NHS

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am trying to; the hon. Lady’s colleagues are trying to prevent me.

We have committed to Whipps Cross Hospital. It takes time to build hospitals. We have six new hospitals open to the public already, and another 18 entering construction. I hope that the hon. Lady is challenging her own leadership, including the shadow Health Secretary, because Labour’s health mission—or first step, or pledge; who knows what the terminology is—says that one of its first steps in government would be to pause all capital projects in the NHS. The Labour party needs to answer on that.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

May I add to the tributes, Madam Deputy Speaker?

This is my final contribution to the House. Having served in the Secretary of State’s shoes, I know how hard it is to deliver on manifesto commitments. Delivering on the commitment to 50,000 more nurses and the commitment on GP appointments, and being on track with the 40 new hospitals, is a great achievement. Could I urge her to say a little more about how all that is supported by the incredible improvements in technology in the NHS in the last decade? Without them, there is no way for the NHS to succeed in the next decade. Harnessing extraordinary opportunities such as AI, but not only that, will stand the NHS in great stead, if we can get the data used properly. And with that, that’s over.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this, and I very much send our best wishes to her constituent. The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The symptoms that women can experience are often very different for conditions relating not just to cancer, but to heart attacks, for example. Part of my prioritisation of women’s health is to get that message out to clinicians so that, as this case demonstrates so tragically, they are able to make the best and most prompt diagnosis for all women.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the UK Health Security Agency has the budget and the capabilities it needs? The recent expansion of bird flu among mammals in the United States is a salutary lesson. Thankfully, there are no signs yet of human-to-human transmission, but it reminds us of the incredible value and importance of being vigilant in this space and having the best possible technology ready to respond as soon as possible.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and of course for his integral role not just during the pandemic, but in setting up the UKHSA. He will understand that I and others are keeping this under very close review, and the chief medical officer is briefing me as and when needed.

New Dementia Treatments

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman is completely right. There are new management techniques. I did not want to extend the debate too widely, but I am struck by the way that technology—not cutting-edge technology but technology available to all of us, such as smart speakers—can remind people that they need to take a red pill at 11 o’clock or remind relatives that the fridge has not been opened for five hours, meaning that someone has forgotten to take out their lunch. It can help with all those kinds of day-to-day issues and, if used properly, enable people to live in their own homes for longer, even if they are suffering this disease. I agree that that is a very important potential set of breakthroughs.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to add my voice in support of more research in this area. Is it not the case that, despite improvements, the amount of money spent on research and the structuring of proper research trials—which, by their nature, have to go on for many years—is a drop in the ocean compared with the savings we can make in the health system, improvements to people’s lives, and in the social care system? Is that not yet another motivation that makes this topic incredibly important?

[Damian Green]

My right hon. Friend has huge expertise over the entire health field and therefore in this area as well. He is completely right, and I will come on to savings, particularly potential savings in the social care budget as well as the health budget, in a couple of minutes. It is one of the points I want to emphasise to the Minister.

To return to the treatments, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has already started consideration of lecanemab and donanemab—I wish treatments had more pronounceable names—two very important breakthrough drugs, and I believe a final decision is expected by the middle of this year. Inevitably, at this early stage of the development of drugs in any particular field, there are many more out there. Another 140 drugs are undergoing clinical trials around the world at the moment. They will not all work, but some of them will, so in scientific and research terms, this is genuinely an exciting period in this field.

Perhaps the most significant point I want to make to the Minister is to express the hope that the way in which the system decides whether to approve a drug is fit for purpose for this type of drug. That is genuinely in question and gives rise to the point my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) made about costs. There are inevitable gaps in our knowledge about the efficacy of new treatments in an area where, up to now, there have been no treatments. Much of the usual comparative work one would expect to be done in clinical trials cannot be done in these circumstances, so there is a task for Ministers to make sure that NHS bodies and the industry develop a joint plan to allow these new treatments to be available to the NHS at a reasonable price.

There is also an important specific point that could affect whether the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence gives financial approval to these treatments in the first place. The bulk of the current costs of dementia falls on the social care system, particularly on unpaid carers. Estimates suggest that around £22 billion a year of costs fall on informal or formal social care. The direct costs to the NHS are only £1.7 billion a year—a small fraction of the cost to the social care system. The current NICE assessment process will take into account only the NHS costs, and clearly that could adversely affect a decision about whether drugs are affordable.

Whether the current NICE system provides the proper result for this type of drug and disease would be questionable at any time, but it is particularly questionable when other arms of government are concentrating on getting more working-age people back to work. More than 1 million people between the ages of 25 and 49 are out of work because of caring responsibilities, and some of those will be caring responsibilities for people suffering from dementia, perhaps in its early stages, when we are not using technology well enough to allow people to lead more or less normal lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

Just yesterday, I met leaders of the NHS Staff Council, who represent trade unions under Agenda for Change, as part of our ongoing discussions on the agreement we will reach with them, which includes working together on retention and how we address some of the challenges the workforce face.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on being ahead of track to hire 50,000 more nurses this Parliament, as we committed to in the 2019 manifesto? However, can I push him by asking him where he is up to on ensuring that enough staff are trained to do clinical trials, as set out in the excellent O’Shaughnessy review, and can he give us an update of where implementation of that review is up to?

