, which may have had something to do with poor procurement and bad management.

However, the reality is that the private sector has a role to play. Are we seriously suggesting that we should inconvenience people by forbidding Boots, Superdrug or a supermarket from administering prescriptions? Obviously not. Should we preclude social enterprise operations from taking part in NHS services? Surely not, because they can be extremely valuable and improve patient care.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my hon. Friend for that timely and helpful intervention.

The King’s Fund report, “Is the NHS being privatised?”, determined that the gradual increase in the use of private providers has improved the choice and service for patients. That must be for the good of everyone. It is the patients who are important; scaremongering does not help them. A focus on process rather than patient outcomes is unwise and a distraction from the real issues. The best interests of the patient are what matters. We must ensure that as much as possible of the resources that are made available goes into patient care.

The Leader of the Opposition has made repeated pledges to “save the NHS”. Frequently, those on the left whip up hysteria about how the Government of the day are doing something that will fundamentally alter healthcare in this country and bring the NHS to an end, but when exactly have these warnings been accurate? Were they accurate in April 1997, when Tony Blair famously declared that we only had

“24 hours to save the NHS”,

or when union leaders have spoken out about the NHS? Such reports have always proved false. As was said earlier, the reality is that the Conservative party has led government for 43 of the 70 years that the NHS has been in existence, so if the aim was to destroy the NHS, we have done a pretty poor job. The reality is that the Conservative party is as committed as any other party in this House to the continuation of the NHS.

What we see is outrageous hyperbole that is designed to prey on the worries of those who rely on the NHS, which—let us face it—is virtually all of us. That is irresponsible and in some cases cruel. Furthermore, it adds to a climate in which we cannot have a sensible discussion about the future of healthcare in this country. Within our politics, there is a paranoid conspiracy theory surrounding the motives of the Conservatives in relation to the NHS. It goes something like this: “Conservatives hate the NHS for ideological reasons, but given the toxicity of the subject and the reverence with which the public quite rightly regard the NHS, they realise the only way to implement privatisation is by stealth.” That is absolute and complete nonsense.

Let us face it, there have been changes to the NHS throughout its existence. We have had mention of fragmentation; I suggest that some of the fragmentation took place during the Blair and Brown Administrations. We spend around 8% of our GDP on healthcare, which is in line with countries such as Belgium and more than is spent by the likes of Australia and Canada, which have large private sector involvement. If, as we are told, we are underfunding healthcare to undermine support for the public system, what would be the motive for the apparent underfunding of healthcare systems elsewhere? The NHS turns 70 this year and, as I have said, the Conservatives have been in power for the majority of that time. There is no masterplan to replace the NHS with a privatised alternative.

There is also the question of what we mean by “privatisation”, which I mentioned earlier. “Privatisation” is a buzzword for ideologues to spread fear and embed an inefficient system that fails patients. Is Germany a private system, or is Switzerland? The answer is no. However, Germany and Switzerland embrace the market, while ensuring that no one slips through the net.

The German system shows that a healthcare system can be fully funded in the style of a pension system. The situation in Switzerland proves that even considerable levels of out-of-pocket patient charges need not be regressive. We can trust people to choose from a range of health insurance plans and identify the best option for them. Throughout Europe, healthcare systems offer universal high-quality care that is free at the point of use. In many cases, they make use of a greater number of private providers than our own NHS.

Social health insurance does not have to clash with the principles of the NHS that are so greatly entrenched in our society. We can still have a universal system of healthcare that is free at the point of use. We may have been the first country to establish a healthcare system based on those principles, but we are no longer unique in that respect. Virtually every developed country has some form of coverage.

The United States is an outlier in this regard. Canada offers universal healthcare that is free at the point of use. Germany offers universal healthcare, and while patients there may have to pay a small amount to see a doctor—around £10—the poorest in society are often reimbursed.

[Dr Whitford]

My husband is German and we lost his sister at this time last year, so I can point out that actually the German insurance system covers only 80% of costs and the bills continued to arrive for about six months after her death.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. My understanding, and she will correct me if I am wrong, is that that 20% of costs could be reimbursed, depending on the individual’s circumstances.

[Dr Whitford]

rose—

[Martin Vickers]

The hon. Lady is probably going to tell me that I am wrong.