Future of the NHS

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

I rise to set out in this debate on the future of the NHS, with the experience of three years as Health Secretary, how we can build on the promise of healthcare that is free at the point of delivery for every single person in the United Kingdom. This is a promise that I hold dear in my heart and that my party has supported with enthusiasm throughout the NHS’s over 70-year history. In fact, the NHS has been run by Conservative-led Administrations for the majority of its time.

It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). A few of her comments were not quite right, but I can tell from what she said that she, like me and like the vast majority in this House, supports the principle of an NHS that is free at the point of use. As a Conservative, there are many reasons why I believe in that so strongly. I will set aside and not make the straight- forward political argument that no party in this country would ever get elected to power without steadfast support for the NHS. As Nigel Lawson put it, the NHS is the closest thing we have to a national religion, and that captures it about as well as we can. Over 75% of the public believe that the NHS is crucial to British society.

However, there are substantive reasons, as well as those purely political ones. The first is the importance of the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of healthcare—the nuts and bolts of why it is good to have a free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare system. According to 2019 figures, just before the pandemic, the proportion of GDP that we spent on healthcare in this country was just over 10%. In the United States, it is over 16%. In Germany and France, it is higher too, yet life expectancy is higher in the United Kingdom, showing that we deliver more effective healthcare, and a lot of that is because it is a universal service delivered free at the point of use.

The second argument, which is quite an unusual one that is not often made but is important especially to those whose heart beats to the right, is a pro-enterprise, pro-business one. Enterprise is the source of prosperity for any nation; a quick look at the history books demonstrates that that is where our prosperity comes from. We can start a business in the UK and employ somebody in the private sector without having to pay for healthcare, whereas in many countries around the world, one of the first costs for a new or growing business is healthcare for its employees. That is not necessary here. There is a pro-trade, pro-business argument for having an NHS free at the point of use.

Thirdly, there is the moral argument for having a universal healthcare system. It is impossible for any of us to know when we will need healthcare—it is impossible to know when we might have a condition or an accident that means we need healthcare. The NHS means that we, metaphorically, sit by each other’s bedsides and support each other in our hour of greatest need. That is why the public’s connection to the NHS, and certainly my connection to the NHS, is not just a question of policy; it is a deeply emotional connection. We are in the NHS at some of the best times in our life, such as when children are born, and some of the worst times in our life too. That provision being there for us when it really counts means that there is a moral case for universal healthcare provision, free at the point of use, that I hold dear too.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I absolutely agree that there is a moral case for healthcare free at the point of need in our country—I absolutely support that. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, though, that there is something immoral about the huge profits that are being made out of the NHS by private contractors that have been brought into it, when those profits that are paid to shareholders all over the world in the form of dividends would be better invested in the healthcare of people in this country?

[Matt Hancock]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention. I am not surprised that he agrees with what I said about the moral case for a universal healthcare system, nor that he makes the case against any use of profit in the NHS. I was going to come on to exactly that point, because it is bunkum to suggest that the NHS has ever in its history provided services without the use of private companies. That has happened throughout the long and proud history of the NHS, and it is absolutely vital to its functioning—always has been, always will be, under Governments of all stripes. I will come on to explain why.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Is there not a fourth argument for a universal healthcare system, which my right hon. Friend was very keen on when he was Secretary of State: the ability to introduce new technologies, new procedures and new drugs? All of those things are much easier when one has a big bulk of patients to draw data from.

[Matt Hancock]

Two of my arguments for what the NHS needs to do better in the future are responses to precisely the two points that have just been made. I cannot decide which order to go in, but both are absolutely vital. I agree with my hon. Friend, and disagree with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Given the pressures on the NHS, in order for it to succeed in the future, all of us who care about the NHS must have a hard-headed view of what needs to happen for it to function long into the future. One of those things, which I think is absolutely central, is the use of technology, so I will come to that point first. Today, the NHS has more clinicians in it than ever before. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Jarrow said, it has a higher budget than ever before. It has more nurses and more doctors than ever before, it is delivering more service than ever before, and it takes up a higher proportion of our national income than ever before. That has all happened under a Conservative Government that believes in the NHS. Those are the facts.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am sure the right hon. Member will acknowledge that a lot of the doctors who are now working in the NHS were trained under a Labour Government, with the Conservative Government now getting the credit for them. Since then, we have seen a reduction in the number of doctors trained.

[Matt Hancock]

No, that is not right. There are record numbers in training, and the opening of the new medical schools that were put in place by my right hon. Friend who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer is another Conservative achievement in that space.

However, given the record numbers of nurses and doctors, the record numbers of training places, the record numbers of GPs coming out of training places and the record funds going into the NHS, there is still a record-scale problem. I do not at all deny the scale of the challenge, but that challenge demonstrates to me the vital importance of reform of the NHS—we cannot support its long-term future without supporting reform. My experience of the NHS and of being Health Secretary tells me that the single most important thing that has to happen for the NHS to be as effective as possible in the future is the widespread and effective adoption of the use of technology and data, so that the NHS can be more efficient, giving clinicians back—as Eric Topol put it when he launched his review in 2019—“the gift of time”.

The inefficiency of the NHS because of poor use of data leads to appointment letters being sent out that arrive after the appointment date has passed. Who gets a letter these days for an appointment, anyway? We all use modern technology instead.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Matt Hancock]

I will in a moment.

That inefficiency means that different parts of the NHS cannot talk to each other, and indeed cannot talk to social care. It means that a person can end up going into hospital for a serious procedure, but their GP will not know that they have had that procedure, because they went in urgently rather than through that GP. It means that there are people right now who go into an NHS hospital and find that their records, which are on paper, cannot be adequately analysed. Service provision is worse as a result, which directly impacts people’s health. The poor use of data is the No. 1 factor holding back the effective use of the resources that we put into the NHS—not only the cash but, crucially, the staff. They find it deeply frustrating that they have to work with these terrible IT systems when every other organisation of any scale in this country, or in any developed part of the world, uses data in a much more efficient, effective and safe way.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matt Hancock]

I will make one final point before I give way to the two hon. Members who are seeking to intervene, which is that the inefficiency in the NHS is best exemplified by its ridiculous continued use of fax machines. Those machines are totally inefficient and completely out of date, and are also terrible for privacy and data protection, because one never knows who is going to be walking past the fax machine. When the Minister sums up, I would like him to set out what he is doing to not just get rid of those fax machines—I tried to do it and made some progress, but did not manage to finish the job—but, more importantly, drive the use of high-quality data, data analytics and digital systems throughout the NHS. Investment in that is the single best way to ensure that all patients can get the service that they need.

[Florence Eshalomi]

To bring the right hon. Member back to the point he made about digital data and making sure that patients are accessing services, I hope he will agree that for a number of my constituents, and probably his constituents as well, access to the internet is a luxury that they cannot afford. A number of people I represent cannot afford a monthly broadband connection because they are choosing between heating their home and paying their rent. They do not have monthly broadband, so they cannot log on to book online appointments; they want to see a GP, but they cannot.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, it is critical that people do not have to use a computer to access a universal service. Many people will never use a computer in their lives, but the fact of the matter is that well over 95% of us use technology every single day. We can get enormous gains through the use of technology, which allow us to give better provision to the tiny minority of people who do not use technology. The point that the hon. Lady makes is absolutely valid, but it is no argument for not using data and digital services effectively. On the contrary, we can make it easier for the very small minority of people who cannot, will not or cannot afford to use digital technology by using data more effectively for the rest of us.

One example that shows this can be done is the vaccination programme, which was built on a high-quality data architecture. People could book their appointment, choosing where and when to get vaccinated—where else in the NHS could they do that? They should be able to do it everywhere in the NHS. Hardly anybody waited more than 10 minutes for their appointment; it was one of the most effective and largest roll-outs of a programme in the history of civilian government in this country, and we started with the data architecture. We brought in the brilliant Doug Gurr, who previously ran Amazon UK, to audit it and make sure that it was being put together in a modern, dynamic, forward-looking way. It was brilliant, so anybody who says that data cannot be used more effectively is fighting against history.

Of course, a tiny minority of people did not use the IT system to get vaccinated. That was absolutely fine, because that high-quality data system meant that everybody else could, leaving resources free for people who either needed to be phoned or needed a home visit in order to get the vaccine.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member is being very generous with his time. We all believe that technology is useful, and we all embrace it—of course we do—but data is a different issue, because in situations where both the NHS and the private sector are providing services, people get understandably nervous about their data being shared.

The issue I wanted to raise with the right hon. Member, which follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), is the percentage of people who do not want to access things through the internet. I had a retired nurse come to see me, saying that she found eConsult—the system for booking a doctor’s appointment—incredibly difficult to use. She was not speaking just for herself; she was worried that many of her friends were no longer going to the doctor because they could not use eConsult. I also remind the right hon. Member that 7 million adults in this country are functionally illiterate, so having a system that is overly reliant on such methods is not going to serve the whole population.

[Matt Hancock]

Of course, if somebody cannot use eConsult, they should be able to phone up or turn up in person, but that does not take away from the fact that there will be more resources to help those people if the existing resources are used effectively, because the vast majority of people use modern technology for so much of their lives. The arguments that we have just heard are arguments for ensuring that there is also provision for the small minority who do not use data and technology, as demonstrated by the vaccine programme, where a tiny minority of people did not use technology but the vast majority did.

We require high-quality privacy for data in many different parts of our lives—for example, financial information. Whether in the public or private sector, privacy is vital, and the General Data Protection Regulation is in place to set out the framework around that. That is an argument not against the use of data, but in favour of the high-quality use of data. Health data, financial data and employment data are all sensitive and personal pieces of information. The argument that we should not use data because of privacy concerns is completely out of date and should go the same way as the fax machine.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way for a second time. It seems to be a common theme for former Health and Social Care Secretaries to come and tell us about the litany of failures in the national health service and offer some solutions. I am interested to know which of those failures he takes personal responsibility for.