[Dr Whitford]

If a member of the public in Germany wants to cover that other 20%, they take out additional insurance to cover it.

[Martin Vickers]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for her correction, which I am very happy to acknowledge.

The debate over healthcare in this country is insular and inward-looking. It is ruined by a counterproductive tendency to pretend that the only imaginable alternative to the NHS is the American system. That is the go-to response for the vast majority of those who oppose reform. In reality, opposition to the US system is the one thing that unites us all. We can deliver meaningful NHS reform while maintaining the principle of universal coverage, as well as ensuring that the NHS remains free at the point of need.

Another area in which there has been considerable scaremongering relates to accountable care organisations. These organisations are hugely important in ensuring that patients have access to high-quality care that is orientated around their individual needs. While a different name for them would have been helpful, it is the substance that matters. Again, we are often told that ACOs are a move towards the US system of healthcare, but other than the name they have little in common with the US system.

ACOs will not alter the universality of healthcare in this country, nor will they prevent services from being free at the point of use. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and unfair on patients, and causes needless worry for those who are in difficulties and worried about their future healthcare needs. Claims that sustainability and transformation partnerships and ACOs are vehicles for NHS privatisation or the Americanisation of the health service have been refuted by all the key health organisations, including the King’s Fund and NHS England.

Only 10 days ago I visited the excellent St Hugh’s Hospital in Grimsby, which serves patients from my neighbouring constituency. It is a private hospital, but 83% of its patients are from the NHS. Ashley Brown, the hospital’s director, explained to me how private providers are held to at least the same standards as public providers, and often—as in his hospital’s case—to higher standards. Private providers are subject to the same rigorous inspections as public ones and they receive ratings from the Care Quality Commission, which holds all providers to the very highest standards. As a result, 70% of independent hospitals are rated by the CQC as “good” or “outstanding”. Furthermore, the punishments for failing to meet targets are far stronger in the private sector. I was told that if St Hugh’s Hospital missed its 18-week target for referral it would face a significant fine.

Another concern that is frequently raised regarding the NHS is about profit. We are told that no one should profit from someone being ill. However, if someone needs an urgent operation, do they actually care whether the person carrying out that operation, or indeed the hospital that it is being carried out in, might make a profit from it? They have provided the capital costs of the investment. What matters is the quality of care for the individual. As I have said three or four times, patient care is absolutely critical.

Across the UK, about 10 million NHS patients are treated by the private sector every year. If we were to remove the private sector from the NHS altogether, there would be an additional 10 million people on NHS waiting lists, which, as we know, are strained to the limit already.

People value the benefits that private provision can allow. The British social attitudes survey found that there were more people—43%—who did not have a preference between receiving care from the NHS or from a private company than people who would prefer NHS treatment. Furthermore, at a time when mental health has finally reached the top of the political agenda, it is worth noting that more than one third of acute in-patient psychiatric beds are provided by the private sector. There are calls to strip back the private sector, but that would have a detrimental effect on patients in that area.

Not enough is done to publicise the fact that patients now have a legal right to choose where they receive treatment. They can choose any NHS or private hospital in the country. If they opt for a private provider, they will not have to pay a penny. That places the power in patients’ hands, giving them the opportunity to make personal healthcare decisions, as well as helping to keep NHS waiting times down.

The NHS can benefit from working with the private sector. That should not be viewed as providers competing in a zero-sum game. If the two co-operate and realise how they can spread the burden of work, they can radically improve patient outcomes overall. Provided that the service delivered is of the highest quality and remains free at the point of use, who provides it is irrelevant to a patient in urgent need. We are rightly proud of the NHS and the excellent service it provides, but if it is to remain sustainable as a service that is free at the point of need for our children and grandchildren, we must acknowledge that we need a sensible debate about how we achieve that.

I suggest that with our electoral system there are only four possible outcomes of elections in the foreseeable future—a Conservative or a Labour Government, or one of them in coalition with the Lib Dems. I can guarantee that none of them would be elected if they included privatising the NHS in their manifesto. It may have escaped everyone’s notice, but Governments quite like to be re-elected, so if, during their administration, they had made moves towards privatising the NHS, they simply would not be re-elected. Those who signed the petition need have no fear of privatisation from this Government. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, privatisation is a myth peddled for party political advantage, and nothing more.