[Matt Hancock]

I wish that I had been able to drive forward the use of technology even more than I did. I pushed it as hard as I could, but if I could have gone further, I would. It is about not just efficiency for the health service, but a better service for patients and the research agenda. Another advantage of a universal service is that, because almost everybody in the country is within the NHS system, we can do amazing research to find out what treatments work better. If we can get high-quality data into the hands of researchers, they can discover new drugs or new procedures to save lives.

Yesterday, for instance, I signed up and had my bloods taken for Our Future Health, which is a wonderful programme run by Sir John Bell that aims to sign up 5 million people—ill and healthy—to give, with consent, their health data and blood to a large-scale research programme to find out what keeps people healthy. That is for 5 million people, but we can use the NHS effectively —with proper consent and privacy—to save future lives, which is yet another benefit of a universal healthcare system.

My second point—I will make three—on what the NHS needs to do more of in the future is about efficiency. The Prime Minister was right in the summer to float the idea that if someone misses too many appointments without good reason, they should be charged for them. One of the problems for efficiency is that many appointments are missed, which wastes clinicians’ time. It was right to consider that idea, but I would be totally against people having to pay for the first appointment.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I had to have a procedure the other day that I imagine cost the NHS quite a lot of money. When I was talking to the consultant, she told me that some days, she had a 50% no-show rate, which must cost the NHS several thousand pounds.

[Matt Hancock]

I hear such stories all the time. We should separate out free at the point of use from not abusing the service. Of course, people miss appointments for good reasons, but too often they do not have a reason. We should be thoughtful about how we address that.

On the point of the right hon. Member for Islington North about the use of the private sector, the NHS has bought things from the private sector throughout its entire life. Who built those fax machines? It was not the NHS. The NHS buys stuff—everything from basic equipment to external services. GP contracts are not employment contracts but contracts with a private organisation. Most of those private organisations are not for profit; nevertheless, they are private organisations and always have been.

The previous Labour Government expanded the use of the private sector, of course, to deliver a free-at-the-point-of-use service. Patients, in large part, do not care whether they get their service from the local Nuffield or the local NHS—it does not matter. What matters is that they get a high-quality service at the right time and as quickly as possible.

I was delighted that the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), recently set out that Labour’s policy would return from what I regard as a totally impossible, mad, hard-left agenda of saying that we should not have the private sector in the NHS—even though it has always been there and always will be—to the position that Labour held when it was last in office and used the private sector for the delivery of services where that was in the best interest of taxpayers’ money and patient outcomes. That has been done over and over again, and that contracting is important.

To be in favour of the NHS being free at the point of use, and to be against NHS privatisation, does not rule out the NHS delivering services as effectively as possible whether through employing people or using contracts. The nature of the delivery is secondary to the importance of it being free for us all to use, for the reasons that I have set out.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Matt Hancock]

I will give way for the final time.

[Margaret Greenwood]

The right hon. Member is being generous. I completely disagree with him about charging people for missing appointments. I remind him that 7 million adults in this country are functionally illiterate and huge numbers of people have dementia, so if a letter comes through the door, they may not understand it. Does he not agree that it would be much better to put resources into understanding why people do not come to appointments?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in taking interventions, but I am conscious that there are quite a lot of speakers, and if everybody takes nearly half an hour, we will not get everybody in.

[Matt Hancock]

I apologise; I have tried to be generous in taking interventions. It has been a positive and good-natured debate, which is valuable. I entirely recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), and it has to be done sensitively, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about the sheer quantity of missed appointments is a problem that must be resolved.

My final point is that too often, the NHS is a national hospital service that fixes people after they get ill—that happens in this country far more than elsewhere. The effective prevention of ill health is central to ensure that the NHS can continue to thrive in decades to come. The gap across the country is huge and it needs to be addressed. For example, the gap between the life expectancy of 74 years for a man in Blackpool and 81 years for a man in Buckinghamshire is far too high. About half that gap, however, can be put down to the difference in smoking rates—it is not about the NHS service in Blackpool at all, which is excellent.

We have to support people to prevent ill health in the first place; hitherto, the NHS has not put nearly enough effort and attention into that. I hope that the Minister will confirm the importance of prevention. I know that the Select Committee is about to launch an inquiry into prevention policy. I was delighted to set up the National Academy for Social Prescribing when I was the Secretary of State to try to drive the agenda further, but there is clearly much more to do.

The NHS is our national treasure. For those of us who care deeply about a service that is free when people need it, where the nation collectively comes together to look after those who are ill, it has deep moral force and is efficient and effective. If people care about its future, however, we need to reform it and ensure that we bring it into the modern age—only then can that promise to the nation continue to be fulfilled for the rest of our lives.

Health and Care Bill

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Operational procurement is a devolved matter but, given our interest in trade policies, we welcome the progress on procurement to ensure that healthcare supply chains are not linked to modern slavery and human trafficking. We support UK Government amendment 48A in lieu of Lords amendment 48, and we also support Lords amendment 48B in lieu. It is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that in Scotland half of all PPE is now produced locally and that the overall costs of pandemic procurement were a third less than those of the UK. Such measures can, then, be cost-effective and help to safeguard against global supply chain issues.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I rise to support the compromise measure on reconfigurations and to ask the Government to take forward the work on UK-wide statistics with vigour and gusto.

First, on reconfigurations, it is right and reasonable that the largest organisation in the country, which is funded by taxpayers through the taxes that every single citizen pays, should be accountable to Ministers who are in turn accountable to this House. Although that principle has been accepted in the Bill across the board and in general terms, the other place has decided that it should not apply in the specific circumstances of reconfigurations. It is vital that when a reconfiguration happens, not only the clinical voices but the voice of the local community should be heard. The two need to go together. The best way to make happen any reconfiguration that is needed on clinical grounds is to engage the local community and get it onside. If we are to save lives through a reconfiguration, we can win the argument, but only if we engage and make the argument. In my experience, too often a reconfiguration was put on the table, perhaps for good clinical reasons but without enough local engagement, and in practice the process just ran into the sand.

I welcome the six-month delay—I hope the Secretary of State will work quicker than six months most of the time, but it is a good backstop; I welcome the de minimis threshold, because relatively small reconfigurations happen all the time; and I welcome the removal of some of the bureaucracy in the amendment. To my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a magnificent job on the Bill right from the start, before it even came to this House—I thank all his officials for their service—I say: let us take this compromise but say clearly to the other place, “Thus far and no further.” The principle of democratic responsibility for the NHS and for winning the argument with the public about its local design is at the heart of the Bill and it must stand.

In the final minute I have in which to speak, let me make a point about statistics. Those on the Treasury Bench have decided not to include in the Bill measures on the UK-wide measurement of health services and on the interoperability of data in the four nations of the UK, but I put on the record the importance—I hope the Minister reiterates this—of getting UK-wide measurements. In Wales, it was decided to discontinue the measurement of some aspects, especially in respect of A&E performance. A suspicion was raised—I am sure this could not possibly have been true—that those measurements were discontinued so that unfavourable comparisons with England could no longer be made. If that were true, it would be an outrage. I very much hope that it is not, but we should put it right anyway and measure NHS service delivery throughout the UK on the same basis, so that comparisons can be made, so that we can learn about and improve services across all four nations, and so that accountability can properly apply to the four different Governments who run the four parts of the one NHS, which operates across this United Kingdom.

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

I rise to speak to the Lords amendment on workforce—probably for the dozenth time during the Bill’s passage. I make no apologies for repetition because some things are worth repeating and the importance of our workforce can never be understated. Everything comes back to workforce: the grandest plans, strategy documents, reorganisations, integrations and configurations will all count for very little if the fundamental cog in the machine and the glue that holds the whole thing together—the workforce—is not a central part of those plans. The consistent failure to invest in the workforce and to provide a plan for it so that it is able to meet demand over a sustained period is at the root of many of the challenges that the NHS faces today. We should correct that.

On Friday night, a constituent contacted me as he suspected he had dislocated his hip and had been told that his situation did not warrant an ambulance. Eventually, he managed to get to A&E, but in the end he went home without receiving treatment because it was so busy that people were standing outside the department. That is just one example, but there are countless others like it—the frustrated constituents who can never speak to their GP; the many people left in agony because waiting lists are at record levels; those whose teeth rot away because they cannot get dental treatment; and those who receive no help for their mental health issues because they do not reach the threshold for intervention. Every one of those examples arises because, to a greater or lesser extent—I would say to a greater extent most of the time—there simply are not enough staff to meet the demand.

There is a pattern of disconnection in respect of the action required to meet the Government’s ambitions, let alone getting the NHS to meet its constitutional targets. Unless workforce is addressed in a meaningful way as part of all the plans and strategies issued, the Government are just fooling themselves that their plans are credible and deliverable. Even if the Government wish to fool themselves, they are not fooling anyone else. They are certainly not fooling us Members on the Opposition Benches or the 100 or so health and social care organisations that support what we are trying to achieve with the workforce amendment.

The most recent Department-commissioned NHS workforce strategy, the People Plan, did not include a forecast on staffing numbers. When asked about it, Baroness Harding, who authored the plan, said that the strategy did not include staff numbers not because

“the Government disagreed with the numbers”

but

“because we could not get approval to publish the document with any forecasts in it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2021; Vol. 816, c. 1814.]

Perhaps that means the Government do have figures but just do not want us to see them. If that is right, perhaps the Minister could let us in on the secret when he responds. If that is not right, will he tell us what other organisation with more than a million staff manages to operate successfully without accurate figures on workforce projection?

In addition to the obvious arguments about why we need accurate information on workforce requirements, it is important that we collect such information for existing staff, because they need hope that help is on the way. We need to show that those claps on a Thursday night were not an empty gesture and that there is a determination to do something about the persistent rota gaps that mean staff are both exhausted and demoralised. Just look at some of the challenges we face: 93,000 vacancies; a £6 billion annual spend on agency staff; staff working extra unpaid hours; and some 40% off with work-related stress at some point or other. With all those things conspiring together, it is little wonder that retention is an issue, so we need to give staff hope that we have an answer—that we have a plan. As the Select Committee report on workforce burnout said:

“The way that the NHS does workforce planning is at best opaque and at worst responsible for the unacceptable pressure on the current workforce which existed even before the pandemic.”

With so many challenges currently facing the NHS, why do we want to make it worse by refusing to accept the evidence before our eyes? It is no coincidence that NHS satisfaction ratings are reported to be at a 25-year low at the same time as record numbers of NHS staff say they would not recommend working at their own trust. Those issues are not disconnected in any way, which is why we need to support the workforce amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

As we look at policy and amend it like we did last week, it is right that we make sure that we can fill those requirements. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we can, and we have increased the procurement of lateral flow devices. This month, we will get another 750 million lateral flow devices into the UK for January and February.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House will welcome the early signs of falling numbers of people in hospital with covid. Does the Minister have any comments on the news yesterday from the World Health Organisation that it thinks that the UK looks set to be one of the first countries out of the pandemic, and how much weight does she put on the vaccination and booster programme, and the colossal scale of our testing availability, in that achievement?

[Maggie Throup]

My right hon. Friend makes a really good point. We know that omicron numbers are still really high, and we still have more than 2,000 people hospitalised every day, so we do need to be cautious. But my hon. Friend is right, in that our vaccine and testing programmes have been vital in being able to tackle this deadly virus. I encourage everybody to get their booster and, if they have not come forward for their first or second jab, to get those too.

Covid-19 Update

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The vaccines Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), is meeting patient groups this week and she is also happy to meet the hon. Lady.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

May I join others in welcoming the well-judged and rapid action this weekend as well as the acceleration of boosters, including the new provision of a mass vaccination this weekend in Newmarket? Existing vaccinations—including boosters—are effective against all known major variants before omicron, but will the Secretary of State set out plans for a variant vaccine, should that be needed in the worst-case scenario?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. The UK has been supporting a new vaccines programme largely thanks to his efforts when he was in my position. That work continues. If it is necessary to procure new vaccines that we believe are safe and effective and will help with the new variant, we will do so.

Health and Care Bill

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitford]

I rise to speak to my amendment 82, which is on legislative consent if the Bill is used in the devolved aspects of healthcare in future. The bulk of healthcare—certainly its delivery through the Scottish NHS—is devolved. Having been on the Bill Committee, I was surprised that in the original version of the Bill there was not one mention in that context of the word “consultation”, let alone the word “consent”.

I do welcome amendments 118 and 121. I recognise that the Minister is trying to work constructively with the devolved Governments, but health is devolved. I am sorry, but after the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, because of how the funds to replace EU funding post Brexit are being used to cut the devolved Governments out of decision making, there is a real fear among the public in Scotland that their health services could be changed in future. I ask anyone who supports devolution in principle to support amendment 82.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I rise to support new clauses 60 and 61, which relate, like the amendments that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke about, to the UK-wide application of the Bill.

Health is rightly devolved, and as Secretary of State I worked very closely with Ministers in the three devolved nations, but there are nevertheless areas in which it is vital that the NHS, as a British institution, supports all our constituents right across this United Kingdom. Two areas in particular are critical and, in my view, need legislative attention.

The first area is the interoperability of data. As well as being vital for stronger research, it is necessary not least so that if you travelled to Caerphilly or Glasgow and were ill, Mr Deputy Speaker, the NHS could access your medical records to know how best to treat you. We can see right now, in the application of the NHS app for international travel, what happens without the data interoperability that new clause 61 would require.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in Wales, where we are protecting the private personal data of people receiving medicine and healthcare, that in England there will now be a gateway for the private sector to take people’s data and use it for its own reasons? That is one reason that we would not want to give the English our data.

[Matt Hancock]

On the contrary: data protection laws are UK-wide, so it is appropriate that this should be done UK-wide.

The second area is services. For instance, if a new treatment is available to Scottish patients in Edinburgh, which has one of the finest hospitals in the country, and if on rare occasions it is available to a Welsh person in Wales with a rare disease, should that person not be able to benefit from it? Likewise, if a treatment is available in one of the great London teaching hospitals and somebody from Stirling needs it, should they not be able to get it? At the moment, access to such specialist services is available on an ad hoc basis, but it is not broadly available. That is what new clause 60 seeks to address.

[Dr Whitford]

I simply point out that it is available; it is just that funding has to follow from the domestic health board to pay for it. I have sent patients to Leeds for MRI-guided biopsy, and patients used to come to Glasgow to have eye melanoma removed without losing their eye. That already exists.

[Matt Hancock]

It happens on an ad hoc basis, but it is not a right. The NHS is a great British institution, and access should apply right across the board.

Finally, in my last few seconds, may I simply say how strongly I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about amendments 93 to 98?

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 73, which would introduce safeguards around the discharge-to-assess process.

The discharge-to-assess process may have been a necessary element of the NHS’s pandemic response, but it contains gaps in safeguarding that leave unpaid carers vulnerable to financial impact and risks to their health. Many unpaid carers have to begin caring overnight, when their relative or friend, who may be quite unwell, is discharged from hospital without a plan for their care at home. Without a carer’s assessment to check whether a person has the capability or capacity to take on such a commitment, weeks can pass before any plan is made, leaving carers and the people they care for struggling in a desperate situation.

The Government’s own impact assessment on discharge to assess states baldly:

“There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier. For some, this could require a reduction in workhours and associated financial costs.”

Organisations that support unpaid carers are outraged by that statement. The Government’s expectation that carers can just drop everything to take on a new caring burden is insulting, particularly given the extra caring burden that 3 million people have already taken on during the pandemic.

I recently queried that point with the Secretary of State at the Health and Social Care Committee. In response, the he wrote to the Committee to say that the Government do

“not expect unpaid carers to need to give up work or reduce their working hours to look after friends or family while their long-term health and care needs assessments are completed”.

When the impact assessment says one thing and the Secretary of State, after being questioned about it, says another, I have to question the understanding in the Department and among Ministers of the discharge-to-assess policy and its impact on the 13 million carers in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Hancock]

I welcome the passage of the Bill and congratulate all those who have been involved in bringing it to this place and getting it to Third Reading: the Secretary of State; the Minister, who has worked on it for an awfully long time; and the official Bill team, who were the best team I ever worked with in government. I am not saying that just because they are sitting in the Box.

The Bill gives the NHS what it needs. Critically, it learns the lessons of the pandemic and embeds them in legislation by removing bureaucracy and silos. I can see that the Secretary of State is already acting on that to merge parts of the NHS so that they can work better together.

I want to make a specific point in response to a comment from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), about accountability. Although the Bill rightly devolves decision making and discretion more locally to the new integrated care boards and panels, it also gives Ministers the right to make sure that the NHS is accountable to them; it removes the so-called independence. That is right, and it is surprising not to see Labour Members supporting it, because it was in the Labour party’s manifesto as well as the Conservative party’s.

When £150 billion of taxpayers’ money is at stake, imposing apparent independence is not just impractical, but wrong. The NHS should be accountable to Ministers so that they can be accountable to the House, which is accountable to taxpayers through the ballot box. That is right constitutionally, morally and practically, which is why it was in both major parties’ manifestos. It is how the NHS operates anyway in practice, but the Bill will remove some of the unnecessary friction in the senior relationships that resulted from the attempt at independence.

Of course clinical voices should always be listened to, but as we saw during the pandemic, we can listen to clinical voices and then make a decision that is held to account on a democratic basis. The Bill will therefore strengthen not just the running of the NHS, but how we constitutionally govern the huge amount of taxpayers’ money that is spent on it. For that reason alone, it is worth supporting the Bill.

Health and Care Bill

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I do not think that she posed a question, but she made her point clearly, as she always does.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, I will give way to the former Secretary of State.

[Matt Hancock]

Is not the right way to think about this change to consider the proposal in front of us and compare it with the current system? The reason that the Dilnot system, as previously proposed, was never put in place was that there was never a proposal to pay for it, whereas this package is paid for. That is why this Government have been able to deliver a package where no previous Government have been able to do so.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State. He is absolutely right. We deal in the reality and we should compare the reality of the system that we have in place now with what we have proposed here, which not only moves us forward, but is funded and sustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for putting the case so clearly. She hits the nail absolutely on the head: as a result of the Bill, contracts could be handed out to the private sector without the stringent arrangements that one would expect in the awarding of public money. That is a recipe for the kind of cronyism that has become all too familiar, as she says.

I turn to the cap on care costs. I was proud to stand on a manifesto in 2019 that pledged to

“build a comprehensive National Care Service for England”,

to include

“free personal care, beginning with investments to ensure that older people have their personal care needs met, with the ambition to extend this provision to all working-age adults.”

The Conservative manifesto in 2019 did not go that far, but it at least made the guarantee that

“nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it.”

We now know that that was a sham—another broken promise by this Government.

Last week, Ministers sneaked out changes to social care plans that would mean that poorer pensioners will not after all be able to count means-tested payments by the state for their care towards a total cap of £86,000 for any individual. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), described it as “deeply disappointing” that the new plans were “not as progressive” as those put forward by Andrew Dilnot, the economist who drew up the original plans for a cap on individual contributions. Mr Dilnot has said that the Government’s plan is

“a big change that…finds savings exclusively from the less well-off group.”

A former Conservative Cabinet Minister has urged the Government

“to adopt a different approach”,

while another Conservative MP, a former Under-Secretary of State for Health, has said that

“it will be poorer pensioners who have relatively modest assets that will be most affected by these changes.”

I hope that Members on the Government Benches are listening to those points from Government as well as Opposition Members and will do the right thing. Elderly people deserve better. All Members, including Government Members, have a responsibility to vote these measures down.

When the Prime Minister was discharged from hospital in April 2020, having spent seven nights there, of which three were in intensive care, he said that

“the NHS has saved my life, no question.”

Now he and his Government should save the NHS by withdrawing the Bill. The national health service is this country’s greatest social achievement. It is devastating that this Conservative Government are intent on taking it off us.

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I support new clause 49 because I support the action that is needed to make reforms to social care that are long overdue. I have listened carefully to the debate, and it is vital that we understand that the new clause would deliver one part, but not the whole, of the package that was set out by the Government in September. There is no doubt whatever that that package, as a whole, improves the provision of social care, makes the way it is paid for fairer, and removes some injustices that have existed in the system for far too long.

First, the proposal that has been put forward—and I think it is the right proposal—is for a cap on the costs that individuals face in paying for their care. The contributions from the state, even if they are from another part of the state such as local government, are not individuals’ care costs, and it is therefore wrong that they should be contributions towards the cap. The cap has the stated goal of being a cap on the cost of care to an individual, not a cap on the cost that accrues to both the individual and a local authority.

Let us look at what would happen if the new clause were not passed. The provision of care by local authorities is different in different areas, largely according to how well off those local authorities are. A richer council that pays more costs than the statutory minimum as set out in the Care Act 2014 would help local residents to meet the cap sooner than a poorer council that pays only the statutory minimum of care costs, and therefore people who live in poorer areas would take longer to reach the cap, so we would end up, in effect, with a postcode lottery cap meaning that people from poorer areas would tend to have to contribute more. That is wrong, and I am very glad that it is put right by the proposals that are before us today.

Secondly, for those with lower asset values, the rise in the floor in the means test is more important. It is the rise in that floor that makes this system fair. When the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), read out a long list of places with low asset values on average—places where house prices tend to be lower—he listed exactly the areas that will benefit most from the rise in the floor. [Interruption.] We can see what Labour Members are doing. [Interruption.] They are taking a narrow area, and they are taking a specific detail, and they are ignoring all the parts of the package that benefit the people who will benefit from this package as a whole. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We will not get anywhere if people shout. This is supposed to be a reasonable discussion.

[Matt Hancock]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

A further point that is being ignored by those who are trying to make a meal of this new clause is that the cutting of the daily cost offset is much more valuable to those on low incomes than any change in the cap, because the cap, by its nature, is there to protect assets, and those who do not have many assets gain far more benefit from the cut in the daily cost that would otherwise clock up their contributions to the cap much more slowly.

Taken together, these elements make up a package that is beneficial to those on low incomes. It helps to make the system fairer.

My final point on new clause 49 is this. For years and years—including the years when I was Secretary of State, and including the entire 13 years when Labour was in power—nobody fixed the problem of social care. This Government have come forward with a package, and if we pull apart one part of the package, there is a risk to the package as a whole. As Sir Andrew Dilnot said on the radio this morning,

“the whole package is a significant step forward”.

It is always easy in politics, and in life, to say, “I just accept the bits of the package that I like”—and, in the case of the Labour party, to say, “I accept the bits that are very expensive for taxpayers.” Instead, we must look at the package as a whole, which is funded, and which can be delivered, for the first time in several decades, because it hangs together. The Government have presented a whole package, and it is the best possible option in the fiscally constrained times in which we live.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am sorry to be unhelpful to my right hon. Friend, but if this element is so integral to the overall package, why was it not brought forward right at the beginning?

[Matt Hancock]

This part of the package was described in September, because it was made clear in September that the £86,000 cap was a cap on individual costs. It did not say then that that included the costs that local government may make on someone’s behalf. I think it is a strong Conservative principle that, when we say we are capping the costs that an individual pays, we do not include the costs that another part of the state should pay. I think that that was clear, and more details have now been set out. Most importantly, this is a package that takes things forward in a way that has not been achieved for decades.

[Rob Roberts]

I do not think anyone across the House would argue that the measures that have been put forward are a significant step forward from where we are. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) mentioned earlier, they are not necessarily what we might have been led to expect. Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on that?

[Matt Hancock]

I will happily comment on that. In the debate over the past few days, many people have been comparing the package put forward by the Government with the proposals from Sir Andrew Dilnot in 2014-15, but there is a reason those proposals were never enacted and never came into force. It is because they had a huge price tag, and there was no successful debate on how to pay for them. It has been easy to ask for social care reform for the past three decades, but until this Government did it, nobody had come forward with a plan for how to pay for it. We simply cannot magic things out of thin air. If we are a grown-up Government, we have to come forward with a grown-up package, which includes saying how it will be paid for. That is what has happened, and that is why this package hangs together. We should support this new clause, because it is part of that overall funded package.

I want to turn briefly to the measures on integrated care systems. The purpose of the ICSs is to have a more preventive, more flexible and less siloed approach than we have under the current clinical commissioning groups, without removing the grit in the oyster that is the purchaser-provider split and without upsetting the 1948 settlement involving local authorities doing social care and having a national NHS. Amendment 76 in particular contains a lot of suggestions that might seem tempting. There are people who have an important voice in the debate. The problem, as we have seen with existing legislation, is that if we put too much into statute, it is far harder to deliver high-quality services that are integrated on the ground. That is why the Government are right to resist putting too much detail into legislation. However, I do support the change proposed by the Government, which makes it clear that the purpose of ICSs is not to have private providers on the board. I can confirm that, as the Minister said, it never was. Mischievous rumours were put about, some of which have been repeated today, that that was the intention, and I am glad that the Government’s amendment puts that matter beyond doubt.

I am attracted to amendments 89 and 90 and, in another group, amendments 91 to 98 and amendment 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I was going to say this before I knew that I would be sitting next to him in the debate today, and I hope that the Government will look on these amendments kindly. The parity of esteem between mental and physical health is incredibly important, and I commend the amendments to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]